Yet Another Religion Thread

[Disney's Divinity]

Just because something isn't inherently bad does NOT mean that it doesn't still cause major problems. Race and religion both have caused many deaths and much violence throughout history. I understand that people are acting upon this, but removing both from the equation would remove massive amounts of conflicts and violence from ever occurring (simply because there would be nothing to act upon in the first place). Fact.

But, to me, blaming neutral factors like race or religion seems silly because they're never not going to exist. It's like saying, oh how much better the world would be if there was no government. Sure, yes, that's true. And yet a world without a government will and/or could never exist.

[Goliath]

Goliath, yes, I'm making an analogy in which the only things they have in common are that both things are not inherently bad but people can act badly upon them and the world would not be a better place just because either of them were removed. Those are the only things I was comparing. Was all I needed.

No, you ....*swallows what I was gonna say* ...

You can't make a comparison when two things are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

[Heartless]

But, to me, blaming neutral factors like race or religion seems silly because they're never not going to exist. It's like saying, oh how much better the world would be if there was no government. Sure, yes, that's true. And yet a world without a government will and/or could never exist.

The world would be much better without government? I'd agree with except for one minor detail (and I quote from President Madison): "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." But to return to the topic . . .

My point then is, if religion's existence isn't to blame for the religious wars and violence it has caused through the years, then what is? Certainly the people who interpret religion (which is obviously open for interpretation as believed by many people, even Duster said so in this thread) cannot be blamed for interpreting the religion in a "wrong" way, because there is no wrong interpretation.

I know you said that many religious wars were disguised to cover up deeper political/social/whatever problems.. which I wouldn't say would be too hard to believe. But there are flat out major events in history whose sole purpose was to convert people to their faith. The Spanish Inquisition or other Holy Wars (the Crusades,..) are examples that immediately come to mind. Would you care to provide examples of the wars that are covered up and disguised as religious wars?

[Disney Duster]

No, you ....*swallows what I was gonna say* ...

You can't make a comparison when two things are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

Whenever you compare something to something, those two things are never the same. In my analogy, what was important was not the things themselves but what people do with those things and how they act on them.

My point then is, if religion's existence isn't to blame for the religious wars and violence it has caused through the years, then what is? Certainly the people who interpret religion (which is obviously open for interpretation as believed by many people, even Duster said so in this thread) cannot be blamed for interpreting the religion in a "wrong" way, because there is no wrong interpretation.

What is to blame is the actions of the people. If someone misinterpreted science to mean that monkeys and humans are the same so they went out killing monkeys, the thing to blame would be the person not the science. But what would be better would NOT BE TO BLAME ANYONE. It would be best to have religion, race, freedom, and try to be good people, and if someone is doing something wrong, try to help them not to that. That simple. Don't just get rid of stuff that many people love.

[Heartless]

What is to blame is the actions of the people. If someone misinterpreted science to mean that monkeys and humans are the same so they went out killing monkeys, the thing to blame would be the person not the science. But what would be better would NOT BE TO BLAME ANYONE. It would be best to have religion, race, freedom, and try to be good people, and if someone is doing something wrong, try to help them not to that. That simple. Don't just get rid of stuff that many people love.

People can't misinterpret science because science is fact. It isn't up for interpretation. Religion is blatantly up for personal interpretation...

At any rate, how could they be doing something "wrong" if they are interpreting their religious text in a way that seems right to them? If something like religion is so open for personal interpretation (you said so yourself!), then explain how their are such definitive "rights" and "wrongs." (The answer is that right and wrong is subjective).

Please don't get me wrong.. I never said we SHOULD get rid of stuff people "love" (I can't say for sure whether it would do more harm than good honestly, but my hunch is that the amount of pain caused by religion would be more than the amount of pain there would be without religion). All I'm trying to get the two DDs to understand is that if there wasn't religion in the world, can't you understand how much less suffering would have happened? I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Dr. Frankenollie, what should be viewed as negative is still the boy's actions, not the religion. With a person like him, anyone could convince him of any kind of information that may act on in a negative way.

But if religion didn't exist, the hypothetical boy probably wouldn't have become a terrorist! In my story, the boy did not seek power and wasn't greedy, but simply wanted to do what he saw as good and ethical - to convert everyone to his faith, even using force to do so.

And I highly doubt that 'any kind of information' would make him act in a negative way; religion is often forcefully pressed upon children very early on in their lives, and when it comes to someone like the impressionably boy, it's doubtless that the negativity comes from the religion itself (telling them to stone gays and whatnot), rather than the person.

Also, religion isn't just something that acts as a motive for people to commit evil deeds, it's something which holds scientific research back. I'm sure everyone knows of the church's negative reaction to Charles Darwin's studies and theory of evolution. Although I can't recall his name, one Pope once said that we shouldn't try and solve the mysteries of nature, but simply admire and thank God for it.

[Goliath]

Whenever you compare something to something, those two things are never the same. In my analogy, what was important was not the things themselves but what people do with those things and how they act on them.

If you don't know how comparisons work, please refrain from making them, okay?

Religion is an idea. It was created by people. People believe in it. If they didn't, it wouldn't exist anymore. You're not born with a religion.

Race is not an idea. It is not created by people. It is not something people believe in. Race is a fact. You're born into a certain race.

How hard is it to grasp the difference and to see the comparison is uttelry ludicrous?

Seriously.

People can't misinterpret science because science is fact. It isn't up for interpretation.

Exact science: yes (math, biology, chemistry etc.) Social sciences: no, they're always open to interpretation.

[Disney Duster]

People can't misinterpret science because science is fact. It isn't up for interpretation. Religion is blatantly up for personal interpretation...

At any rate, how could they be doing something "wrong" if they are interpreting their religious text in a way that seems right to them? If something like religion is so open for personal interpretation (you said so yourself!), then explain how their are such definitive "rights" and "wrongs." (The answer is that right and wrong is subjective).

Science isn't something that is supposed to be able to be interpreted anyway. But face it, a person could get science wrong after reading about it, couldn't they? They could misunderstand it, couldn't they?

Interpretation doesn't even matter. Someone could simply read something from science and it makes them mad so they do somethin ver bad based upon it.

It's not about what the thing, science or religion, is. It's about what people can do with it.

But if religion didn't exist, the hypothetical boy probably wouldn't have become a terrorist! In my story, the boy did not seek power and wasn't greedy, but simply wanted to do what he saw as good and ethical - to convert everyone to his faith, even using force to do so.

And I highly doubt that 'any kind of information' would make him act in a negative way; religion is often forcefully pressed upon children very early on in their lives, and when it comes to someone like the impressionably boy, it's doubtless that the negativity comes from the religion itself (telling them to stone gays and whatnot), rather than the person.

Yes and someone could have read the science books that said gays had a disorder and used that to cure gays thinking it was ethical.

And is science pressed upon children? Yup. Does religion have to be pressed on children? Nope.

Once again my point is proven, it's not the things, science or religion that's wrong or would make the world better upon removal. It is what people do with them that can be wrong and should not be done.

If you don't know how comparisons work, please refrain from making them, okay?

Religion is an idea. It was created by people. People believe in it. If they didn't, it wouldn't exist anymore. You're not born with a religion.

Race is not an idea. It is not created by people. It is not something people believe in. Race is a fact. You're born into a certain race.

How hard is it to grasp the difference and to see the comparison is utterly ludicrous?

Seriously.

Once again. What I was comparing was not the things, which you are talking about, but how people react to or what they do with those things.

ALRIGHT HERE WE GO. GIANT MEGA REPSONSES TO LOTS OF PEOPLE. Spelling mistakes of mine will probably ABOUND, sorry in advance.

Sorry for calling you 'loony', however.

Then I'm sorry for calling you a jerk.

I don't think child indoctrination should be allowed.

I agree more or less, but read on for that.

I know movies I love are about challenges and conflict, but that is completely irrelevant. There are war and horror movies that I like, but I wouldn't like to be in the situations shown in those films!

