God

[furie]

More than minor.

Not from the sounds of it. I've done much worse in my life, human beings are pretty hardy really.

Is it more proof of God that you survive things which are easy to survive - yet there are innocent boys and girls dying every day due to the slightest knock on the head? Surely the fact God keeps you alive when you don't worship him and lets innocents and faithful die at the slightest whim makes yours a malevolent God (this is Steven's God here, not everyone else's, Steven has to have his own for his own little world ).

You all believe in the wrong guy, it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster that is the big cheese.

Not mine, I don't like parmesan

 

[Ian]

If God existed would people like Steven exist?

Actually, perhaps there is a God. And Steven is God's way of punishing me for not believing.

Either way, God is a Bollocks Goon, as is Steven. And Steven is real.

 

[Steven]

Either way, God is a Bollocks Goon, as is Steven. And Steven is real.

So he is real? :?

 

[Ben]

Yes, Steven tripping over is proof of God's divine existence. I think we should include it in this "Newer Testament"


Moses? We don't need no stinking Moses when we have Steven tripping.

 

[Ian]

This reminds me, I must get to the pub with Sam at some point soon and have a "debate" on religion. I find it amazing that a scumbag of his magnitude is so precious when it comes to religion. Guess it takes all sorts.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Joey! What I said is the generally accepted (to varying degrees) Christian/Biblical theology.

Hard core say Adam and Eve were bad, so God let them out on their own and then issued free will to allow them to come back to him.

Moderate/conservative will allow for the evolutionary version.

Liberals will go for the allowance of other faiths.

That's what I mean by you need to learn more - you need to actually learn what the actual beliefs of the religions are. You can't just read about it, you have to experience and discuss it with those who have faith (generally those who have studied their theology). I spent years doing bible studies, discussions on the bible, discussions on faith and "friendly chats" with priests, vicars and church wardens. I know how people in the Church of England work exceptionally well, I know the way the thought process works and I understand their beliefs. I know Catholicism less well, but I've still experienced it a fair amount (and not just weddings and funerals) and discussed faith with Catholics. I've likewise had theological discussions with Muslims.

I'm certainly not close to being an expert on religion or theology, but I have learnt enough to be able to understand and not to just cast things off as "religious rubbish". Believe it or not, a religion does not survive two thousand years (or thirteen hundred, or six thousand) without an answer to questions such as the one you (Joey) posed. You may not be happy with the answer as an atheist, but the religion does have these answers.

Most people following a religion are not just doing it blindly and simply believing everything the bloke at the front is spouting at them. This is what you need to learn, the answers that the religion has already put forward that followers accept as a sensible answer.

The bible is a sometimes taken literally, but most faiths take their religious texts as a guideline, and the interpretation is down to individual priests/religious sects. I did mention this early - it's man's inability to come to a consensus on the actual interpretation which leads to conflict. However, it may just be God is making sure everyone has a way to worship him - it's just that people haven't yet fathomed this out...

I spend a lot of time talking (arguing?) with religious individuals. It makes me a little urked that you think I assume from a minority what the majority believes. I don't, at all. The difference is probably that my experience is mostly with Americans and online. (And you're about 90 or something so have more than 4 times my experience, presumably?) And I know, for a fact, that most of the believers I've encountered would shake their head at what you've said and tell you that those people are not real followers of Christ.

I'd also bet I have more experience with talking to Muslims than you do. And they are far more interesting, because they actually are incapable of saying anything they believe in without offending someone. Even the nicest of them.

Your theories are good, and are the sort of things atheists throw at deeply religious individuals in hope of coming to some sort of mutual respectful understanding... And by majority, most real believers will toss the logic aside. That's something I've witnessed, not assumed.

I don't think people blindly follow religion. I just think they are wrong in their conclusions.

Also can we stop replying to Steven, because he's making this thread suckalotofdick.

 

[Pierre]

Hahaha Sam took offence when I opened his glove compartment and laughed because he had a ****ing cross in it. The tool.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Joey, as right as you think you are, you need to realize that for everything you think there isn't an explanation for, religious people WILL have an explanation for. You can toss it off all you want and continue to stick with what YOU believe, but the point is simple - you will be viewed the same way by those with faith in God. Just because you believe in something or feel that you can explain it in a certain way doesn't necessarily make your explanation right - just as it doesn't make a religious person's explanation right.

