God
- Thread starter danielfitzgerald99
- Start date
lol you win.
People at school used to call me an Oompa Loompa.
But now I have that song in my head from the original film
Anyway do I believe in god, the answer is no. There is just to much scientific stuff to show what happened in the past.
I used to believe in god, i used to be a good Jewish boy knew all the stories and how to read. But I questioned too much and there are just no real answers, and you get told off for asking the questions.
People at school used to call me an Oompa Loompa.
But now I have that song in my head from the original film
Anyway do I believe in god, the answer is no. There is just to much scientific stuff to show what happened in the past.
I used to believe in god, i used to be a good Jewish boy knew all the stories and how to read. But I questioned too much and there are just no real answers, and you get told off for asking the questions.
UC said:
Ok, I'm not attacking his belief, or telling him it's wrong. I was strongly disagreeing with the idea of always believing. You might see it as semantics, but to me the idea of children being religious is just absurd. At 14, not a a problem, he's chosen to continue with it, and good for him if it makes him happy, but he has not always believed.
I personally wouldn't find that inappropriate at all. There's a possibility that something could happen to change the way I think and feel about it in the future. It happens with other things in life, so why not religion? It would be inappropriate to push me in the direction of a specific religion, for example, "You should believe in God beacuse if he isn't there in the end, you've lost nothing."
Just to clarify that again. To be fair, it didn't come across when I posted earlier. As a teenager, whatever, but for anyone to say they've always believed in something is slightly naive.
That's really not the same at all. If anything it's the completely opposite situation. If you grow up in a religious household, it would be easy and normal (for want of a better word) to continue on with it. A teenager thinking they are/might be gay is going against everything that they see as "normal". Anyway, that's a whole other topic, which I'm sure is floating around somewhere.
Here's the thing. I never start discussions about religion. Never. I never have. I never will. I have friends who are religious, I've just finished working at a Christian school, and I would never start a converstation with religious friends or students about their beliefs.
However, if someone wants to start that conversation, and (invariably) asks me why I don't believe in God, I expect the same courtesy from them in expaining why they do. If they want to push it further, and tell me that I'm wrong, I'm more than happy to tell them why I think they may be wrong. If they then take offence and pull the "you should respect my belief" card, then it's their own fault.
And (not that I'm suggesting you would :wink
before you say that I "jumped" on him for what he said, thus "starting" the conversation. No. It's a group forum, which equates to a group discussion in my book.
nadroJ
CF Legend
Does anyone else feel that the British are a much more atheist driven bunch, I hardly know anyone that even believes in God, let alone goes to church and follows a faith.
I don't believe in God, because to me religion is something people choose to follow to give their life structure as they can't face having to choose which paths to follow in life by themselves.
I don't believe in God, because to me religion is something people choose to follow to give their life structure as they can't face having to choose which paths to follow in life by themselves.
^^
I've never said that people can't follow what they've been brought up with, nor have I been trying to change that belief.
You've managed to turn the whole thing into me telling someone what to believe and that their beliefs aren't true, which I haven't done.
My point is, AGAIN, children (by that I'm not talking about teenagers) are not religious. I didn't use the word brainwashed, which implies somebody forcibly and negatively influencing another person, because there's obviously no malice intended by it. However,
there's my point. There's no point being pedantic about the word "believe" because obviously children accept everything they are told as true and, therefore, will believe in its existance. I'll still maintain that there is no such thing as a religious child.
We're just reading, "I've always believed" differently. You seem to be taking it literally, as in children believe what they are told, which I would agree with. I'm taking it as a "bigger" religious belief.
I've never said that people can't follow what they've been brought up with, nor have I been trying to change that belief.
You've managed to turn the whole thing into me telling someone what to believe and that their beliefs aren't true, which I haven't done.
My point is, AGAIN, children (by that I'm not talking about teenagers) are not religious. I didn't use the word brainwashed, which implies somebody forcibly and negatively influencing another person, because there's obviously no malice intended by it. However,
there's my point. There's no point being pedantic about the word "believe" because obviously children accept everything they are told as true and, therefore, will believe in its existance. I'll still maintain that there is no such thing as a religious child.
