Why are you religious/not religious?

Kasrkin Seath wrote:The existence of a god cannot be debated. It's a matter of what someone thinks.

So quit fucking attacking each other, stress is bad for your health.

*sigh* Fine I'll just accept this statement.

Ascendant Justice wrote:
Actually it started when some guy had a dream, and wrote a book about it. I can write a book about the last dream I had and I wouldnt expect it to be turned into a religion. Face it, your god has just been an imaginary figure that a man, who by today's standards would be considered clinically (sp) insane, has thought he had heard in his mind.

Err...what? It came when someone had a vision of God coming down, but it got a crap load more popular when Jesus starting walking on water, resurrecting the dead, and curing ailments. But i guess all those eyewitness accounts and widespread belief is just silliness, right?

Point: The Bible was not written by one man, it was a historical document written by many. Whether or not it is totally credible is unprovable.

Ascendant Justice wrote:
This alone proves how desparate you, and most other Christians can get when someone tries to get them to see reality. You lash out with threats of death, insults, and fanatical preachings when the thing you have believed in all your life, is told to be nothing but an imaginary figure. Tell me Civ, do you think God gave you life? Do you think he gave you a job? A family? Money?

He was simply commenting on your total inability to actually provide contradictory proof, instead simply restating something prove wrong numerous times.

All you have read is a book that tells you how to live your life. How is that any better? Recon Toaster already told you off on your little "Pluto" backlash statement. So I have nothing to say there.

Recon simply missed the point, which is no fault of his.

Ascendant Justice wrote:

TNine wrote:
That is incorrect. Science and Religion hardly are related at all. Just because they are normally said to be opposites does not make it true.

Proof of concept: I believe in both science and religion with all my heart and mind.

What YOU believe in doesnt make it proof/official.

Umm...yeah it does. It was a proof of concept, i was simply showing how science and religion don't clash.

So, here's my final question. What in science makes you believe there is no God?

The fact you can't prove his existence?

Felix wrote:

Zaki90 wrote:

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

Felix wrote:

Zaki90 wrote:

sargentbilco wrote:i follow science like a religion it helps me think clear about my actions

Science changes over and over. Did you know that only 60 years ago we finally accepted that the Earth moves? Following science blindly is like following a rope blindfolded to cross a highway.

To be fair, religion changes over and over as well.

I'd like to point out that we've known for FOUR HUNDRED YEARS that the earth is moving. Maybe not in Iran/Iraq, but the civilized world...

I meant as in continental drift.

But even in that argument. Christians have believed for TWO THOUSAND YEARS that Jesus was resurrected.

And only 400 years ago, the western world thought that the world is FLAT. And they also tried turning wood into gold. They also believed in witches and magic.

And for almost FIVE THOUSAND Years, the Jews believed that God created the Earth.

It's because we didn't know what caused these things to happen. If anything, this strengthens science's point, as people were curisous to see why these things were, well certain religious folks went "it's God devine will" or something along those lines.

Anyway, I don't see what you were trying to say here.

Felix said that religion changes as well. Religion does not change as much as science has. And I proved this with the examples.

Zaki90 wrote:

Felix wrote:

Zaki90 wrote:

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

Felix wrote:

Zaki90 wrote:

sargentbilco wrote:i follow science like a religion it helps me think clear about my actions

Science changes over and over. Did you know that only 60 years ago we finally accepted that the Earth moves? Following science blindly is like following a rope blindfolded to cross a highway.

To be fair, religion changes over and over as well.

I'd like to point out that we've known for FOUR HUNDRED YEARS that the earth is moving. Maybe not in Iran/Iraq, but the civilized world...

I meant as in continental drift.

But even in that argument. Christians have believed for TWO THOUSAND YEARS that Jesus was resurrected.

And only 400 years ago, the western world thought that the world is FLAT. And they also tried turning wood into gold. They also believed in witches and magic.

And for almost FIVE THOUSAND Years, the Jews believed that God created the Earth.

It's because we didn't know what caused these things to happen. If anything, this strengthens science's point, as people were curisous to see why these things were, well certain religious folks went "it's God devine will" or something along those lines.

Anyway, I don't see what you were trying to say here.

Felix said that religion changes as well. Religion does not change as much as science has. And I proved this with the examples.

But the point was, it changed. It may not not change as much, but it changes dramitically when it does.