I realise they have an explanation and ask to hear it. Rarely get it, but when I do I almost always conclude that's such explanations are better explained by psychology because they are related to "personal experiances" that any skeptic would pass off as everyday brain farting. I think a religious individual communicating with God is just interpretating every day happenings differently to me. It doesn't make me right, but the point is that I'm going for the option with the most explinations. You are going with the option which has no explinations, at all.

The problem is you are incapable of explaining to me why God does exist. The burden of proof lies with you, not me. If you can't see the fallacy there, then you need to wonder why.

That's odd, because I am religious, and I find that I have no problem having conversations with anyone about it. I've talked to people far more "hardcore" in their religion than I am, and I've spoken to people that are just as extremist about atheism. Rarely, I find, does it devolve in to bashing and arguing...it's actually rather insightful.

I'm at a loss as to what this has to do with anything? I never said anyone resulted to bashing. And we ARE arguing now, so what?

Perhaps I present and discuss the subject in a far less confrontational manner than you do?

Hahaha, oh dear UC.

Wow, that's a stereotype and a lie.

Stereotype? YES. Lie? NO.

I find Muslims to be some of the most interesting people to talk to about religion. Many of the Muslims I've spoken to are very devout, and follow their practices very closely - they're also incredibly educated on them. I've had some brilliant discussons with Muslims regarding everything from his/her personal viewpoints on other religions, to the history and background of their own traditions.

They are interesting, yes. But that doesn't change the fact that their views are shocking. I have Mulims in the family and one of my best friends is one.

Again, you seem to have quite a bit of trouble discussion religion with people. Perhaps your presentation of the subject is a bit aggressive - it IS a sensitive subject with many people - or perhaps people are put off with the fact you're an atheist and just discount you in the first place.

UC, you'r an agressive arguer... And yet at the face of religion you back down?

I don't want to offend you, really I don't, but It makes me angry that it is perceived as offence. It just makes me a little ticked off that I cannot ask questions like "how do you know when you're talking to God you're not just mentally insane?" Because that's a serious question.

I will tell you that while I don't have many people get in my face about religion, atheists tend to do it more than any one else.

Get in your face? See, I think once a discussion has started, you'd be right, atheists are the more agressive side. But why? Because they get frustrated at the lack of reasoning, explination and so forth ont he other side of the argument. Wrong? Maybe, but that's how it is. I've never EVER, seen an Atheist get in somones fact about it, say int he street, how religious individuals do... Or knock on people's doors.

How can you call someone who has researched their religion, who knows what their faith consists of and who feels they have logical explanations for every important question they face "wrong"?

Is that not what you feel? Are you, by default, "wrong" in your conclusion as well? And if not, then what makes your conclusion "right" when it is formed under the same process that a religious person forms theirs?

Because, for the most part, my "beliefs" add up because I have none. Your fails at the first hurdle. I'm sorry UC, but you resort to argument fallacies as if no one will notice. If I ask probe you about your beliefs, I'll find more. Do you take the Bible literally? Even metaphorically? So, if it's just metaphorical, why literally believe that Jesus was the son of God or that he died, and then rose? What can "God hates that", reffering to Homosexuality, be metaphorical for, other than, God hates homosexual acts? And if you don't follow the Bible - WHY believe in God, or more importantly Jesus, in the first place? These are the questions I'd start with, and if you really think you have some genius educated explination without flaws then please go for it.

I don't think I have a genius explination either mind you, the difference is I don't demand one from myself. Can you perceive anything illogical about NOT believing? I can't... So, please enlighten me. So why would you go for the option with logical fallacies, when you can have one without? That's MY perspective on the believe or not issue.

The guys over at AnswersInGenesis.org terrify me, but their explinations are at least well thought out and interesting. Casual believers never provide solid, interesting arguments, probably because they don't care enough, but maybe because they cannot. It's the same as when atheists use arguments like "well why is their pain and suffering?" as if that is so obviously denouncing God. These sprt of arguments are pathetic, and no more than 10 seconds of thought will conclude about ten arguments against it regardless of what side of stand on.