I meant that even though these things are bad, they have in turn given you some pleasure in life, something you really enjoy to watch and talk about. It's an example of how complicated life is. If life was the black and white you painted of good and evil, and it was just the kind of all good like you think it should be, we wouldn’t have such complex pleasures.

And WHY must we prove ourselves worthy of Heaven? Who dictates these ethics? What sane person would believe that countless humans going through decades of suffering and sadness is okay, simply to earn God's love?

You have know idea what Heaven holds for you. You can't say whether all the pain will feel now is not worth Heaven because you haven't been there. All we have is a Bible that says so and the belief that it does. You either believe it or don't, but you must understand that's the idea, that Heaven will be worth it all. You don't think it's possible but it certainly always will be possible unless you prove it's not. I know you've probably wanted to tell me this yourself, but I have to say to you, you must open your mind. Of course there could be something worth such pain.

Well if they had to go through intense pain and suffering before going to a place of eternal bliss, I don't think that's very 'loving' of God. As for the fact that it may have been a sin to pray to other gods...if God does exist and showed these Jews no mercy because of the other deities they prayed to, then God is a sick, twisted, evil monster.

No, that's what you think. The point of God's love is that Heaven will be worth all the pain. That is love. Because the pain and challenges are necessary, and Heaven is so good, that's love. Is it a different way of loving than pur parents do? Yes, because God isn't the same as our parents, he's a being who knows things and must do things our parents wouldn't because our parents are human and he is not. He is like us, but not the same.

No I think if you don't believe you will get some retribution, but perhaps even non-believers will get into Heaven. All I know is that you should believe. There's no reason it would be bad for you not to believe, it could only help.

Tell that to women, gypsies and homosexuals persecuted by religion. Tell that to the victims of 9/11. Tell that to the victims of the Crusades...

That's what some people do in addition to believing. I'm talking about believing just by itself.

The fact you have such a vendetta against it shows it's not that you really don't believe. You are purposely choosing not to and don't want to listen to anyone who can explain why your reasons for not believing don't fly since there is no reason. You can some up with excuses but there's really no specific reason. Believing isn't supposed to be based on evidence yet you say that's what you need. That leads into a nonsensical circle because you are supposed to believe without evidence, other than existence itself and the Bible.

Duster, I AM open-minded, but the probability of God's existence (his existence cannot yet be scientifically proved or disproved) is highly unlikely to me, and as there is no real, concrete, factual, undoubtable evidence suggesting that he exists, I ignore the possibility of his existence. I have a sort-of vendetta against religion because I think it's dangerous and, at the very least, child indoctrination/brainwashing should be stopped.

I respect your open-mindedness. But I'm telling you believing is a choice, you are supposed to do it with no evidence (or rather, very little evidence, because just the world existing and having some good in it is evidence). That's what it's about. That's what believing is. And you're choosing not to do it. And you have no good reason to other than you don't want to feel stupid or like "an idiot" like that woman said. But merely believing that something made all this and loves you and will make you happy in the end is in itself a very good belief. Why you would not choose to believe it when it's not proven impossible is beyond me.

...what could possibly make you think that one part of the Bible isn't God's word or not?

I've heard that the Bible has been changed over time, possibly by the Romans and others. And I could believe that the Bible had things added to it simply by the men who wrote it, as well, in addition to God's actual word. Some things just are impossible to believe in, like that being gay is wrong, I'd commit suicide if it really was. I think God wants us to use our hearts and brains when reading the Bible and trying to figure out what to do. He gave them to us after all.

If God didn’t want us to sit back and let prayers do the work for us, then why in many Holy Books (especially the Bible) is it repeatedly stated that whatever you pray for will come true? It doesn’t matter what any of us say – if ‘God’ says he can do everything for us, then who are we to suggest that we should earn our goals and work hard instead?

Where does it say that if you pray it will definately come true? Anyway, I highly doubt the Bible would mean exactly that, in a literal sense. It could be something that isn't true that they put in. It could mean that you have to have a certain level of faith and be the kind of person to ask the right prayers and they would come true. I dunno. I just know that no Christian expects their prayers will definately certainly come true just as they asked them.

You know, a big complaint of yours is that God isn't as loving as you want him. But you're talking about your definition and requirements for love. Just like your definition and requirements for what is fair, and for tests. Your a human being trying to basically say "Why isn't an all-powerful God us humans can't fully comprehend more like humans?" That's what you're saying. So I think you know the answer now, too. We do compare God to us, we say he is like a parent, like a person. But he's not the same. He sets up things you call evil, but the only thing that can be evil is a human by their will. He sets up challenges, and are they awful? Yes, they are awful. Because we are supposed to go through awful things, even awful Hitler with Jews and rapists with children things. We're supposed to go through really, really, bad things because the really really great heaven is worth it all. Now, this may sound bad to you but I don’t care, I’m going to say it: While I don’t particularly like the horrible, horrifying things that are sometimes allowed, I do like that everything is allowed. That we have all this freedom. Well, actually there are some things I wish would never happen, but in a way, knowing that pain, feeling something about it, makes me feel alive and is kind of a weird joy of life, and knowing that in heaven everything and everyone will be okay…it’s amazing to me, in a very good way.

I would have a problem if there were some people who never ever had happiness in their lives, but the people you say do, people in third world countries and stuff, actually you don’t know if they have no happiness. One time I have a discussion with my friend over how the people in those countries have terrible problems but they don’t have the problems we have here in first world countries like families who hate them and who get really bored with all the stuff that’s supposed to make them happy and who cut themselves because they’re so dulled by happy first world life. The people in third world countries usually still have their families and their problems kind of keep them together. They don’t have time to fight and be miserable to each other, their too busy trying to help and comfort each other. They realize love is the most important thing and may find happiness in their family and friends simply being together and so loving.

I know you and Duster will simply hand-wave this with the fact that ‘God’ is supposedly omnipotent and therefore beyond nature (which is nothing more than an immature, unthinking copout)

This is a heart of what's going wrong. God is omnipotent. He is beyond what we know of physics and nature. That's the point. That's what we believe in. That's what we've always believed in. It's what we're always agruing about what we believe in versus what you do. This is the main thing you need to get. You are actually the one who is doing "the unthinking" (your words, not mine!). Of course you are thinking, you are smart, but you're not thinking of everything. You're not opening your mind to all possibilities. Of a God who is beyond what your human mind can think of. You are just thinking that as a human you should know how it all should be, and that God should be like a human too. No, God just needs to have the human qualities the Bible tells us he has, like the emotions of love. It's love combined with his great knowledge that we don't know, so he gives us challenges that yea, we don't fully understand why we get them, but that's the point.

We aren't supposed to know. We aren't supposed to know all God's reasons or see God scooping people out of (even really horrific) harms way with his hand. We are supposed to not know or see it all because if we did, we wouldn't have faith and trust that he was real and good, we would see it, every single person would believe and would be good to not go to hell. That's the point, that we don't all know and see it, we have to believe it. We have to believe in him despite it all.

Linden, if everything the Bible said is true (contradictions and all), and Eve really did steal from the Tree of Knowledge, an act which God had forbidden...why the bloody hell would we be held to blame for that act?! Couldn't God have let Adam and Eve's future family back into Eden later on? Obviously, they had nothing to do with Eve stealing from the Tree of Knowledge. Just because we're the same species as Adam and Eve doesn't mean we can be held culpable for their actions! Just because Adam and Eve made the wrong choices doesn't mean that every other single man and woman in the history of the universe would do the same!

No what it's about is that God saw that humans sin. Since we all are human, and if you want a scientific analogy, we all have human DNA, he realized all humans would sin. He gave us all free will, spirits, not DNA, but yes, our willfull spirits decided to sin on their own, and with Adam and Eve first doing it, God knew all would do it.