Felix wrote:
But the point was, it changed. It may not not change as much, but it changes dramitically when it does.

The problem is, neither you, Recon Toaster, or Gauz have actually proven that mainstream Christianity has changed 'radically', or more than a few bits of grammar in the past 1900 years, though not for a lack of trying on Recon's part.

As for you Zaki, Science changes because that's what it's SUPPOSED to do. Science is an attempt to explain the world around us, and as our instruments and mathematics change, science must change to better explain the universe. Carl Sagan could explain it better, but there you go.

Religion attempts to explain what science cannot.

Don't really see grounds for conflict here, so I often cringe when I see "Science VS Religion".

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

Felix wrote:
But the point was, it changed. It may not not change as much, but it changes dramitically when it does.

The problem is, neither you, Recon Toaster, or Gauz have actually proven that mainstream Christianity has changed 'radically', or more than a few bits of grammar in the past 1900 years, though not for a lack of trying on Recon's part.

As for you Zaki, Science changes because that's what it's SUPPOSED to do. Science is an attempt to explain the world around us, and as our instruments and mathematics change, science must change to better explain the universe. Carl Sagan could explain it better, but there you go.

Religion attempts to explain what science cannot.

Don't really see grounds for conflict here, so I often cringe when I see "Science VS Religion".

Mainstream Christianity? I was makeing the point that religion, as a whole, has changed.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

Religion attempts to explain what science cannot.

Don't really see grounds for conflict here, so I often cringe when I see "Science VS Religion".

Religion promotes absolutism. Science promotes the opposite.

Religion promotes faith. Science promotes questioning.

Religion promotes self importance. Science promotes a humility.

That is where Science and Religion conflict. It's not about whether their theories contradict each other. It's about the principles behind them, which are quite opposite.

Either way, given time, science CAN find the answers. It will just take longer than we as a species likely will have.

I was born into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Up until I was eight, I learned about being a good person, a couple bible stories, a couple Book of Mormon stories. But mostly values and not religion. After that, I started delving deeper into the specifics on my religion. When I got into the 12-13 year old phase I decided I shouldn't have the fact that I was born into this religion make me stay there. Not sure of whether I had the intention to leave my own church or not, I starting researching other faiths (though it may not seem like it, Rot can testify of this ) I now realize I never doubted my faith, just wanted to learn of others.


What I had been taught made more sense to me than any other religion. If God is perfect, why wouldn't he want us to try to be like him? I never really thought of the difference of the Book of Mormon with the church I belong to and others. It was probably my second time through the book that I began to do what my church was challenging investigators: Read the Book of Mormon and pray to see if it is true.

I can't explain the feelings I received when I prayed, but ever since then, my testimony has been incredibly strong.

Boring, I know. But it's me.

Ascendant Justice wrote:Except Im not wrong. Stop trying to say that there is a god, because there isnt one.

You are wrong, though, AJ. You don't even understand the fundamental values of science, as I have tried to explain time and time again.

Ascendant Justice wrote:That everything that you do builds up to other events in the future. God didnt give you anything.

It all comes down to the question of whether or not humans have free will. We have had a thread on this before, with little result.

Ascendant Justice wrote:I will do no such thing. And I thought you were beyond name calling my little religous friend?

First of all, learn how to use question marks. Secondly, you deserve it for coming into this thread with an air of superiority, but ignoring everything that has been said.

Ascendant Justice wrote:And I will not stop arguing until you give me an actual reason as to why god exists

Simply put: I don't have one (at least, not one that you would accept). I never said that I did.

The most logical thinking is Agnosticism, from a purely scientific point of view. This has been established many times over, and I do not deny it. I'm still a Christian, though, and I still believe in God.

If you really reasons, I can give you a few; however, like I said before, you wont accept them.

Ascendant Justice wrote:but instead you cannot find one so you get angry, and begin to toss insults and other stuff my way in some attempt to make me stop.

I'm not mad that there is no proof of God's existence. I'm mad that you come in here and start insulting my beliefs without any grounds to do so.

Ascendant Justice wrote:

CivBase wrote:

Ascendant Justice wrote:That post only proves how idiotic the human race is. Especially Christians.

Vote: Ascendant Justice

Anyone else with me?

Recon? Rasq?

Here you go switching to insults again. You try to ignore the fact that Christians are wrong.