I spend a lot of time on a forum where the average age is possibly... about... 40-50, which has a lot of skeptics, belivers, insane belivers, agnostics... All levels of the spectrum. I can think of maybe 2 individuals that are casual belivers in God who have a solid intellegent argument (note that both of them are British). I can think of many, many, many people who are the kind who denounce evolution that have a solid argument, which is continually picked apart by a group of scientists on the board. The most interesting and open Muslim on the board was banned for insighting hate, after a huge Q&A thread. Maybe, for some reason, this little corner of cyber space attracts weirdos... Wouldn't suprise me, but these are the sort of arguments I've watched.

I'm not as arrogant about my views as you think UC. You're just offended by them because, like you said, religion is sensitive. But I'm just as intitled to say what I think as anyone else is and you're just as intitled to tell me why I'm wrong.

Now, I really must go to uni, so I'm sorry about any spelling errors. I don't have the time to go through this.

 

[furie]

Joey, you're still missing the point. I spent years studying the bible and Christianity. I spent years discussing it with other members of the Church (and other churches).

That's what I meant by you have to learn. Talking to a few people doesn't count. You've "studied" atheism by reading "The God Delusion". That's not the only work on atheism out there, and many atheists think Dawkins is a hack and would disagree with you. He's at the extreme end of the scale.

To study a single religion and understand it fully (you still have to have faith to believe it, but if you have faith the answers are there) requires years of work. A mild outside interest and criticism (mostly based on somebody else's criticism) just doesn't cut it.

I'm not saying you know nothing, or that you can't form opinions - just that without actually being immersed in it, and really getting to know it, you can't put up a well informed argument against a religion.

I'd actually recommend joining a church/mosque. Spend several months experiencing it and getting involved. Get to know the people, the religions and the theologies. Question the people in charge and the upper echelons and find out the answers the religion gives.

They will all require faith to believe in them, and faith is not something which can be proven. I agree with you Joey, I don't believe in God, but that doesn't mean religions should be torn apart by somebody who has never spent time experiencing them, and really getting to know them.

This isn't about asking a religion to prove there is a God by the way - it's just about trying to rip apart a religion because it makes no sense - it does make sense, but you have to believe in God

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Joey, you're still missing the point. I spent years studying the bible and Christianity. I spent years discussing it with other members of the Church (and other churches).

That's what I meant by you have to learn. Talking to a few people doesn't count. You've "studied" atheism by reading "The God Delusion". That's not the only work on atheism out there, and many atheists think Dawkins is a hack and would disagree with you. He's at the extreme end of the scale.

To study a single religion and understand it fully (you still have to have faith to believe it, but if you have faith the answers are there) requires years of work. A mild outside interest and criticism (mostly based on somebody else's criticism) just doesn't cut it.

I'm not saying you know nothing, or that you can't form opinions - just that without actually being immersed in it, and really getting to know it, you can't put up a well informed argument against a religion.

I'd actually recommend joining a church/mosque. Spend several months experiencing it and getting involved. Get to know the people, the religions and the theologies. Question the people in charge and the upper echelons and find out the answers the religion gives.

They will all require faith to believe in them, and faith is not something which can be proven. I agree with you Joey, I don't believe in God, but that doesn't mean religions should be torn apart by somebody who has never spent time experiencing them, and really getting to know them.

This isn't about asking a religion to prove there is a God by the way - it's just about trying to rip apart a religion because it makes no sense - it does make sense, but you have to believe in God

That last paragraph is the point. It is about asking religion to prove God, because that's where it all goes back to. It's all very interesting, some of it positive, some negative, some artistically amazing, some philosophically amazing... But it all goes back to WHY believe in the first place? Anything will make sense if you put a giant umbrella of omnipotence over it.