I am going to admit right now that I'm not sure if I even believe this particular story, at least not literally. Just like the creation story it might be all metaphorical about how God created souls with their own wills and in letting them have their own will hoped they would always choose good with their power, but they didn't, and so, we've recieved all that followed. Of course he knew it was going to happen even as he made them, but if something like the Garden of Eden story really did happen, maybe the main point of that was just so the first humans experienced it for themselves, and so that us later humans had a story for ourselves to know how things started and why things are the way they are.

And if you ask "well then why did he make us then?", once again it's all about that we are powerful souls of our own free will and he didn't feel like making restricted robots that can only choose good.

I think the soul is more than state of mind and spirituality. There's so much to it we can't even describe. But as for the choice thing...I mean like...imagine dropping a soul in a zygote, and the soul, even if you do believe it's a state of mind, somehow makes some of the zygote form into a human being the way that it does. It is perfectly possible to believe that some of the extra extrogen a developing fetus gets is because the soul was gay and wanted it to happen. Sure, you and many people probably won't believe it, but you can't prove that's not a possibility.

This is completely based on something you just made up. To say that its possible just because none of us can prove you wrong is like saying that its completely possible that there are invisible 4-headed unicorns living among us in our world. You cannot prove me wrong in anyway, so its a possibility.

Except my theory is based on (my observations of) life and trying to figure it out, no matter how ridiculous you personally think it is, while your unicorn theory is purposely trying to be ridiculous and based on nothing, excetp trying to make an argument against me.

But you could also ask yourself how does any thing in and itself begins.

I do, but God is not the answer. I personally think that the existence of a potential 'God', an omnipotent, all-powerful, infinitely complex being, is much more difficult to explain than the existence of the universe.

But they say the universe started with a big bang. What came before that? Nothing? How did that bang start? What if God was created by a big bang, out of nothing?

But actually, what we believe is that God is so powerful he always was. I suppose you would have a hard time believing that, but since time is a human construct, maybe you could understand the idea of God always being, infinitely? I have also thought about God creating himself, out of nothing, which I know sounds impossible but that's the thing, I can actually believe in something like that which sounds so impossible to our human minds. I suspect the "always was" theory is what you'd more accept, and I think that's what the Bible and Christian religion say is the case anyway.

You don’t seem to consider the idea of something that is beyond physics or measurable things. The idea of God itself is something beyond that, with the power to make something out of nothing. Something impossible according to what science has observed so far. That’s what God is supposed to be. Beyond what is physically possible. All sorts of things impossible for matter, because God isn’t matter. You’re thinking in terms of matter.

Dr. Frankenollie and Heartless, I agree children shouldn’t be indoctrinated. But I think children should be taught about religion when they are little. It’d be nice if they could be taught all religions and choose for themselves, but not only might that be impossible, but they wouldn’t understand much of it. It’s best to teach them the general beliefs you have (which varies from person to person, culture to culture, country to country) that they could grasp, and perhaps some general other big classes of beliefs, and leave that up to them. They could choose to believe it, to not, make up their own, or perhaps ask about other religions. But hopefully you understand why it is a very sweet thing, and is a very good thing, to tell a child about the belief that there is some divine power that loves them and will make everything better in the end. That when people die they go to a better place. Hopefully you understand why this is very comforting and good for children, as long as you do not force them to believe it against their will

Super Aurora, so you believe in a God, a spiritual, non-physical being. So then don’t you believe in non-physical spirit that is inside everyone, and that has an afterlife similar to how God “lives” I suppose? That is what also separates us from animals (unless you believe animals have them in which case humans have higher spirits/souls) and since we as humans who indeed are higher than animals have understood a higher concept than animals of good and evil and judgement, and God is the highest being, than really it makes sense that the idea of right, wrong, and judgement are high ideas which a being as high as God would know of.

[Super Aurora]

But they say the universe started with a big bang. What came before that? Nothing? How did that bang start? What if God was created by a big bang, out of nothing?

The Big Bang is one of the collective theories of how Universe started by not the only definite one. There's theories of Universe restarting it's cycle as in it gets destroys and reconstruct again. Just like planets then stars, etc. A universe doing so is another possible theory. Just an interesting tidbit. One of the things we Deist believe is that Origin or start of Universe alas big bang, is one or only action God takes his hands in the real world.

Super Aurora, so you believe in a God, a spiritual, non-physical being. So then don’t you believe in non-physical spirit that is inside everyone, and that has an afterlife similar to how God “lives” I suppose?

No. I don't believe in that there is a conventional afterlife or that we have "spirits" in sense that we float up to a heaven after we die. When we die, we die. period. We decompose and become "food" for the fungi or insects. Cycle of Nature. I do think God set this laws of nature and that we all are abide it. He/it doesn't play favoritism. We follow same application animals do.

-we need food and water to live
-we live and we die like them.
-we kill
-we reproduce through sexual means
-we share similar social hierarchy within a group(pride, pack, herd, community etc)
- and many more.

The spirit I believe in is something that's you, yourself, develop on your own. When you become aware of something, or when you become attach to something sensationally it's a sign of giving yourself a spirit or connection to someone or something. For me, I hold a great spirituality and connection to my art and my interests. When theses things developed as time goes, to create yourself a bond and fondness to the subject. This is what makes someone or thing and unique individual. I see this apply not just us but to animals as well.

That is what also separates us from animals (unless you believe animals have them in which case humans have higher spirits/souls) and since we as humans who indeed are higher than animals have understood a higher concept than animals of good and evil and judgement, and God is the highest being, than really it makes sense that the idea of right, wrong, and judgement are high ideas which a being as high as God would know of.

I don't see how we have higher spirits or souls than anything else. Native Americans never believe that either. They believe all things share an equal importance in spirituality and they treat and respect them too. What separates us from animals is our higher and more fully evolved function brains and they it enables us to reason. Animals don't reason. This is given through evolution through millions and millions of years. This is why we theoretically are on the top of the food chain(I'd argue insects really are the ones).

The concept of evil and good is just that. A concept. An abstract concept too. And since it's a concept of a human, a supreme all mighty God, would be beyond such a concept to even take any consideration to abide by. Laws of nature and physic of this universe is a much much higher concept than a simplicity black and white one like good and evil.

Let's take this for example.
We(humans in general) will rape or kill for fun.
Dolphins(who are also intelligent creatures) also rape or kill for fun(true, no joke)

We view it as an evil action because we as humans, through a more advance and civilize society, as well as through superior reasoning skills and thinking skills, are taught ourselves that in order to keep a community stabled.

Dolphins don't have the superior brain skills and power to make reasoning in that judgement since their brain isn't as powerful or as developed as ours. I guarantee you that have dolphin evolve to our level, they'd probably may of see that as well.

Most Animals are capable of sharing emotions just like we do.



The core concept of Deism is blend the belief of a Mono God and the scientific laws of the universe with the least contradictions and supernatural beliefs(outside of God him/itself) as possible. Majority of the Founding Father of America as well as famous figures like Issac Newton, were all deist.

[Heartless]

People can't misinterpret science because science is fact. It isn't up for interpretation. Religion is blatantly up for personal interpretation...

At any rate, how could they be doing something "wrong" if they are interpreting their religious text in a way that seems right to them? If something like religion is so open for personal interpretation (you said so yourself!), then explain how their are such definitive "rights" and "wrongs." (The answer is that right and wrong is subjective).

Science isn't something that is supposed to be able to be interpreted anyway. But face it, a person could get science wrong after reading about it, couldn't they? They could misunderstand it, couldn't they?

Interpretation doesn't even matter. Someone could simply read something from science and it makes them mad so they do somethin ver bad based upon it.

It's not about what the thing, science or religion, is. It's about what people can do with it.

Yes, I just told you that science isn't supposed to be interpreted. Science is fact. The difference between someone 'reading something wrong' from science is that there is proof that what the person 'interpreted' was false.. With religion, the entire base of it is completely up for interpretation, which allows for any one to interpret it in anyway without it being either correct or incorrect.

This is why I am saying that it can't be people's fault that they "misinterpret" religion. They are acting upon their own beliefs and what they believe to be right. Religion is more to blame than the people.