We're just reading, "I've always believed" differently. You seem to be taking it literally, as in children believe what they are told, which I would agree with. I'm taking it as a "bigger" religious belief.
Stone Cold
Mega Poster
UC said:
How seriously can you take a child's beliefs when they are so non-discerning as to include the tooth fairy and Santa Claus as plausible things in which to believe.
When you consider the vast pantheon of religions out there and the complex theology required to grasp one religion, let alone compare several religions against each other before choosing one, if any, of them to believe in, you have to wonder if the average seven year old can comprehend what it means to be religious, or if they simply liked the story of Noah, who saved all the cute animals?
I'm not denigrating the story of Noah, it's an accessible way for children to learn about religion and the concepts behind it, but it's no accident either that more people end up with the same views on religion than their parents than they do on things such as politics, money, morals etc etc etc.
God is the person you ask when you really want something and ignores you.(thank you The Island)
There is a creator, and it's called The Big Bang. If God made us on the sixth day, we would have died due to the conditions. It has been proven that there was millions of years before any life existed, then over millions of years, evolution took its course and 2 million years ago we arived. It's been proven, stop being told what to do by a book writen thousands of years ago and do something with your lives, have fun!
There is a creator, and it's called The Big Bang. If God made us on the sixth day, we would have died due to the conditions. It has been proven that there was millions of years before any life existed, then over millions of years, evolution took its course and 2 million years ago we arived. It's been proven, stop being told what to do by a book writen thousands of years ago and do something with your lives, have fun!
CMonster said:
Actually, you will have lost all the money you donate to the church. It is an undeniable fact that the Catholic Church is one of the richest organisations in the world, yet most of it's people live in poverty and fear of God. Religious people pray and give to the church, and why? Because they hope it will make someone who runs the universe care about then and look after them. Seeing these prayers and hyms, if I was God, I would be pretty annoyed with all the brown-noseing and begging.
I don't understand, all religions start by someone who decided to worship a God or Gods, so I could make a religion up and people would start following thatm because they are told to believe, which is basically how all religions start, with one person who has an idea to worship something in a better way than someone else and then finding followers who treat his word as gospell, ala Life Of Brian, and I know it's a comedy, but it is the best way I can show you what I mean.
Jebus was no different from any other person from that time, they all claimed to be the son of God, and everything he did can be explained or has clearly been exagerated.
Anyway, it's been over 2009 years (the calender is 4 years ahead of Jebus's actual birth), and God has not made another son, so he is either non-existant, or a jaffa.
Make up your own mind by all means, but your just following what someone else thought up, and for all we know Scientology could be true, and don't call them nutters if your religious, because you believe a 2000 year old zombie is coming back to save us. Normal people can call them mad though, thats fine.
Oh, and Umpa Lumpas ARE real, I know, I saw one the other day :wink:
Uncle Arly
Strata Poster
I don't believe in God.
I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory.
However, I do think that the Big Bang is a more plausible explanation for how we came about.
So, I don't really know.
I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory.
However, I do think that the Big Bang is a more plausible explanation for how we came about.
So, I don't really know.
Uncle Arly
Strata Poster
That's where I sit back and think, okay, both sides have equally nonsensical ideas. In my opinion anyway.
Just quickly stepping back to what Gavin said UC.
Belief, even into adulthood, is a transient thing. Our beliefs are formed based on our experiences. As we discover something which rules out a belief (Bobby down the road says he found his mum and dad putting out his presents, so Santa can't exist and suddenly things start to make sense), we change our opinions.
It doesn't lessen our belief at the actual time. We certainly believed in it, as much as we had the capacity based on our experiences to believe it.
This is what Gavin was saying - he's saying that until you've experienced a wider world and wider view point, you cannot really claim your beliefs are your own. You still believe in them, sure, but it's not a true choice. Your choice is between "what you know" (the environment you've been brought up in), or "the complete unknown" (everything else out there you don't know about yet). The choice for anyone faced with that is going to be the former. As you grow and experience more, the latter option gets filled in, and it becomes more of a "choice".
I'll use me as an example. I was brought up in a religious household. Sunday school every week, church youth group and Boys Brigade each week. So that's three times a week I'm directly involved in a religious activity. From the age of five or six, this carried on. So I had the choice of believing in it, or not.