What is your proof?

Science cannot even attempt to explain the origin of the universe, and because this debate is from a scientific standpoint, the question cannot be answered. Christians are not right or wrong, they just believe. That is why it's a religion.

Ascendant Justice wrote:

Gold Spartan5 wrote:Tell me AJ, since god in your mind does not exist, and there is no way he can exist, can you prove it? Can you prove God doesn't exist? Of course you cant, so quit fucking pissing every christian off.

No one on the face of the earth has any evidence that he does exist, therefore, he technically DOESNT exist.

No one on the face of the earth has ever seen the earth's core, therefore, it technically DOESNT exist. See the flaws in your logic yet?

Ascendant Justice wrote:Im waiting....

Did you even read the TITLE of the thread? Everyone has answered the question already.

I can give you my reasons, but you wont accept them because your mind is closed.

ReconToaster wrote:Religion promotes absolutism. Science promotes the opposite.

Religion promotes faith. Science promotes questioning.

In both of these cases religion picks up on what science cannot answer, so they don't conflict.

ReconToaster wrote:Religion promotes self importance. Science promotes a humility.

Not necessarily.

Felix wrote:

Zaki90 wrote:

Felix wrote:

Zaki90 wrote:

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

Felix wrote:

Zaki90 wrote:

sargentbilco wrote:i follow science like a religion it helps me think clear about my actions

Science changes over and over. Did you know that only 60 years ago we finally accepted that the Earth moves? Following science blindly is like following a rope blindfolded to cross a highway.

To be fair, religion changes over and over as well.

I'd like to point out that we've known for FOUR HUNDRED YEARS that the earth is moving. Maybe not in Iran/Iraq, but the civilized world...

I meant as in continental drift.

But even in that argument. Christians have believed for TWO THOUSAND YEARS that Jesus was resurrected.

And only 400 years ago, the western world thought that the world is FLAT. And they also tried turning wood into gold. They also believed in witches and magic.

And for almost FIVE THOUSAND Years, the Jews believed that God created the Earth.

It's because we didn't know what caused these things to happen. If anything, this strengthens science's point, as people were curisous to see why these things were, well certain religious folks went "it's God devine will" or something along those lines.

Anyway, I don't see what you were trying to say here.

Felix said that religion changes as well. Religion does not change as much as science has. And I proved this with the examples.

But the point was, it changed. It may not not change as much, but it changes dramitically when it does.

I think the changes in religion are rather minor considered to the major ones in science.

I have already answered the "proof of God" question:

The Bible was a historical document written from many seperate eyewitness accounts and findings. The only question is whether or not it is credible, which is, for now, unanswerable.

TNine wrote:I have already answered the "proof of God" question:

The Bible was a historical document written from many seperate eyewitness accounts and findings. The only question is whether or not it is credible, which is, for now, unanswerable.

Let's not say "historical". It has many things in there that could not be historically correct.

It is historical... but not proven to be historically accurate.

ToasterKing wrote:

Dud wrote:Power and oppression will wear any mask that it sees fit to wear. Religion was the not the root cause of the Church's historical abuses, greed and ignorance was.

Right, but the danger of the church becoming so destructive in the hands of greed should teach us something. Just as Enron teaches us that maybe full-scale capitalism isn't the best idea... the medieval catholic church teaches us that maybe organized religion isn't the most.... safe thing for society to invest itself in.

Any institution which is given complete power over the people is dangerous and unsafe. Again, it really just comes down the the difference between catholics and protestants. Catholics view priests/cardinals/the pope as God's designated representatives with divine authority, putting them in a position of absolute power over the people, whereas protestants view these people as more or less "respected elders". It's easy to see the difference and I doubt that such an occurrence could easily happen again.

ToasterKing wrote:

Dud wrote:Most people know what is right and what is wrong, but generally the religious are the ones that follow these moral values.

I really don't think religion is a large factor in strength of moral principle. I think that religion promotes moral values, and I will accept the idea that western culture has been influenced by that, but I think that, today, religion does not directly influence morals.

In other words, I don't think that religious people can really attribute their morality to the fear of divine punishment.

While one can only speak for themselves, I do not attempt a moral life out of fear. No Christian knowledgeable of their own religion should fear God's wrath because they live/have lived less than amiable lives. As stated in John 3:16 (oh no here we go again, eh?) we may go to heaven simply by having faith, not necessarily by living moral lives. Therefore a true Christian attributes his/her morality to simply wanting to do what they believe is right.