Furie, whilst I respect your "years of learning", you're being arrogant here. The individuals I have long and thorough discussions with are no more or less respectable or valid than the individuals you have spoken to and they are certainly just as mainstream. Yes, I've just read the God delusion, but I'm not up Dawkins arse. Note that I've stared the Dawkins Delusion, and was awear before starting of the holes in Dawkins argument I'm awaiting it on every page of this book. I avoided Dawkins for a long time. If you look back in this topic, I think it was... beanz? Continually, post after post, telling me to read Dawkins, trying to persuade me. In the end I read the Selfish Gene and was unimpressed with his patronising, repetitive tone... But the God Delusion is actually enjoyable. And lets take a moment to point out that for me reading is one heck of a chore, take a hell of a long time and isn't easy, especially when I could be doing something far more productive... Like drawing. (Although, at least it's still using my eyes, which makes it one step above music. And before anyone childishly jumps on this comment, this is a joke aimed at Lain, who I'm sure you'll agree deserves daily mocking.)

Yes, I need to learn more, but not especially so in the ways you perceive.

 

[Lain]

Joey is gay.

 

[Ollie]

I'm surprised how much Joey has posted and how long they are in this topic. There's nothing wrong with it but it's just I've not seen him do it before.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Ollie doesn't know me very well, clearly.

And, haha, I like how I predicted Lain would be reading. He's such a lurker.

 

[jokerman]

I've never EVER, seen an Atheist get in somones fact about it, say int he street, how religious individuals do... Or knock on people's doors.

Is that why there are people putting "God probably doesn't exist" on the side of busses. I think an advertising campaign is pretty much getting in people's faces.

 

[furie]

All I'm saying Joey is that you're basing your opinions on discussions you've had with other people. You haven't actually delved deeply into it personally. If these people were actually part of this discussion, you may find that their beliefs/answers are actually different. It's that minute shredding and picking apart.

I find it hard to believe that anyone deeply and thoughtfully religious couldn't tell you why it is that God didn't foresee "religious problems" and have to come down and sort things out. It's pretty fundamental stuff.

As I say, you may not agree with their answer, but there is an answer (and there may be others too different to mine, but religions do have these answers).

As I say, a religion could not last for hundreds or thousands of years without these "loopholes" being explained. The explanation just requires faith and belief.

The biggest problem of course is that there is no answer. While burden of proof is on the theist to prove there is a God, they don't feel the need to - belief is enough for them.

All this leads to is the atheist banging their head against a brick wall. As long as nobody is getting hurt, what does it matter what people wish to believe? Of course, people get hurt due to religion day in day out, but if it wasn't religion, it would just be some other excuse (politics, money, football team, who put out the rubbish last - people love conflict).

See, you can argue "proof" and "fact" until you're blue in the face, but a theist will always believe despite your best efforts. So why let it annoy you? The question is about belief, Does the big cheese exist? We say - no, there is no evidence, no reason to believe. The theist says - yes, I believe because of something in myself which can never be proven.

Until this topic came along, who was forcing either of us to discuss religion? So why stress?

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I find it hard to believe that anyone deeply and thoughtfully religious couldn't tell you why it is that God didn't foresee "religious problems" and have to come down and sort things out. It's pretty fundamental stuff.

As I say, you may not agree with their answer, but there is an answer (and there may be others too different to mine, but religions do have these answers).

I could argue it from their perspective, but I'd get caught in a circle of unavoidable paradoxes. Religious individuals then argue that they simply seem paradoxical because our human minds cannot understand. :roll: Like I said, it's all saved by the umbrella of omnipotence, which is obviously fallacious. I can't deal with that. No amount of submerging myself in their belief system will force me to believe in God, or even put on the God-glasses to just see what it's like, because it doesn't logically add up. To conceptualise the existence of something outside of our understanding is plain stupid, because if it's outside of our understanding eternally (I've never come across any theist who believes God is provable in the future by science...?) it might as well not exist. I'm not ignorant, nor arrogant, enough to think that the way I feel today about any subject is how I will feel forever. But if God is there to find from a personal experience perspective, I will find Him. I'm enthusiastic about trying on the God-glasses, but it requires a huge shift in logic which is currently just not possible. Submerging myself in a religion wouldn't solve this "problem" because to submerge myself I need to rectify that problem in the first place.

The biggest problem of course is that there is no answer. While burden of proof is on the theist to prove there is a God, they don't feel the need to - belief is enough for them.

This isn't the case. If they felt there was no need, they wouldn't use that ridiculous fallacy UC used of trying to place the burden on atheists. They'd simply go "I have faith and that's all the proof I need."