And is science pressed upon children? Yup. Does religion have to be pressed on children? Nope.

Once again my point is proven, it's not the things, science or religion that's wrong or would make the world better upon removal. It is what people do with them that can be wrong and should not be done.

Religion shouldn't be pressed upon anyone because its all a belief.. there's no factual evidence to support any of it. And science isn't "pressed" upon children, they are taught it in school. And they should be, because its facts about how the world around them works. Once again ... science = FACT.

Your point is not proven. Yes, people are responsible for their own actions (obviously).. but religion blatantly is open to individual and subjective interpretation. People cannot be told they are wrong because they believe their god was telling them to kill the nonbelievers... There's no proof that they were right or wrong in doing this.. The shear existence of religion is allowing for such interpretation. Interpretation that has no definitive boundaries between what is 'right' and 'wrong.'

Except my theory is based on (my observations of) life and trying to figure it out, no matter how ridiculous you personally think it is, while your unicorn theory is purposely trying to be ridiculous and based on nothing, excetp trying to make an argument against me.

So you're saying that your soul theory sounds more logical than mine, and that's why yours is obviously less ridiculous. Seriously, I could say that I honestly believed there are "creatures" or "beings" living among us that we cannot see, and I created that theory based on my own observations of life and trying to figure it out.

Just because I base a belief on my own observations of how things work does NOT make it any less ridiculous..

[Dr Frankenollie]

I'll reply to Duster when I have more time on hands. In the meantime...

I converted someone my age to atheism during a religious discussion today. They previously had Christian beliefs, although I'm sure they may already have had some doubts due to the fact that persuading them that God's existence is extremely improbable didn't take as long as I expected.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Yes and someone could have read the science books that said gays had a disorder and used that to cure gays thinking it was ethical.

And is science pressed upon children? Yup. Does religion have to be pressed on children? Nope.

As Heartless said, religion is a belief so it shouldn't be pressed upon children, whereas science is fact so it should be taught to children.

I meant that even though these things are bad, they have in turn given you some pleasure in life, something you really enjoy to watch and talk about. It's an example of how complicated life is. If life was the black and white you painted of good and evil, and it was just the kind of all good like you think it should be, we wouldn’t have such complex pleasures.

I do not see good and evil as 'black and white'; that couldn't be further from the truth. The only thing stopping me from becoming the real world equivalent of the Joker is the niggling bit of empathy I have. We made up good and evil ourselves to justify our actions and they also derived from emotional reactions. I am uncertain on whether they are necessary concepts because a standard moral code leads to unity, which leads to progression, which leads to better chances of survival and more materialistic and intellectual pleasures. But why do we have an instinct for survival?

You have know idea what Heaven holds for you. You can't say whether all the pain will feel now is not worth Heaven because you haven't been there. All we have is a Bible that says so and the belief that it does. You either believe it or don't, but you must understand that's the idea, that Heaven will be worth it all. You don't think it's possible but it certainly always will be possible unless you prove it's not. I know you've probably wanted to tell me this yourself, but I have to say to you, you must open your mind. Of course there could be something worth such pain.

If you're saying the only bit of evidence for Heaven's existence is the Bible, then...I'm never going to believe it. The Bible is self-contradictory, unreliable, homophobic, racist, sexist and badly written. And may I very strongly object to your view that you believe that because I can't prove it's not possible, then there is a possibility that it's there and I should therefore consider it. Sure, I can't prove or disprove it...but I can look at probability. And improbability. I could say that there's a singing lobster at the other end of the universe who controls all our actions, and as you say, this will certainly be possible unless you prove it's not. What? Don't you believe me? Then open your mind, dammit.

No, that's what you think. The point of God's love is that Heaven will be worth all the pain. That is love. Because the pain and challenges are necessary, and Heaven is so good, that's love. Is it a different way of loving than pur parents do? Yes, because God isn't the same as our parents, he's a being who knows things and must do things our parents wouldn't because our parents are human and he is not. He is like us, but not the same.

Yes, it's what I think, based on logical reasoning from what you have said, the Bible and historical record. I'll play along with your game - okay, suffering is worth it when you get Heaven as a consolation prize at the end of the bleakness of existence. But there's no evidence for it. So why should I even consider believing in it more than I should consider believing in a singing lobster controlling us at the end of the universe?!

Tell that to women, gypsies and homosexuals persecuted by religion. Tell that to the victims of 9/11. Tell that to the victims of the Crusades...

That's what some people do in addition to believing. I'm talking about believing just by itself.

I'll return to what you first said: "There's no reason it would be bad for you not to believe, it could only help." And when I think about it, you're right. There's Pascal's Wager: if I believe in the afterlife and worship God, but there is no Heaven and God, it doesn't make a difference post-death. But if there is a Heaven and if there is a God, then I'll go to Heaven. If I don't believe, then there are no consequences after death if I'm right; but if I'm wrong, I could go to Hel.

HOWEVER. I can't *choose* to believe. I can't switch belief on and off. I can't make myself believe with the lack of evidence and the strong anti-religious arguments.

The fact you have such a vendetta against it shows it's not that you really don't believe. You are purposely choosing not to and don't want to listen to anyone who can explain why your reasons for not believing don't fly since there is no reason. You can some up with excuses but there's really no specific reason. Believing isn't supposed to be based on evidence yet you say that's what you need. That leads into a nonsensical circle because you are supposed to believe without evidence, other than existence itself and the Bible.

Hmm...so because you presumably have a vendetta of sorts against homophobia, that shows that you it's not really that you are against them, you just purposefully choose not to. Following your logic that's true. And if I'm honest, I'm puzzled by what you mean. And if the Bible says that I have to believe in God without evidence, then fuck the Bible.

I respect your open-mindedness. But I'm telling you believing is a choice, you are supposed to do it with no evidence (or rather, very little evidence, because just the world existing and having some good in it is evidence). That's what it's about. That's what believing is. And you're choosing not to do it. And you have no good reason to other than you don't want to feel stupid or like "an idiot" like that woman said. But merely believing that something made all this and loves you and will make you happy in the end is in itself a very good belief. Why you would not choose to believe it when it's not proven impossible is beyond me.

I'm not being an atheist so I don't feel stupid and so that I'm not seen as an idiot! No, no, no, no, no, no, no! I don't believe in God because, put simply, there is no evidence for him and the Holy Books about him are disgusting! And that last sentence...ugh. You can't understand why I would choose not to believe it when it's not proven impossible.

Well, I don't understand why you won't believe in the singing lobster at the end of the universe seeing as he hasn't been disproven yet.

...what could possibly make you think that one part of the Bible isn't God's word or not?

I've heard that the Bible has been changed over time, possibly by the Romans and others. And I could believe that the Bible had things added to it simply by the men who wrote it, as well, in addition to God's actual word. Some things just are impossible to believe in, like that being gay is wrong, I'd commit suicide if it really was. I think God wants us to use our hearts and brains when reading the Bible and trying to figure out what to do. He gave them to us after all.

You're missing the point. What if the parts of the Bible you think were added or made up by man (like the homophobic parts) are the true word of God, and vice versa? Do you find that impossible to believe in? That's not an explanation. Some people found the idea of evolution impossible to believe in. Some people once found the idea of finding out the chemical properties of the stars impossible to believe in. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it's not true, so that can't be your explanation for why you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you consider to be bad and which you consider to be good. And just in case you misunderstood me: I'm not homophobic. I'm the opposite completely.

Where does it say that if you pray it will definately come true?

John 15:7
"But if you stay joined to me and my words remain in you, you may ask any request you like, and it will be granted!"

There you go. Also, here's a hilarious bonus tidbit:

Matthew 6:7
"When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered only by repeating their words again and again."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOL

I'll reply to the rest of your post later.

[Super Aurora]

If you're saying the only bit of evidence for Heaven's existence is the Bible, then...I'm never going to believe it. The Bible is self-contradictory, unreliable, homophobic, racist, sexist and badly written.