ToasterKing wrote:

Dud wrote:While I hate to make this contrast, two examples of states which have more or less done away with religion in relatively modern times would be Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Both of these removed the Church from it's prevalent role in society and promoted atheism, both saw a huge decline in moral values, to the point where they became several of the top most infamous countries in history.

Right, but you're talking about state-enforcement of religion, which is going to cause trouble no matter what the religion is. The soviet union and the Nazis promoted the doing away of religion to serve specific motives, not for the well being of society.

I'm suggesting that we'd be fine if everybody collectively decided to stop bothering with religion, which will never happen. I'm not suggesting that we'd ever be fine in the case of government taking away religion.

I don't know about you, but I'm talking about a general disintegration of principle in these countries due to the absence of religion. I do not see how the manner in which it is removed would make a difference in the effect it would have on the target population.

ToasterKing wrote:

Dud wrote:What about science? Atheism and agnosticism lie more under philosophy than science imo. If science can be defined by testable hypotheses, theories, laws, then atheism and agnosticism do not fit this definition as they are not testable. I would say this is one of the most common misconceptions in arguments such as this.

Well there's a difference between the ideals of science and the need for empirical evidence. Obviously, science will never be able to give us an irrefutable answer for the universe, but it gives us a way of thinking. Agnosticism follows that way of thinking.

Well yes, but it would still be classified as a philosophy, my point.

ToasterKing wrote:

Dud wrote:It does, however why is it that scientists are generally more concerned with the scientific value of certain things as opposed to Christians who are generally more concerned with the ethics behind said things?

It's not that they aren't as concerned about ethics, they just have DIFFERENT ETHICS. Religious folks just tend to focus on more arbitrary issues with very strict viewpoints. They often refuse to adjust their morals in light of new developments. They're very stubborn.

That said, technological progression does need something in place to... keep it humane.

However, many, if not most scientists seek to make new technological discoveries to make a monetary gain. As seen in many aspects of humanity, this drive for money often clashes with a man's ethics and wins.

ToasterKing wrote:

Dud wrote:What I disagree with you about is that believing in one particular religion is "on a whole different level" as you say. The belief that there is a God who bothered to create the universe and therefore, either directly or indirectly, us, would logically lead to the assumption that he bothered to make himself known to it's inhabitants. Clearly a being with such power would make no small impression on the Earth, and his followers would therefore be the most numerous on the planet. Christianity is by far the largest, and in my opinion, the most logical choice out of the world's vast array of religions.

Maybe. I would say that the idea of a god NOT making himself known is just as plausible. The universe is fucking huge. We could be the creations of a god who does not even know that we exist.

Either way, the simple concept of dedicating yourself to one belief system is what bothers me to no end.

While it doesn't make sense to me that a God that bothered to make us would prefer to just sit back and watch, I don't reject the idea as a possibility. I also don't think that a being which could create the universe from absolute nothingness would be finite.

Allow me to explain. I don't believe that this is the only thing that could happened, It's just what I believe happened. I don't think we need to believe in absolutes to classify our views as something other than "agnostic".

ToasterKing wrote:

Dud wrote:My problem is more with the utter dismissal of the possibility of creationism by both textbooks and teachers. My textbook actually talks about evolution as an absolute, in the context that we did in fact evolve from single celled organisms through the process of genetic evolution. While I do not completely dismiss this theory (as it does not directly contradict Christianity as is common belief) I find it rather ridiculous that it be taught in this manner with no reference to the fact that it is, again, an unproven theory.

Well yeah, I agree that macro-evolution should be taught less... absolutely. As for creationism... well I really don't have a problem with the utter dismissal of creationism. I mean, it's not really appropriate in a school text book, but that doesn't bother me so much.

I suppose we shouldn't say that it can't be true, but rather, that we have no logical reason to believe that it might be true. It certainly doesn't belong there at all though.

Intelligent design is an entirely different issue. I'd be open to putting it in schools if it were not so obviously a tool of creationists.

Please note that I tend to use creationism and intelligent design interchangeably. Other than that, I just think it should be mentioned as a possibility along with evolution. I don't see why it matters that the people pushing this have further plans, we don't necessarily have to abide by their agenda.