To carry on believing meant I was accepted into a friendly group of people. I had a social life, activities, I was respected and could excel in ways I couldn't in the academic world of school (somewhere I always struggled socially and academically).
So my choice was to carry on believing and taking part in this little social world where I was something and somebody - or to stop believing in it all, and to outcast myself and try to find something else.
Obviously, as a child (i.e. until I was 19 or so), I didn't think of it in such terms. The idea of not believing and removing myself wasn't even a question. It was a place I belonged.
My elder sister was confirmed at 13, but only because my parents had said so. She's much more comfortable and confident than I am. She never believed at all, and treated the whole thing like she would Santa.
The difference? I embraced the Church and Church life. I was embedded into it. She never did and always had many friends who weren't religious. She was always challenging authority too, never liked being told what to do. So she read about religion and learned more about different religions and questioned the faith - purely out of spite I think. It meant that she increased that latter "complete unknown" knowledge. So for her, she had a choice. I'm sure that if she'd had some kind of religious experience, she may have gone back to Christianity. However, nothing powerful ever gave her faith back.
For me, the questioning came when I moved away from the Church life. Once I was no longer surrounded by it, I found I could question my religion. I still went to Church on my return visits home, but found myself looking in as more and more of an outsider. I'd met Jews, Hundus, atheists, sikhs and Muslims at university and discussed theology. Now, I'd never been ignorant of other religions, but there's a big difference between learning a little about different religions at school or through televisual osmosis. The "complete unknown" suddenly becomes a valid option in your belief system.
Don't get me wrong, you don't suddenly just stop believing. Faith isn't a switch that turns on and off. It takes a long time for true faith to embed itself, and it likewise takes a long time to work its way out of your system. However, the ability to "choose" to believe can only come when we have enough facts to form an opinion. Until we have enough experience, and until we're mature enough to balance them out, we don't really make much of a choice.
If CMonster had said he'd come from a background similar to Family_Furie's (Minor_Furie is almost thirteen now, not much difference there), then I think Gavin would have maybe agreed. I'm open about religion at home, I don't say God doesn't exist, I don't say any religion is bad. I simply explain things as they are. You can't describe faith or belief in a religion - you have to have experienced it. However, I'm always polite and positive about religions, and try to explain why people believe and what good (and bad sometimes) religions do.
It's up to the kids to choose if they believe or not (do you choose anyway?). As long as they make an informed decision. However, as kids, it's unlikely they will be religious simply because me and Madame_furie aren't.
Not a simple explanation I suppose, but I understand what Gavin was saying - if you're brought up in a religious environment, then it's not until you get out into a broader world that you can say you have actually chosen to believe.
Belief, even into adulthood, is a transient thing. Our beliefs are formed based on our experiences. As we discover something which rules out a belief (Bobby down the road says he found his mum and dad putting out his presents, so Santa can't exist and suddenly things start to make sense), we change our opinions.
It doesn't lessen our belief at the actual time. We certainly believed in it, as much as we had the capacity based on our experiences to believe it.
This is what Gavin was saying - he's saying that until you've experienced a wider world and wider view point, you cannot really claim your beliefs are your own. You still believe in them, sure, but it's not a true choice. Your choice is between "what you know" (the environment you've been brought up in), or "the complete unknown" (everything else out there you don't know about yet). The choice for anyone faced with that is going to be the former. As you grow and experience more, the latter option gets filled in, and it becomes more of a "choice".
I'll use me as an example. I was brought up in a religious household. Sunday school every week, church youth group and Boys Brigade each week. So that's three times a week I'm directly involved in a religious activity. From the age of five or six, this carried on. So I had the choice of believing in it, or not.
To carry on believing meant I was accepted into a friendly group of people. I had a social life, activities, I was respected and could excel in ways I couldn't in the academic world of school (somewhere I always struggled socially and academically).
So my choice was to carry on believing and taking part in this little social world where I was something and somebody - or to stop believing in it all, and to outcast myself and try to find something else.
Obviously, as a child (i.e. until I was 19 or so), I didn't think of it in such terms. The idea of not believing and removing myself wasn't even a question. It was a place I belonged.