Actually the original bible texts for old and new testaments never gave any mention or negative view on gays. That was something coined later in the king James bible which has numerous translations errors. The King James Bible I'd argue is one of the problems the bible that has cause people to become like that. The anti-gay seems from a social and society view. Since people read the bible at the time or followed the religion, I've no doubt that it was deliberately implicated into the King James Bible. or in Catholic's position, the priest read and made up stuff from bible since they were only people at the time who could read the Latin bible (which was translate from the original greek language.)

[Goliath]

Got two Jehova's Witnesses at the door today. Told them I wasn't interested. Took one of their magazines that 'disprove' evolution (LOL) just so they would shut the f*ck up and leave. Now I regret. I fear they'll come back tomorrow to ask me how I liked the magazine. Should've said I worship Satan instead.

Had to laugh at these. I'm sure Super A. has seen them before.

[ajmrowland]

if there's one thing i learned playin final fantasy xiii and xiii-2, it's that's it's possible to balance faith and science, but blind faith is what leads humanity to destruction.

[Disney Duster]

The Big Bang is one of the collective theories of how Universe started by not the only definite one. There's theories of Universe restarting it's cycle as in it gets destroys and reconstruct again. Just like planets then stars, etc. A universe doing so is another possible theory. Just an interesting tidbit. One of the things we Deist believe is that Origin or start of Universe alas big bang, is one or only action God takes his hands in the real world.

I see why Deists would believe that. And by the way I also have thought of the idea of the universe being in a constant cycle, but it doesn't make sense to me as then there's no end, no thinking of the power that would create such a cycle in the first place, aka God.

No. I don't believe in that there is a conventional afterlife or that we have "spirits" in sense that we float up to a heaven after we die. When we die, we die. period. We decompose and become "food" for the fungi or insects. Cycle of Nature. I do think God set this laws of nature and that we all are abide it. He/it doesn't play favoritism. We follow same application animals do.

I'm really sad about this. I believe you have a soul and I'll see you in Heaven, anyway.

The spirit I believe in is something that's you, yourself, develop on your own. When you become aware of something, or when you become attach to something sensationally it's a sign of giving yourself a spirit or connection to someone or something. For me, I hold a great spirituality and connection to my art and my interests. When theses things developed as time goes, to create yourself a bond and fondness to the subject. This is what makes someone or thing and unique individual. I see this apply not just us but to animals as well.

I think that is very cool, but is missing something, unless I'm getting you wrong. If that's all you believe, then to me that's like saying that if you had say, a new baby sibling, that he has no spirit when he's born so you just wouldn't give a f*ck about him till he's developed a few months later. If you did, that would be awful. I wish you'd believe that in addition to developing your spirit by connecting to things, your spirit at least exists in you when you're born, to develop and connect to things in the first place. And why wouldn't this spirit then continue on to live after death, since it's not physical and can't really die because it's not made of physical material that decomposes? And a spirit is also how you feel about life, everything you feel about everything you encounter, all your thoughts and feelings are unique. Even a baby moves its head to see different things than other babies, laughs at different things than other babies, that shows it has a unique spirit inside, different from that of other babies.

I don't see how we have higher spirits or souls than anything else. Native Americans never believe that either. They believe all things share an equal importance in spirituality and they treat and respect them too. What separates us from animals is our higher and more fully evolved function brains and they it enables us to reason. Animals don't reason. This is given through evolution through millions and millions of years. This is why we theoretically are on the top of the food chain(I'd argue insects really are the ones).

Well, if you want to believe animals have the same spirits as us, why not. I think its possible, but I still believe that we have higher souls, that also make/influence/go with our higher developed brains and bodies. But lol maybe insects are on the top of the food chain.

The concept of evil and good is just that. A concept. An abstract concept too. And since it's a concept of a human, a supreme all mighty God, would be beyond such a concept to even take any consideration to abide by. Laws of nature and physic of this universe is a much much higher concept than a simplicity black and white one like good and evil.

Like Dr Frankenollie said, evil doesn't automatically mean simple. Just because sometimes it takes a complex way or complex reasons for someone to do evil things doesn't mean it isn't evil.

Dolphins don't have the superior brain skills and power to make reasoning in that judgement since their brain isn't as powerful or as developed as ours. I guarantee you that have dolphin evolve to our level, they'd probably may of see that as well.

Right, being higher creatures we see a higher idea, of good and evil. A higher idea. God is a higher being. Hence why I think good and evil is a more high spiritual idea that God is for and intended only us to know.

The other stuff you wrote about Deism, some of it you siad before, but yea the rest of that is cool and sounds good.

Yes, I just told you that science isn't supposed to be interpreted. Science is fact. The difference between someone 'reading something wrong' from science is that there is proof that what the person 'interpreted' was false.. With religion, the entire base of it is completely up for interpretation, which allows for any one to interpret it in anyway without it being either correct or incorrect.

This is why I am saying that it can't be people's fault that they "misinterpret" religion. They are acting upon their own beliefs and what they believe to be right. Religion is more to blame than the people.

On the contrary. Science is regarded by facts by many, but the only thing anyone can truly know for a fact is what they have experienced and seen for themselves. Science teaches theories and such that are not proven and people weren't there in the past to truly know for sure, and actually things about science change all the time, even things that were called facts. Didn't you know that scientists even shy away from ever saying they definately know anything for sure, that they always say "this points to this" or "this is probable" or "this is my theory"?

And in regards to religion, its easy for people to eventually realize that how they were interpreting the Bible was wrong, from just realizing it later. And if their insane and can't do so - then once again, its the person not the religion.

Religion shouldn't be pressed upon anyone because its all a belief.. there's no factual evidence to support any of it. And science isn't "pressed" upon children, they are taught it in school. And they should be, because its facts about how the world around them works. Once again ... science = FACT.

What I said above also counters this, as well as that religion can just be taught to kids just like science is, you are just choosing to use the word pressed only for religion instead of equally on science.

So you're saying that your soul theory sounds more logical than mine, and that's why yours is obviously less ridiculous. Seriously, I could say that I honestly believed there are "creatures" or "beings" living among us that we cannot see, and I created that theory based on my own observations of life and trying to figure it out.

Just because I base a belief on my own observations of how things work does NOT make it any less ridiculous..

Yes that's why my theory is more logical and no to your last sentence because your observations of life and how things work did not make your theory, you just made it up to be ridiculous and try to counteract my argument.

Dr Frankenollie you took a little too long for me. If you want you can answer the rest you wanted you when you reply the next time.

I converted someone my age to atheism during a religious discussion today. They previously had Christian beliefs, although I'm sure they may already have had some doubts due to the fact that persuading them that God's existence is extremely improbable didn't take as long as I expected.

Why?

As Heartless said, religion is a belief so it shouldn't be pressed upon children, whereas science is fact so it should be taught to children.

Please read what I said to Heartles above.

If you're saying the only bit of evidence for Heaven's existence is the Bible, then...I'm never going to believe it. The Bible is self-contradictory, unreliable, homophobic, racist, sexist and badly written. And may I very strongly object to your view that you believe that because I can't prove it's not possible, then there is a possibility that it's there and I should therefore consider it. Sure, I can't prove or disprove it...but I can look at probability. And improbability. I could say that there's a singing lobster at the other end of the universe who controls all our actions, and as you say, this will certainly be possible unless you prove it's not. What? Don't you believe me? Then open your mind, dammit.

Anything about the lobster I covered in your survival instinct thread. Ad for the Bible, the point is the evidence is in there despite the other things in there you see as bad and not making sense which for all we know was caused by the kind of things Super Aurora mentioned about the King James Bible and the other things I mentioned of altering God's word.

Yes, it's what I think, based on logical reasoning from what you have said, the Bible and historical record. I'll play along with your game - okay, suffering is worth it when you get Heaven as a consolation prize at the end of the bleakness of existence. But there's no evidence for it. So why should I even consider believing in it more than I should consider believing in a singing lobster controlling us at the end of the universe?!