ToasterKing wrote:

Dud wrote:I am open to the possibility that pre-Abraham stories in the Bible could be metaphorical, although I don't necessarily believe that they are.

Are you suggesting that this might not have happened?



BLASPHEMER!

As I said, "pre-Abraham". This would be post-Abraham.

Awesome video btw.

I stopped being religious when I saw all the plot holes in the bible

THERE IS NO GOD!

*eye twitches*

laxspartan007 wrote:THERE IS NO GOD!

*eye twitches*

God speaks to me.

There, just thought I'd make this conversation that I haven't read, even more complicated.

*walks away with Incredible Hulk theme playing*

Carcarius wrote:I stopped being religious when I saw all the plot holes in the bible

Feel free to elaborate.

Carcarius wrote:I stopped being religious when I saw all the plot holes in the bible

This, my friends, is a fine example of a true intellectual. One of any intelligence would not bother to stick around and partake in the silly practice known as "debate" Instead they would know that the best way to win any argument is to state your opinion in a straightforward, one sentence statement and leave, without providing any elaboration or evidence to back your claim. The sheer lack of specifics in your post may very well baffle your foes, leaving the fools at an utter loss of words, so that you may call it a win for the day.

I quite like this fellow, for he is truly demonstrating the capabilities of a strong, young masculine mind.



Moving on. Now that the thread has been revived, is there anyone willing to continue/restart the argument?

Dud Doodoo wrote:

Carcarius wrote:I stopped being religious when I saw all the plot holes in the bible

This, my friends, is a fine example of a true intellectual. One of any intelligence would not bother to stick around and partake in the silly practice known as "debate" Instead they would know that the best way to win any argument is to state your opinion in a straightforward, one sentence statement and leave, without providing any elaboration or evidence to back your claim. The sheer lack of specifics in your post may very well baffle your foes, leaving the fools at an utter loss of words, so that you may call it a win for the day.

I quite like this fellow, for he is truly demonstrating the capabilities of a strong, young masculine mind.



Moving on. Now that the thread has been revived, is there anyone willing to continue/restart the argument?

I'll sum up the rest of it for ya ;)

Guy1: God exists!
Guy2: God doesn't exist!
(random facts and historical recordings blah blah blah)
Guy1: Back to square one?
Guy2: Indeed....

....................
Guy1: God exists!
and the cycle repeats.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

Carcarius wrote:I stopped being religious when I saw all the plot holes in the bible

Feel free to elaborate.

<elaborate>Elaboration</elaborate>

I'm pretty that sums it up.

Those are inconsitencies with the bible, personally, if I were to follow christianity in any way shape or form, I would not follow the bible strictly...

Anyways... i'm not religious because i'm slightly skeptical of it, I do acknowledge 'gods' existence partially, however, not so much of how the bible describes him.

When I get some spare time, I'll take each one and point out the fallacy used. For now, I've only read the first few, and those few I've read seem pretty weak.

Rotaretilbo wrote:When I get some spare time, I'll take each one and point out the fallacy used. For now, I've only read the first few, and those few I've read seem pretty weak.

Most of them are. There's quite a few in there, however, which stem from the people not understanding the culture back then.

But before I get on this with my free time, I'd like to clear two of them up.
One, the Nephilim.
Nobody knows what the Hell those things were, really. The Bible alludes to them as being "Kings among Men" and "Giants," but they're only mentioned in two or three verses. There's several interpretations of what they were, but the two I've heard (And my pastor supports that last one) is
A: Nephilim was a title.
B: Nephilim (Sounds weird, but bear with me) were somewhere between men and angels. Specifically, some sort of hybrid.
Lucifer himself is an example of angels striking out on their own, so...

Second, the Multiple Genealogies of Jesus.
This one tripped up Carl Sagan. It was his crowning moment of "Did Not Do the Research" in "Contact" (incidentally, I lost that book before I was done with it... Still want to finish it.)
Two men are cited as the "Father" of Joseph, the non-biological father of Jesus. However, this was common in genealogies back then! Patriarchal society, remember? Mary was somewhat of a non-issue under law when she married Joseph, so it would have been common for her father to be called "Father of Joseph", rather than "Father-In-Law of Joseph."

And another thing... This guy is using the KJV.
Not. Nearly. As. Accurate. As. NIV.