My elder sister was confirmed at 13, but only because my parents had said so. She's much more comfortable and confident than I am. She never believed at all, and treated the whole thing like she would Santa.
The difference? I embraced the Church and Church life. I was embedded into it. She never did and always had many friends who weren't religious. She was always challenging authority too, never liked being told what to do. So she read about religion and learned more about different religions and questioned the faith - purely out of spite I think. It meant that she increased that latter "complete unknown" knowledge. So for her, she had a choice. I'm sure that if she'd had some kind of religious experience, she may have gone back to Christianity. However, nothing powerful ever gave her faith back.
For me, the questioning came when I moved away from the Church life. Once I was no longer surrounded by it, I found I could question my religion. I still went to Church on my return visits home, but found myself looking in as more and more of an outsider. I'd met Jews, Hundus, atheists, sikhs and Muslims at university and discussed theology. Now, I'd never been ignorant of other religions, but there's a big difference between learning a little about different religions at school or through televisual osmosis. The "complete unknown" suddenly becomes a valid option in your belief system.
Don't get me wrong, you don't suddenly just stop believing. Faith isn't a switch that turns on and off. It takes a long time for true faith to embed itself, and it likewise takes a long time to work its way out of your system. However, the ability to "choose" to believe can only come when we have enough facts to form an opinion. Until we have enough experience, and until we're mature enough to balance them out, we don't really make much of a choice.
If CMonster had said he'd come from a background similar to Family_Furie's (Minor_Furie is almost thirteen now, not much difference there), then I think Gavin would have maybe agreed. I'm open about religion at home, I don't say God doesn't exist, I don't say any religion is bad. I simply explain things as they are. You can't describe faith or belief in a religion - you have to have experienced it. However, I'm always polite and positive about religions, and try to explain why people believe and what good (and bad sometimes) religions do.
It's up to the kids to choose if they believe or not (do you choose anyway?). As long as they make an informed decision. However, as kids, it's unlikely they will be religious simply because me and Madame_furie aren't.
Not a simple explanation I suppose, but I understand what Gavin was saying - if you're brought up in a religious environment, then it's not until you get out into a broader world that you can say you have actually chosen to believe.
Stone Cold
Mega Poster
Blaze said:
Blaze said:
Yes, but the apostles are probably better people to follow than Michael Bay, director of The Island...
UC said:
Well it's not, and you're sounding like a true atheist
UC said:
Yes, perhaps I am, but I think that people should think long and hard before choosing to believe in a religion, and that's analogous to my point, how many seven year olds have thought long and hard about religion, so just how seriously should we take their beliefs?
UC said:
Well perhaps this is true, although most athiest parents do not put any pressure their children to become athiests, whereas religious parents will often take their child to their place of worship, and then have them christened, bar mitzvahed etc etc etc. I would suggest that of those who believed, there would be a higher percent that felt pressured into it by their parents than those who are athiests.
^You're making out as if it is completely wrong to tell your children what to do in terms of religion. All that the religious parents are doing is what they believe is best for the kids. I'm sure that if I told my parents that I didn't want to go to Church anymore they would accept that because I am older now, but for young children who probably can't make up their minds, the parents simply make the decision for them because they believe it is best for them. In that way it is no different from telling your kids what to eat, or deciding which school to send an infant to.
Stone Cold
Mega Poster
Of course it's OK for parents to do that (well as much as it's ever OK to teach your children blatant untruths etc etc etc ) but my point is that whilst this is occuring, it's not really correct to say that the children has made the conscious decision to be religious, they are simply doing what their parents do and believing what their parents have told them.
It's only later, when children begin to think for themselves that they can make their own, informed, choices about religion.
) but my point is that whilst this is occuring, it's not really correct to say that the children has made the conscious decision to be religious, they are simply doing what their parents do and believing what their parents have told them.It's only later, when children begin to think for themselves that they can make their own, informed, choices about religion.
Wow, this sure is one of the most mature, well-thought out discussions I've ever witnessed. Really, no bashing, not a lot of offending, good, reasonable arguments and all that. Well done, folks.