The problem is that people care about what other people believe. Whether that's for fear they are going to hell, or whatever reason (that I honestly couldn't explain to you) that it winds me up is pretty irrelevant. A lot of people care about what other people believe and feel some obligatory desire to try and challenge it. I don't know enough about psychology to know why.

All this leads to is the atheist banging their head against a brick wall. As long as nobody is getting hurt, what does it matter what people wish to believe?

See above paragraph. It matters. I don't know why, but it does. I think it's because I perceive it as a threat of clashing morals. It's as hard for me to to accept someone who believes that another individual is evil because of their sexuality, as to accept someone who thinks it's okay to molest children. It's deeply troublesome. Of course, this doesn't explain my angry rant at a girl in my class who made some bull**** anti-abortion artwork, which was both fueled with ignorance of science and was simply bad art. I just don't like people disagreeing with me? That sounds horrible. What I can honestly report is that it is troublesome.

Is that why there are people putting "God probably doesn't exist" on the side of busses. I think an advertising campaign is pretty much getting in people's faces.

I half agree, but that campaign was provoked by ads on the underground condemming passengers to hell. Compared, which is more offencive? One is suggesting that individuals do not leave a full life, the other is blatently saying that individuals with suffer eternally. Two wrongs dont make a right, but it's a demonstration that if free speech is to be maintained, it has to be even.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I see religion as something I believe in. You see it as something to disprove.[/quote[
But why would you believe in it?

We'll get back to this in a bit you might want to wait to answer this point specifically.

I think a religious individual communicating with God is just interpretating every day happenings differently to me. It doesn't make me right, but the point is that I'm going for the option with the most explinations.

That sentence by itself is contradictory.

Explanations? Who? What makes your explanation of an every day happening any more "right" than my explanation of it?

I did mean that I have no explination for God, so why would I go for that option. You're going to say "exacly", but my point is why am I unable to see it? Why do you have personal evidence (that you have not shared) and I do not? I think It's because your personal evidence is common everyday psychologycal brain farting that I pass off as just that. A beliver on the other hand, thinks it's an omnipotent imaginary friend.

What makes you beleiving in God any different to a mentally ill individual having similar delusions?

You are going with the option which has no explinations, at all.

Could I not say the same thing about you?

Could I not say that thinking that things happen without a purpose or without the attention of God is just as ridiculous?

No, because there is proof things occur without purpose. It's called evolution. Whatever "started the ball rolling" is entirely up for debate, but it doesn't change the fact that evolution has no plan or desire or path to follow. This is evident in it's many billions of what would be bad design, if there were a designer.

The problem is you are incapable of explaining to me why God does exist. The burden of proof lies with you, not me. If you can't see the fallacy there, then you need to wonder why.

I don't have to explain to you why God exists. I believe in God, and whether or not you do is irrelevent.

Okay, then go away? Why are you posting if you do not care what I believe?

I don't want to offend you, really I don't, but It makes me angry that it is perceived as offence. It just makes me a little ticked off that I cannot ask questions like "how do you know when you're talking to God you're not just mentally insane?" Because that's a serious question.

You see, that's interesting, because I'm almost positive that there are certain questions I could ask about you regarding mental health that I'm SURE you'd take offense to if I worded them in any manner less than perfect.

Is that some sort of retaliation to avoid the question? Well, at least we can clear up why I'm here obsessively arguing back at you. I'm OCD. It usually manifests itself in hand washing and a dislike for pennies, and inserting random Lain mockery throughout my posts in order to prove that he is a lurker who reads everything.

Do you take the Bible literally? Even metaphorically?

I think I've stated this in this topic before...no matter however, I'll answer again.

I believe the Bible is a collection of stories meant to tell a message, to provide a basis of morality or guidance. Whether or not you personally believe it or decide to follow it, that's your own decision.

So, if it's just metaphorical, why literally believe that Jesus was the son of God or that he died, and then rose?

Just because I believe the Bible is a collection of stories doesn't mean there can't be truth to them...I mean, many people in the Bible DID actually exist. A lot of it is based off fact, it's just the specifics that are often called in to question.

This is my issue, which I reffered to in that first reply.