Because the heaven idea is hope. And makes more sense and feels more right than the singing lobster.

HOWEVER. I can't *choose* to believe. I can't switch belief on and off. I can't make myself believe with the lack of evidence and the strong anti-religious arguments.

But you can make a choice. Of course you can believe in things without evidence. I thought about your lobster, and it didn't make sense and wasn't what I wanted to believe, so I decided not to believe. You thought about God and decided there's not enough evidence. That's not the same thing. If you only thought about the Christian God, sure, all the Christian views and descriptions of him probably don't make enough sense to you, but just believing in and loving God and Jesus and an afterlife is all I'm asking. And making sense and fitting with what we feel and desire and feels right in itself is a kind of evidence for God against that lobster. I'm serious there.

The fact you have such a vendetta against it shows it's not that you really don't believe. You are purposely choosing not to and don't want to listen to anyone who can explain why your reasons for not believing don't fly since there is no reason. You can some up with excuses but there's really no specific reason. Believing isn't supposed to be based on evidence yet you say that's what you need. That leads into a nonsensical circle because you are supposed to believe without evidence, other than existence itself and the Bible.

Hmm...so because you presumably have a vendetta of sorts against homophobia, that shows that you it's not really that you are against them, you just purposefully choose not to. Following your logic that's true. And if I'm honest, I'm puzzled by what you mean. And if the Bible says that I have to believe in God without evidence, then fuck the Bible.

BLASPHEMY! NEVER SAY THAT! AND REPENT! for those last three words you said, which I'm betting you won't do, and also already predict I will get made fun of for, but anyway the reason I'm against homophobia is because I am homosexual and can't make myself not be and i know it is what I need to be happy and stay alive, so I know anything that might be in the Bible saying I can't be is wrong. However, that you are against religion and trying to make others be, despite not knowing for yourself if it is true or not, shows your doing it for more than just not believing it as you claim, so that's why I say it's not really that you truly don't believe deep down and are just rejecting it, choosing to go against it.

I don't believe in God because, put simply, there is no evidence for him and the Holy Books about him are disgusting! And that last sentence...

There it is again. You're trying to use some certain parts you find in the Bible and any other things that may or may not actually be what God or Christianity is as ammunition to aid you purposely trying to not believe and make others not believe.

You're missing the point. What if the parts of the Bible you think were added or made up by man (like the homophobic parts) are the true word of God, and vice versa? Do you find that impossible to believe in? That's not an explanation. Some people found the idea of evolution impossible to believe in. Some people once found the idea of finding out the chemical properties of the stars impossible to believe in. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it's not true, so that can't be your explanation for why you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you consider to be bad and which you consider to be good. And just in case you misunderstood me: I'm not homophobic. I'm the opposite completely.

No I wasn't saying you were homophobic. As for the rest, what Super Aurora said combined with evidence I heard about that even the Romans may have altered the Bible as well as my true knowledge of how God made me live happily as a homosexual with no choice in the matter is what made it impossible for me to believe what it says about homosexuality is God's word, if it really said anything about homosexuality at all.

Where does it say that if you pray it will definately come true?

John 15:7
"But if you stay joined to me and my words remain in you, you may ask any request you like, and it will be granted!"

There you go.

Thta's not pray for whatever and you'll get it. That's that if you truly remain believing and choosing him and listen to and adhere to his words, then you'll be the kind of person to get the kind of things you should get. I'm pretty sure even you know he probably doesn't mean "If you ask me to kill someone for you or send you down a flying monkey, I definately absolutely will do that!"

[Dr Frankenollie]

I converted someone my age to atheism during a religious discussion today. They previously had Christian beliefs, although I'm sure they may already have had some doubts due to the fact that persuading them that God's existence is extremely improbable didn't take as long as I expected.

Why?

Don't fret - it's more like agnosticism rather than atheism for them. As for why I did so, I did it for A) because I was bored and religion is a fun topic to talk about; and more importantly, B) because part of me wants to destroy all organised religion. You've got to start somewhere.

Ad for the Bible, the point is the evidence is in there despite the other things in there you see as bad and not making sense which for all we know was caused by the kind of things Super Aurora mentioned about the King James Bible and the other things I mentioned of altering God's word.

But...why do you think that the parts of the Bible you dislike aren't God's word (and were written in or by King James, etc.) but the parts you like are? It's a fascinating coincidence, don't you agree? You don't get your morals from religion, you get there elsewhere; otherwise, you wouldn't "cherry-pick" or look at parts of your own Holy Book critically.

Because the heaven idea is hope. And makes more sense and feels more right than the singing lobster.

But hoping for something doesn't make it true. I hope that the secrets of the universe will be discovered in my lifetime. I hope that one day women and gays will have rights equal to males and heterosexuals globally. I hope that one day religion will be overwhelmed and overcome. But hoping for these things doesn't necessarily mean that they will all come true. The idea of Heaven isn't any more probable than the idea of the singing lobster, because both have an equal amount of proof and absolute disproof: zero. As for your belief that Heaven "feels more right..."; maybe centuries ago, people believed that it "felt more right" for the Earth to be flat than round (I wouldn't be surprised if they did think like that, actually). But the Earth is round nonetheless.

But you can make a choice. Of course you can believe in things without evidence. I thought about your lobster, and it didn't make sense and wasn't what I wanted to believe, so I decided not to believe. You thought about God and decided there's not enough evidence. That's not the same thing. If you only thought about the Christian God, sure, all the Christian views and descriptions of him probably don't make enough sense to you, but just believing in and loving God and Jesus and an afterlife is all I'm asking. And making sense and fitting with what we feel and desire and feels right in itself is a kind of evidence for God against that lobster. I'm serious there.

I can't make a choice. I. Cannot. Make. Myself. Believe. Something. (Unless Ingsoc is involved ). Even if I thought religion was good, even if I had "belief in belief", I could not forcibly believe in God. I can't choose to have faith. And you can't just favour the God theory over the lobster theory simply because it's not what you want to believe. Again, centuries ago people may have preferred to believe that the Earth was round rather than flat, but it is round despite this. Furthermore, the idea of an omnipotent, gigantic being who can hear everything we say and think, see everything we see and do; a being who is part of nature, outside nature and all of nature, is indestructible, immortal and the creator of everything in the universe...that makes less sense to me than a singing lobster floating around outside the universe.

BLASPHEMY! NEVER SAY THAT! AND REPENT! for those last three words you said, which I'm betting you won't do, and also already predict I will get made fun of for, but anyway the reason I'm against homophobia is because I am homosexual and can't make myself not be and i know it is what I need to be happy and stay alive, so I know anything that might be in the Bible saying I can't be is wrong.

Aha! So you trust yourself more than you trust God or the Bible. That's good, Duster. Hopefully it's the first step in you moving away from your religion (although this is probably unlikely...).

However, that you are against religion and trying to make others be, despite not knowing for yourself if it is true or not, shows your doing it for more than just not believing it as you claim, so that's why I say it's not really that you truly don't believe deep down and are just rejecting it, choosing to go against it.

NO. I don't know whether there is a God or not, although I believe it to be a highly improbable possibility. But I think it's just as likely as the singing lobster, or the celestial teapot, or Wotan and Thor. And if there was a Church of the Singing Lobster, which had started wars, caused racism, sexism and homophobia abundantly, caused strife and held back scientific progress, even though their beliefs were highly questionable, hypocritical, self-contradictory and improbable, I would want them to be stopped, even if I wasn't 100% sure whether they were wrong or not. Religion is a dangerous and dated social disease. Science, as always, is the cure.

There it is again. You're trying to use some certain parts you find in the Bible and any other things that may or may not actually be what God or Christianity is as ammunition to aid you purposely trying to not believe and make others not believe.

And...? So what if I do? That's like a defendant in a criminal court complaining that using certain evidence found at the crime scene that using it may make others believe that he's guilty. Besides, even if the Bible wasn't full of disgusting trite and was a much wiser, more consistent book, although I wouldn't be as passionately anti-religious, I still would be an atheist.