Myself, I actually don't see any reasons to believe. I guess some people have an "inner feeling" that it is the right thing to do, but I haven't. For me, it just doesn't sound feasible that there are anyone up there. Perhaps it does for others, but for me, no. I am currently unable to see any reasons, which somehow confuses me a bit. Why is everyone making a that big fuzz about it, even though the arguments seem to me thinner than paper? Is anyone really believing in everything the Bible tells us? All this praise, why? Everyone saying how awesome God and Jesus are, without being able to provide any arguments why to do so? Or is it just me who's blind to the arguments?
After all, everything they (whoever "they" are, the stereotypical Christian extremist may not actually exist) have to back them up in the end is the Bible, which has an awesome lot of great sayings and messages, but seems a bit far-fetced in terms of telling exactly what happened. I agree with a lot of it, but several parts just can't hold water. And I think it's the same for many others. However, I find it difficult to believe that there's a great being up there who's looking after and loving everyone, that his son was sent to save humanity, that he has power to do everything, etc. That bit just seems... heavily unlikely. A story to tell people to get influence over them, to make them pay you to get a better afterlife than their miserable justnowlife, a hoax, if I can use that word without sounding insulting. Later, believing people told the stories further, to support their case. Not anymore to gain power, but to spread the word they were believing in. And while agree that it's good to have something to believe in, I'm unable to do so myself. It's great to have someone to tell about your problems, that never will tell, and with the alleged power to make it better if you deserve it. The ultimate friend, if you like. It's healthy to have one of those, whatever shape or form they may have, just to help you through life. But without faith, that means nothing, you feel that it's like talking to a wall, because you believe that no one hears you. And I guess that's where I fall out. No faith, no gain. That's faith, however, not religion.
Faith - superb, religion - not as much, but with benefits.
I think my definition of religion would be "faith put into system". With all the possibilities for use and abuse that may carry with it. Mostly abuse, as history shows. It's the faith that does the good, religion is the stuff we, atheists, frown upon, but are also largely unable to see the good sides of, in our vigour to tell everyone how wrong they are.
I've found a conclusion on my standpoint, I guess. I agree with the ideals, perhaps not all of them, but still, but not with the religion. That's my view on religion.
Myself, I actually don't see any reasons to believe. I guess some people have an "inner feeling" that it is the right thing to do, but I haven't. For me, it just doesn't sound feasible that there are anyone up there. Perhaps it does for others, but for me, no. I am currently unable to see any reasons, which somehow confuses me a bit. Why is everyone making a that big fuzz about it, even though the arguments seem to me thinner than paper? Is anyone really believing in everything the Bible tells us? All this praise, why? Everyone saying how awesome God and Jesus are, without being able to provide any arguments why to do so? Or is it just me who's blind to the arguments?
After all, everything they (whoever "they" are, the stereotypical Christian extremist may not actually exist) have to back them up in the end is the Bible, which has an awesome lot of great sayings and messages, but seems a bit far-fetced in terms of telling exactly what happened. I agree with a lot of it, but several parts just can't hold water. And I think it's the same for many others. However, I find it difficult to believe that there's a great being up there who's looking after and loving everyone, that his son was sent to save humanity, that he has power to do everything, etc. That bit just seems... heavily unlikely. A story to tell people to get influence over them, to make them pay you to get a better afterlife than their miserable justnowlife, a hoax, if I can use that word without sounding insulting. Later, believing people told the stories further, to support their case. Not anymore to gain power, but to spread the word they were believing in. And while agree that it's good to have something to believe in, I'm unable to do so myself. It's great to have someone to tell about your problems, that never will tell, and with the alleged power to make it better if you deserve it. The ultimate friend, if you like. It's healthy to have one of those, whatever shape or form they may have, just to help you through life. But without faith, that means nothing, you feel that it's like talking to a wall, because you believe that no one hears you. And I guess that's where I fall out. No faith, no gain. That's faith, however, not religion.
Faith - superb, religion - not as much, but with benefits.
I think my definition of religion would be "faith put into system". With all the possibilities for use and abuse that may carry with it. Mostly abuse, as history shows. It's the faith that does the good, religion is the stuff we, atheists, frown upon, but are also largely unable to see the good sides of, in our vigour to tell everyone how wrong they are.
I've found a conclusion on my standpoint, I guess. I agree with the ideals, perhaps not all of them, but still, but not with the religion. That's my view on religion.
