Right, big topic, big questions... big answers. I'll try to communicate my thoughts clearly and carefully, but in reference to Sam on the idea that discussing religion is pointless because no one ever changes their beliefs, as has been stated, this just simply isn't true.
People learn new things everyday, and take on and reject ideas all the time. Yes 1 conversation isn't instantly going to convince you of God or vice versa, but it may plant the seed of intrigue, and set you off on a path to discover more about the topics you discussed to expand your knowledge and form a more rational opinion or belief.
Yes, religion is a sticky subject for many people, and people do get offended by people talking about it, but that's just the way it is. To say we simply can't talk about it because it offends someone is simply closing off the world and refusing to listen to other people, and if anything, that is more offensive.
I have a few points to talk about, and this post is most likely going to be quite long, but I hope you read it none the less because you are interested in questioning your faith. Not necessarily to destroy it, you may like to question the bits that trouble you, that you have doubts about, and learn more so that you can strengthen your faith, and it is this side of questioning faith which many religious people do not see the advantage of.
The first point I'd like to make is to Live For The Launch and F.A.S.T., towards a comment they both made separately which was never satisfactorily addressed I feel. The point made was that:
"God may or may not exist. If he doesn't, then not believing has no bad consequences. If he does, then we will go to hell, therefore it is more beneficial to believe in God."
On the face of things this seems to be a reasonable argument, but on closer inspection it falls down. If you are wrong about the Christian God you are referring to, yes, you may go to hell... but what if you're wrong about Islam? What if you're wrong about Hinduism? What if you're wrong about the Great JuJu Under The Sea who if you haven't followed his beliefs will peel off your skin while keeping you alive, so by the time he's finished peeling the last bit off, the rest has regrown, so you're forever being peeled jn exquisite agony? Yes I made that last one up, but what if you're wrong about it? Surely it's more beneficial to believe in ALL religions... just in case.
Leading on from that is something which has already been corrected in regards to F.A.S.T's shockingly bad understanding of science and the way the world works. Amusingly when i was reading along, i wrote in my notes of things to talk about practically exactly the same things as Furie, "That's a nice astro-physics degree you have there." Yes you can look at certain aspects of the way the Universe works, and go "But what explains that? God maybe?", but you need to understand what it is you're talking about so that you can't be simply proven wrong by what we know scientifically.
This leads me onto the talk of scientists who have apparently, according to Screaming Coasters, taken the view that there must be a higher being. As stated, these are not proper scientists. It is a scientists ob to further our understanding of the way the universe works, and so for a scientists to just go "Huh.... **** it, I don't know? God?" is against the very essence of what science is. I'm aware there are several religious communities who are paying "scientists" to do research into what's known as "Christian Science", and I suspect that these "scientists" are being paid by these communities. That's not to say having knowledge of science means you can't believe in God of course, but that subject has already been discussed ad nauseum.
However, it is not so black and white. Often when confronted with the above argument that they should understand more about known science before attributing things to God, religious people often counter that maybe the scientists need to read more into the religion before they can comment on religion, and this is what Joey was hinting at. However, i do not subscribe to this belief. Yes, you should have a good understanding of the religion you are talking about, but this does not mean you have to have read all of the historical tomes to form a valid opinion about it, in much the same way that you don't have to read ancient books on the making of clothes and garments to determine that in fact... the emperor is naked. Similarly we're not saying religious people need to go and get degrees in astrophysics before commenting on the big bang, but they need to have a solid understanding of what is known, and what is theorised before attributing things to God.
Nearly home now.
The last comment towards a particular post that has come before mine is towards Dan Fitzgerald, who claims that all those accounts of Jesus must have come from somewhere, so god must exist. This is a diabolical argument with no merits whatsoever. Sorry to put that so bluntly, but in order for your statement to be true:
a) The Bible must be historical fact.
b) The accounts we are given must be the actual accounts of the people who "saw" Jesus' "miracles.
Only then can the stories in the Bible be taken as evidence of God, and unfortunately both points are invalidated. The Bible has NUMEROUS historical clangers, which when you look into the subject more completely nullify the Bible as a historical text, and so to base belief upon the Bible based on it's stories being true is no more valid than basing your beliefs on Moby Dick being a rue story.
Secondly, and more confusingly, at the very start of this very topic you yourself stated:
"I don't believe half of the Bible. It was written by a load of men hundreds of years back and gradually corrupted."
To cherry pick parts of the Bible as historical fact while disregarding the wrong bits as simply errors is a bad road to go down. You seem to have built your belief around the stories of Jesus being real... even though you yourself have stated them to have been corrupted and bastardized, which I find very interesting. I think you should read up on the subject of the Bible as a historical document, from various sources, not just one, so as to get a fair unbiased view of the subject. You may find it strengthens your faith by giving you other things to base it on, you may find it answers those doubts you might've had all along, either way you're not just shutting off the world and refusing to listen any other opinions, facts or beliefs, and it is this which I find the most distressing about religious people.
There is this strange veil of offensiveness which guards religion from attack, and it is what makes it so hard to talk to religious people about religion, because as soon as you mention anything at all contradictory to what they believe, suddenly they're offended and the subject can no longer be discussed, and it is this veil which needs to be brought down so that people can expand their knowledge to build more biased opinions and faiths.
I can't believe in this whole topic on religion I only noticed ONE reference to Richard Dawkins, and not a single one to Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens, 4 leading authors on the subject today, and all their books well worth a read. If you are religious and you refuse to read their books then either you fear that your faith isn't strong enough to stand up to reason, and so refuse to question it, or you are simply putting your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen. Both of which are obviously unacceptable, as if your faith can't stand up to yourself questioning it, then why do you have faith it in?
If you simply can't be arsed to read books or go out and buy them, then watch some of the many debates by the people mentioned above which are available free on YouTube, and are also well worth watching. A couple of good examples are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw7J15TeDG4
A debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza, both best-selling authors on the subject of religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jkBCEN1Igg&feature=related
A debate between Sam Harris and David Wolpe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E
And finally, a documentary of a meeting between all four of the mentioned authors discussing the reactions they've had to their books and tours, and other things on the subject, but without a religious counter argument can sometimes appear a little biased, but is still worth watching.
I hope that anyone who has taken the time to read this mammoth post has left with an urge to question their belief, to either strengthen it or solve doubts they've had about it. If you have doubts about your faith, simply ignoring them isn't the sensible option. Explore them and find answers to them, whether they confirm your faith more or otherwise, action is more effective than nothing.
The only thing left to do is answer the question this topic is about, do I believe in God? No. There are 2 points I'll make which are key factors in deciding this.
1) An ancient quote from Epicurius, and one which has been banded about a lot on the Internet, but I feel holds strong:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
2) An argument you will most likely hear if you take my advice and look further into the subjects mentioned above, and is a counter to the argument that God must exist, because what created us?
The simple argument is simply, "Then what created God? And what created that? And that?" and so on. The more sophisticated way of putting it is to say that if you have a problem which is complex, such as the origin of life or the universe, then to suggest a solution which is even more complex is simply avoiding the question altogether. Complexity must stem from simplicity, and this is how evolution explains the origins of life on Earth.
That's about all I have to say for now, bet's that anyone gets this far? I hope so.