No I wasn't saying you were homophobic. As for the rest, what Super Aurora said combined with evidence I heard about that even the Romans may have altered the Bible as well as my true knowledge of how God made me live happily as a homosexual with no choice in the matter is what made it impossible for me to believe what it says about homosexuality is God's word, if it really said anything about homosexuality at all.

Thta's not pray for whatever and you'll get it. That's that if you truly remain believing and choosing him and listen to and adhere to his words, then you'll be the kind of person to get the kind of things you should get. I'm pretty sure even you know he probably doesn't mean "If you ask me to kill someone for you or send you down a flying monkey, I definately absolutely will do that!"

Okay, so what if there is a devout believer who is dying of a fatal disease, and prays for the cure because he won't be able to support his children. It doesn't matter if you think it's okay that if they're not supported, because they'll get to Heaven and whatnot. According to many parts of the News Testament, including the part I quoted, that believer would get the cure.

[Heartless]

The concept of evil and good is just that. A concept. An abstract concept too. And since it's a concept of a human, a supreme all mighty God, would be beyond such a concept to even take any consideration to abide by. Laws of nature and physic of this universe is a much much higher concept than a simplicity black and white one like good and evil.

Like Dr Frankenollie said, evil doesn't automatically mean simple. Just because sometimes it takes a complex way or complex reasons for someone to do evil things doesn't mean it isn't evil.

The "good" and "evil" that is expressed in the Bible is about as simple as it can get.. You follow the Bible and the act is good, you disobey the Bible and it's evil...
Aurora is correct in his analysis.

Yes, I just told you that science isn't supposed to be interpreted. Science is fact. The difference between someone 'reading something wrong' from science is that there is proof that what the person 'interpreted' was false.. With religion, the entire base of it is completely up for interpretation, which allows for any one to interpret it in anyway without it being either correct or incorrect.

This is why I am saying that it can't be people's fault that they "misinterpret" religion. They are acting upon their own beliefs and what they believe to be right. Religion is more to blame than the people.

On the contrary. Science is regarded by facts by many, but the only thing anyone can truly know for a fact is what they have experienced and seen for themselves. Science teaches theories and such that are not proven and people weren't there in the past to truly know for sure, and actually things about science change all the time, even things that were called facts. Didn't you know that scientists even shy away from ever saying they definately know anything for sure, that they always say "this points to this" or "this is probable" or "this is my theory"?

And in regards to religion, its easy for people to eventually realize that how they were interpreting the Bible was wrong, from just realizing it later. And if their insane and can't do so - then once again, its the person not the religion.

So are you saying that the millions of things science has discovered (and yes, they are facts) are all up for question? We aren't composed of cells, rain isn't evaporated water, water isn't composed of H20, oxygen isn't required for survival... all the scientific FACTS about biology, the ecosystem, chemistry, physics.. all of those things are things no one can know for fact? I'm not saying universal theorems (that haven't or cannot been proven thus far) are fact. I'm not saying the Big Band theory is fact. I'm not even going to say that the theory of Evolution is fact. However, there have been thousands and thousands of tests to prove scientific beliefs so that they CAN be called fact. It's a fact we need oxygen to live. It's a fact that plants need water and sunlight to grow. It's a fact that fire needs oxygen, a fuel source, and heat. It's a fact that earthquakes are shifting of tectonic plates in the earth. There were all proven thanks to science. Care to dispute any of these? Go ahead, you're wrong.

So you're saying that your soul theory sounds more logical than mine, and that's why yours is obviously less ridiculous. Seriously, I could say that I honestly believed there are "creatures" or "beings" living among us that we cannot see, and I created that theory based on my own observations of life and trying to figure it out.

Just because I base a belief on my own observations of how things work does NOT make it any less ridiculous..

Yes that's why my theory is more logical and no to your last sentence because your observations of life and how things work did not make your theory, you just made it up to be ridiculous and try to counteract my argument.

Wait wait.. how are MY observations of life deemed incapable of being called a theory, but YOURS are? I made it up to counteract your argument, but besides that, how is it any less of a theory? Just makes I don't actually believe it doesn't mean there aren't people that don't truly believe something similar. Besides, it's still a theory, no matter what.

As for the Bible, the point is the evidence is in there ...

...there is evidence in the Bible?? I don't understand how you say there is evidence to believe in your religion because of what is in the Bible (a bunch of nonsensical stories), and yet you say there is not enough evidence for the things science has proven to be factual. Very logical...

But you can make a choice. Of course you can believe in things without evidence. I thought about your lobster, and it didn't make sense and wasn't what I wanted to believe, so I decided not to believe. You thought about God and decided there's not enough evidence. That's not the same thing. If you only thought about the Christian God, sure, all the Christian views and descriptions of him probably don't make enough sense to you, but just believing in and loving God and Jesus and an afterlife is all I'm asking. And making sense and fitting with what we feel and desire and feels right in itself is a kind of evidence for God against that lobster. I'm serious there.

Why believe in something he doesn't truly believe in? Why believe in something when he already knows it doesn't make sense. Why believe in something when there's absolutely no evidence it exists?

BLASPHEMY! NEVER SAY THAT! AND REPENT! for those last three words you said, which I'm betting you won't do, and also already predict I will get made fun of for, but anyway the reason I'm against homophobia is because I am homosexual and can't make myself not be and i know it is what I need to be happy and stay alive, so I know anything that might be in the Bible saying I can't be is wrong. However, that you are against religion and trying to make others be, despite not knowing for yourself if it is true or not, shows your doing it for more than just not believing it as you claim, so that's why I say it's not really that you truly don't believe deep down and are just rejecting it, choosing to go against it.

lol.

Where does it say that if you pray it will definately come true?

John 15:7
"But if you stay joined to me and my words remain in you, you may ask any request you like, and it will be granted!"

There you go.

Thta's not pray for whatever and you'll get it. That's that if you truly remain believing and choosing him and listen to and adhere to his words, then you'll be the kind of person to get the kind of things you should get. I'm pretty sure even you know he probably doesn't mean "If you ask me to kill someone for you or send you down a flying monkey, I definately absolutely will do that!"[/quote]
It clearly says "make any request you like"..
And the definition of a prayer? -- "to make a request in a humble manner".

Based on that one quote from the Bible, it's hard for me to interpret it (even when I'm trying to force myself to) in the same way you tried to. It just doesn't sound like that in any way. It says "make a request" as in, ask for something. An action. Not passively live a good life and you'll get what you deserve (which still isn't true in our world anyways).

[Disney Duster]

B) because part of me wants to destroy all organised religion. You've got to start somewhere.

But people will always believe things no matter what you do, and the ones that believe in the same things will want to gather and feel good being together with their similarities. That is what organized religion is, and surely you see to try to destroy that is actually a very cruel and oppresive thing.

Ad for the Bible, the point is the evidence is in there despite the other things in there you see as bad and not making sense which for all we know was caused by the kind of things Super Aurora mentioned about the King James Bible and the other things I mentioned of altering God's word.

But...why do you think that the parts of the Bible you dislike aren't God's word (and were written in or by King James, etc.) but the parts you like are? It's a fascinating coincidence, don't you agree? You don't get your morals from religion, you get there elsewhere; otherwise, you wouldn't "cherry-pick" or look at parts of your own Holy Book critically.

You're just viewing what I said negatively. It's as simple as if there are parts of the Bible that I can't accept or make me happy, then I can't believe them. The difference between you and me is I try to accept them by having spiritual faith and positivity, but you don't use faith at all, you refuse, you choose to only use logic and try think of any negative points to refute anything in it.

The idea of Heaven isn't any more probable than the idea of the singing lobster, because both have an equal amount of proof and absolute disproof: zero.

It's more probable in making more sense and feeling more right. The idea of a loving God who always was, souls, an afterlife, Jesus, the commandments and some stories from the Bible, just at least seems to go more with everything we have known and heard about in life than the lobster.