You're a Christian. That's a very specific thing to say you are. You're not saying "I believe in God" you're giving extra details. My mother however, likes to think shes a Christian, but she doesn't actually believe that Jesus was the son of God. I, personally, think this makes her NOT a Christian. So maybe you should clear it up, entirely. What do you believe in?

Whatever you do beleive in, none of it has any documentation outside of chinese whispers and a book which you are admitting is only metaphorical. So how do you choose what message to take from it? And more importantly, why see the text as authorative in the first place? Why aren't you a Muslim, or a Jew or even simply just a believer in God...? Why do you not just belieive in God, but fall into the set of beliefs (in some way or another) of a Christian? This is what I struggle with. If you simply like Christianity the best, find it's morals the nciest (which they undoubtably are), liking something doesn't make it more right. No amount of me liking dragons is going to make them real as unfortunate as that may be. (In fact, I'd probably argue they have more evidence than God...)

What can "God hates that", reffering to Homosexuality, be metaphorical for, other than, God hates homosexual acts?

Can I have the passage for this please?

I'm not sure I've ever actually seen it (and the Bible is VERY often taken out of context. I'm not justifying the passage, as I've not seen it - but I'd like to see it).

I think it needs to be understood the time period in which the Bible was written. Homosexuality is really only becoming "accepted" (and I use that term very loosely) in the first world recently. It's really not a whole lot different than our first government documents placing restrictions on, say, electoral colleges when it came to slavery.

Old Testament, which you're going to say isn't your belief systems. Fair enough, but I'd have thought you'd still have read it.

Leviticus 18:23 "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman: that is an abomination"

But, still, the New Testament has plenty of homo-hate. Paul was quite obsessed with the matter and noted a couple of times that it will keep someone out of heaven.

The argument of when the Bible was written isn't a good one. It's supposed to be the word of God. You accept interpretated by man, but that still doesn't help you, because you follow it to some small extent.

The issue is that the Bible is a religious document, and thus is not subject to the updating that may make it more applicable to modern times.

Exacly. Then why base any of your beliefs on it?

And if you don't follow the Bible - WHY believe in God, or more importantly Jesus, in the first place?

The Bible was written after God's existence...the existence of the Bible really has no effect on God...and who's to say that the Bible wasn't meant by God to serve the same purpose I claim I believe it's for?[/quote]
Even if God exists, the point is without the Bible none of us would consider there a possibility for his existence. So why pick apart the rest of the Bible as just stories loosely based in fact, derive morals from it, etc... but believe in God 100%?


Okay, this post is officially too long and I need to get ready for uni.

I just want to clear something up.

Please go back through this topic and check out my posts. You'll see that I'm anything but religiously atheist, ignorant or anything else you accuse me of. Except maybe argumentative. But I don't see the difference between an argument and a disgussion, frankly. I do honestly think that I've been far less agressive than you are in most posts you make on CF. I don't honestly see any difference between this or a factual disgussion. You insisted the Stealth had no airtime once, which was bull****. I experiance airtime on Stealth. Maybe it's not unlike how you experiance God and I'm entirely ignorant of it. the pioint is, this topic doesn't deserve special treatment from you just because it's about a "sensitive" issue like religion.

 

[Pokemaniac]

What is the letter limit on CF, just asking? I've hit it on 20,000 on other forums, but this^... :roll:

UC, I must say, your arguments are excellent here. Normally, I'd see discussions falling into a flame fest, but you've masterfully avoided it this time, at the same time provided good arguments. I found new respect for religious people from these posts, and furie, I've learned a lot from yours.

And I think this one would fit here somewhere...

Yes, it does.

Joey, I see your logic in here too. But give it a try, look at it from a different viewpoint. Someone once said that "If you want to be good in argumenting for a case, try to argument against it as well". No idea who, though.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I love how back in this topic when I argued FOR religion, I was being criticised for ignoring paradoxes and fallacies. Now that I'm taking them into consideration, I'm being told that I haven't taken the time to look on the other side of the coin.

You all have memories like fecking Goldfish.

 

[Ben]

(although they shouldn't call themselves humanists ¬¬)

In other news, I went to church and did the religion thing for the majority of my childhood, wasn't that great.

I came to the conclusion yesterday in the shower that I think faith is fine and good, but organising faith into religion is bad.

Uh... I just felt like posting tbh