As for your belief that Heaven "feels more right..."; maybe centuries ago, people believed that it "felt more right" for the Earth to be flat than round"

That's not the kind of feeling I'm talking about. That's a feeling about the phyiscality of something. Not the feeling of spirituality. Anyway it doesn't matter. What matters is using what feels right until its disproven. The Earth being flat was disproven, other stuff hasn't been.

I can't make a choice. I. Cannot. Make. Myself. Believe. Something. (Unless Ingsoc is involved ). Even if I thought religion was good, even if I had "belief in belief", I could not forcibly believe in God. I can't choose to have faith. And you can't just favour the God theory over the lobster theory simply because it's not what you want to believe. Again, centuries ago people may have preferred to believe that the Earth was round rather than flat, but it is round despite this. Furthermore, the idea of an omnipotent, gigantic being who can hear everything we say and think, see everything we see and do; a being who is part of nature, outside nature and all of nature, is indestructible, immortal and the creator of everything in the universe...that makes less sense to me than a singing lobster floating around outside the universe.

You can choose to have faith. You aren't trying. It's a simple as choosing to believe. You might as well say you can't make any choices in life at all.

BLASPHEMY! NEVER SAY THAT! AND REPENT! for those last three words you said, which I'm betting you won't do, and also already predict I will get made fun of for, but anyway the reason I'm against homophobia is because I am homosexual and can't make myself not be and i know it is what I need to be happy and stay alive, so I know anything that might be in the Bible saying I can't be is wrong.

Aha! So you trust yourself more than you trust God or the Bible. That's good, Duster. Hopefully it's the first step in you moving away from your religion (although this is probably unlikely...).

Nope. What I believe is God is not strictly just what I read in the Bible. What I believe in an trust is God is what I feel inside myself the same as how I feel happiness from being able to be gay. They are one in the same.

There it is again. You're trying to use some certain parts you find in the Bible and any other things that may or may not actually be what God or Christianity is as ammunition to aid you purposely trying to not believe and make others not believe.

And...? So what if I do? That's like a defendant in a criminal court complaining that using certain evidence found at the crime scene that using it may make others believe that he's guilty.

No its not. In order for that example to work that would be God "saying don't use evidence at the crime scene against me", which is not what's happening because you don't know if any of the stuff you call "evidence" actually is God's word or even if you're interpreting right or even if your using it as evidence in the right way.

Okay, so what if there is a devout believer who is dying of a fatal disease, and prays for the cure because he won't be able to support his children. It doesn't matter if you think it's okay that if they're not supported, because they'll get to Heaven and whatnot. According to many parts of the News Testament, including the part I quoted, that believer would get the cure.

No you still don't definately know if he'd get the cure. It probably means what they ask will be granted only if it's what must happen according to God's plan. The people hearing Jesus probably understood that. But you want to take what is said literally and to an extrem just to support your negative view. Or maybe you think too literally. I bet that could be a big part of it.

So are you saying that the millions of things science has discovered (and yes, they are facts) are all up for question? We aren't composed of cells, rain isn't evaporated water, water isn't composed of H20, oxygen isn't required for survival... all the scientific FACTS about biology, the ecosystem, chemistry, physics.. all of those things are things no one can know for fact? I'm not saying universal theorems (that haven't or cannot been proven thus far) are fact. I'm not saying the Big Band theory is fact. I'm not even going to say that the theory of Evolution is fact. However, there have been thousands and thousands of tests to prove scientific beliefs so that they CAN be called fact. It's a fact we need oxygen to live. It's a fact that plants need water and sunlight to grow. It's a fact that fire needs oxygen, a fuel source, and heat. It's a fact that earthquakes are shifting of tectonic plates in the earth. There were all proven thanks to science. Care to dispute any of these? Go ahead, you're wrong.

No. I'm not saying that. Sure some of those seem like facts that will never be disproved. I'm saying you tell children "this is what science thinks about the world" and with religion you tell children "this is what some people think spiritually exists in the world" and you let them make up their minds. And if a child is very worried about feeling life is empty or that they'll just die, and asks a parent to just tell them something to be sure of, it's okay for a parent to say God made and loves them and they'll go to heaven when they die. Later in life, when the child grows up, they will know their parent said it out of love, and form their own religious beliefs regardless.

Yes that's why my theory is more logical and no to your last sentence because your observations of life and how things work did not make your theory, you just made it up to be ridiculous and try to counteract my argument.

Wait wait.. how are MY observations of life deemed incapable of being called a theory, but YOURS are?

That's not what I said. I pointed out you didn't make your theory on any observations about life, you made it only to combat my theory which was made on my observations.

As for the Bible, the point is the evidence is in there ...

...there is evidence in the Bible?? I don't understand how you say there is evidence to believe in your religion because of what is in the Bible (a bunch of nonsensical stories), and yet you say there is not enough evidence for the things science has proven to be factual. Very logical...

It's evidence merely in that is supposed to contain within it the word of God written down and details of spirituality. It's something and it's there. That's all it needs to be. If you choose to not believe it it is your choice.

Why believe in something when there's absolutely no evidence it exists?

Because it's hope and it's positive.

It clearly says "make any request you like"..
And the definition of a prayer? -- "to make a request in a humble manner".

Based on that one quote from the Bible, it's hard for me to interpret it (even when I'm trying to force myself to) in the same way you tried to. It just doesn't sound like that in any way. It says "make a request" as in, ask for something. An action. Not passively live a good life and you'll get what you deserve (which still isn't true in our world anyways).

I'm pretty sure you also have the problem of taking it too literally. You must think of it along with the other things about the religion, like that God would not grant for instance something evil to someone who believed in him and prayed. You always must take it in relativity.

[Heartless]

No. I'm not saying that. Sure some of those seem like facts that will never be disproved. I'm saying you tell children "this is what science thinks about the world" and with religion you tell children "this is what some people think spiritually exists in the world" and you let them make up their minds. And if a child is very worried about feeling life is empty or that they'll just die, and asks a parent to just tell them something to be sure of, it's okay for a parent to say God made and loves them and they'll go to heaven when they die. Later in life, when the child grows up, they will know their parent said it out of love, and form their own religious beliefs regardless.

I was addressing the fact that you said that science cannot be "truly known,"- to quote you. You keep saying that some of my examples only "seem like facts." How aren't they facts? Those were some of the most basic scientific principles of the world. I understand when you say that things in science constantly change, but that really only refers to grand theories about things.. Not about basic scientific facts we can experience on a daily basis.

By the way, it's not what science thinks about the world. Science explains exactly how things happen in the world. It's not subjective, and in my opinion its imperative for people to get an understanding of how the world around them functions. It is not imperative for them to be taught what "some people think spiritually exists in the world." If a parent wants to do that to their kids, that is a different story...

That's not what I said. I pointed out you didn't make your theory on any observations about life, you made it only to combat my theory which was made on my observations.

No, I continued and said that there may be someone out there who actually believes this. The point isn't what the theory is, it's that there are theories out there that are based on observations that you would think are foolish and nonsensical that people truly believe. Just because you know I made that up to counter your argument doesn't mean you know I don't truly believe a theory about life that you think is silly (which still wouldn't make it any less logical than yours!)

It's evidence merely in that is supposed to contain within it the word of God written down and details of spirituality. It's something and it's there. That's all it needs to be. If you choose to not believe it it is your choice.

Yes, it's supposed to contain the evidence. You're claiming that it does when there is no evidence at all, and basing this assumption on faith and hope (which isn't what proof is based on).

Why believe in something when there's absolutely no evidence it exists?

Because it's hope and it's positive.

I believe that to be a lousy reason. If that's all it takes for believing in something, then believing in some other life-after-death phenomenon after you die (that you would say is completely ridiculous) shouldn't be a problem. Basically you are saying that believing in God and heaven makes you feel better about yourself while you are alive, thinking there is a place to go. Oh, and its more 'logical' than anyone else's life-after-death theory. It's pretty selfish if you ask me.