Pali Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 My reason for attempting to provide people reason to doubt their beliefs? Because I find religious faith to be, in many cases, an extremely powerful divisive and intolerant force. I live in a country that, more and more, is being slowly taken over by Christian conservatives that want to use their beliefs to decide how I should live my life. They are trying to convince people that the scientific method is flawed because it contradicts a Bronze Age text written by dozens of different authors and verifiably put together by men. They are trying to stop friends of mine who love each other from being able to get married. I may be a weak atheist, but I am VERY antitheistic because I do not want someone else's belief in what I consider to be a fairy tale myth deciding what I can and can't do with my life. We live in a world that has seen exactly what powerful religious faith can do. It inspires violence, intolerance, cruelty, and murder. Not in ALL followers by any means, but in a large enough percentage that it worries the hell out of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexi Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 WC: Your nickname should be the Butcherer. You chop up, devour and digest posts faster than anyone I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 The difference, WC, between a scientific, atheist mindset and the theistic mindset is that the first never claims to have all the answers. I freely admit that I can't explain exactly how or why the universe started. This does not bother me. I can admit to having a lack of knowledge. The theistic worldview DOES claim to have the answers, even when some of those answers are later proven wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Fair enough' date=' Mystic. I continue to see it as harsh and immoral behavior on God's part, given that an omniscient being would know that they would eat of the tree anyways. Besides, if they weren't allowed to eat of it, why'd he put it there in the first place? Wasn't the Garden of Eden made for them?[/quote'] If I put a gun to your head and order you to kiss my shoes and you do it, is that love? Is that free will? Is that choice? No, it's none of those things. It's duress. It's domination. But if I ask you to kiss my shoes and offer you a choice to kiss my shoes or not and you do it of your own volition, then that's love. That's obedience. That's free choice. God wanted (and still wants) mankind to choose to know Him, love Him, and obey Him. He wants to be the loving Father that Pali mentioned before. But as a Father, He makes certain demands of His children as any good Father would. But any good Father also wants His children to choose to obey and when they choose to disobey, there are consequences. At that point, discipline and correction are needed to bring the child back in line with what is best for their well-being, health, and happiness. The tree was that choice. "Here are hundreds of things you can choose to eat. They are all perfect and delicious. This one thing you cannot. Please do not eat it, because it's bad for you if you do, and you won't like the results." How, in anyway, is that unreasonable, let alone harsh or immoral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiere Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 find religious faith to be, in many cases, an extremely powerful divisive and intolerant force. Well, having been the object of persecution for much of our time in the world, I can understand what you say, and only affirm that we have a long-standing practice of political neutrality. Only once in a blue moon has the church taken a stance on a political issue. I can think of once, maybe twice, and that was prohibition and abortion. (I could be wrong about the second one.) We've got a long history of people kicking us out of places, killing us, taking our lands, etc., and as a result I like to think that it's made most of us pretty tolerent of other viewpoints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Behrens Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 There are several things that are being bandied about. 1. Spirituality: The existance of a power or powers beyond the capacity of modern science to examine and discover that none-the-less can apply an effect to us, either in our own actions or a change in the world. 2. Creator: A spiritual being who caused all of existance to come into being through its own power. 3. G-d: A spiritual being who is worshipped as superior to the specific human worshiping. Such worship may or may not convey benefits either in this world or a world after death. In most of this thread, we have used G-d as equivalent to YHVH, the Creator G-d of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The proof for spirituality is merely the fact that people believe in it. By definition, spirituality exists as I have defined it. The question then becomes if spirituality can exist for everyone, or only those who delude themselves. The proof for a Creator is as obvious to those who are looking for it as the proof that there is a Mazda factory in Japan that made my RX-8. The problem is that people have argued themselves into believing that the immensity of the universe came into being by random chance because they want to avoid having a Creator, and therefore the possibility of G-d. A cell is a far more complex structure than my RX-8, yet if I were to postulate my car assembling over hundreds of years in a bath of liquid aluminum and rubber that contained all the needed parts, it would be seen as folly. And Pali, the reason conservative Christians (amongst whose caucus I include myself) are coming out in force to vote is because atheists, feminists, enviromentalists and other secularists are voting for a country that WE don't want to live in. We live in a republic, and if Christians are a majority, you will see Christians in government. We have as much right to elect one of our own as any feminist or atheist. Our republic does not believe in "seperation of church and state", but rather the right of each man (and woman) to vote his (or her) religious beliefs. I have as much right, as long as I do not violate the constitution, to vote for a state that follows my beliefs as you for yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorCleric Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 I kinda targeted Behrens post there, but I really mean to say it to both sides. Prove god exists or prove he doesn't. Noone is going to succed. I'd just rather people no piss on each others beliefs. You want to be an aethist or a gnostic, that's cool, you want to believe in a god or many gods, that's cool too, as long as your a better person because of what you beleive. That's what I really wanted to get at, but it kinda came off as an attack on behrens, which was not intended, sorry man. WC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 If I put a gun to your head and order you to kiss my shoes and you do it, is that love? Is that free will? Is that choice? No, it's none of those things. It's duress. It's domination. But if I ask you to kiss my shoes and offer you a choice to kiss my shoes or not and you do it of your own volition, then that's love. That's obedience. That's free choice. Hrm. Kiss my shoes or be shot: Duress. Kiss my shoes or spend eternity in torment in hell: Free choice?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 What I find harsh and immoral is the punishment of all future humanity for the sins of two people. Him putting the tree there when he didn't want them to eat from it I just find really illogical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Behrens Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Kiss my shoes or spend eternity in torment in hell: Free choice?! No man is in hell, except he choose to be there. Hell was created for the rebel angels. G-d never meant for any man to be there, but men chose to go there by their rebellion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorCleric Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 The difference' date=' WC, between a scientific, atheist mindset and the theistic mindset is that the first never claims to have all the answers. I freely admit that I can't explain exactly how or why the universe started. This does not bother me. I can admit to having a lack of knowledge. The theistic worldview DOES claim to have the answers, even when some of those answers are later proven wrong.[/quote'] That's a blanket I don't think everyone fits under. I don't think everyone in religion believes they have all the answers any more than a scientist studying the big bang does. The religious just have faith that god has the answers, while the scientists believes formulas do. WC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Behrens Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 What I find harsh and immoral is the punishment of all future humanity for the sins of two people. Him putting the tree there when he didn't want them to eat from it I just find really illogical. Yet science has proven that there are genetic diseases. Why should sin not be one? As Chayesh has already addressed, you cannot love without the option to hate. G-d did not want humans who merely existed with Him. He wanted love, and so He gave the choice of hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiere Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Pali: Refer back to my second nephi post. However, that is, admittedly, a stance not like any other in the Christian world, as far as I am aware. Raar: We happen to believe that hell is a lack of progression and being out of God's presence. We'd probably put it as a person goes where he is happy. We see it as very real, just not the fiery pokers and whatnot. Edit: No man is in hell, except he choose to be there. Hell was created for the rebel angels. G-d never meant for any man to be there, but men chose to go there by their rebellion. Well put, B-Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexi Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 What worries me about the U.S in particular is how state and church separated in order to keep the state out of the church's affairs, rather than the other way around, like it was in most of Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Behrens Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 By the way, I would like to thank everyone for keeping this thread clean of personal insults and a fun discussion. Please continue it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 The proof for spirituality is merely the fact that people believe in it. By definition' date=' spirituality exists as I have defined it. The question then becomes if spirituality can exist for everyone, or only those who delude themselves.[/quote'] You cannot believe something into existence. Either a spiritual world exists or it does not. There is no inbetween. The proof for a Creator is as obvious to those who are looking for it as the proof that there is a Mazda factory in Japan that made my RX-8. The problem is that people have argued themselves into believing that the immensity of the universe came into being by random chance because they want to avoid having a Creator, and therefore the possibility of G-d. A cell is a far more complex structure than my RX-8, yet if I were to postulate my car assembling over hundreds of years in a bath of liquid aluminum and rubber that contained all the needed parts, it would be seen as folly. You are absolutely right, because there is no such thing as natural selection, genetic mutation, or gene flow in such a situation. However, they do exist in the real world. If you'd like to argue evolution over creationism, I'm all for getting into it. And Pali, the reason conservative Christians (amongst whose caucus I include myself) are coming out in force to vote is because atheists, feminists, enviromentalists and other secularists are voting for a country that WE don't want to live in. We live in a republic, and if Christians are a majority, you will see Christians in government. We have as much right to elect one of our own as any feminist or atheist. Our republic does not believe in "seperation of church and state", but rather the right of each man (and woman) to vote his (or her) religious beliefs. I have as much right, as long as I do not violate the constitution, to vote for a state that follows my beliefs as you for yours. You are very much able to do this. I do not in any way deny your rights to organize and present your views. I simply exercise that same right. As for separation of church and state... Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." The First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The government of the United States is very clearly meant to be a secular institution that does not in any way impede the religious lives of its subjects. Creating laws that are based purely on religious beliefs is not American. Your religion is not to impede my lifestyle any more than my lack of religion is to impede yours. When your religious views are making you vote against allowing gays to marry, that's religious views impeding someone else's lifestyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Yet science has proven that there are genetic diseases. Why should sin not be one? As Chayesh has already addressed, you cannot love without the option to hate. G-d did not want humans who merely existed with Him. He wanted love, and so He gave the choice of hate. Sin is breaking a behavioral code. It is an action that one chooses to undertake. I don't see that in any way as comparable to random mutation causing genetic diseases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexi Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 I was wondering about Hell actually... Was it not created, in the way most of us imagine it, by Dante? And later used by an instrument of power by the catholic church? Religion has influenced politics too much than what I would consider apropriate, especially when it began hurting people's feelings. Well.. and their bodies. To me, a separation from politics and religion is neccesary to preserve the integrity of both. Religion is very personal, based very much on emotion, and differs from person to person. I can't say if that is or is not a good thing in a political debate... but I think most religious politicians (at least where I live) are not as concerned about the minorities in society, and generally strive to return to a place that I would rather not see. EDIT: Also, would it not be possible that God ,or the creator, or whatever you prefer to call him, just put the world in motion (I think this was mentioned before) and then retired? That would be a way to explain evolution if you are religious. I believe in evolution and advancement. Anything else defies my sense of logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 The Christian concept of Hell was borrowed and altered from various previous myths. Dante's Divine Comedy simply introduced the idea of varying levels of Hell depending on the sin (which, in all honesty, would make sense). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Behrens Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 I believe everyone in the United States should have the right to marry, and I am not aware of any state that infringes on that right. Last I checked, it didn't matter what you did in the bedroom, any man can marry any woman in our entire Union. We did away with racist laws about that decades ago. Now, if you mean that a man can marry another MAN, then you are redefining marriage, which I'm opposed to the government doing. Actually, I suspect that most people are still against polygamy, despite the fact that it, likewise, is government interfering in morality. In strict point of fact, of course, all laws are "impositions of morality". Our republican system of government merely lets the majority decide which morality to impose. At the moment, it appears that mine is still in the lead. This is tangentially why I am opposed to Roe v. Wade. Not because I am against abortion (although I am), but because I believe that abortion should be a legislative decision, not a judicial one. Just as the legalization or illegalization of drugs should also not be decided in the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 EDIT: Also, would it not be possible that God or the creator or whatever you prefer to called him just put the world in motion (I think this was mentioned before) and then retired? That would be a way to explain evolution if you are religious. I believe in evolution and advancement. Anything else defies my sense of logic. That's the general position of deists. Most of the Founding Fathers of America fall under that category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Also, Pali touched on something crucial earlier when he said essentially that faith is "untouchable". That's true and it is the requisite commodity for belief in the spiritual. I know that it's the struggle many have with Christianity in particular. People are looking for rationality, but in fact, there is nothing rational about Christianity per se. Allow me to clarify and I will be using Judeo-Christian doctrine under the assumption that it is true. God: Perfect, holy, glorious, all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent, and completely righteous. Mankind: Created perfect originally, but fallen away through his own choices to rebel and disobey the commands of his Creator, doomed through this choice to be judged on the basis of these deeds, and as imperfect, doomed to be eternally separated from a perfect holy God who created him. If you have a significant other (boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse, life partner) who lies to you and cheats on you and otherwise treats you like worthless crap, how many times would you forgive such offenses? Once? Ten? Twenty? Probably not too long would go by before they get shown the door. How many times have I disobeyed God in my life? I couldn't even begin to count how imperfect and flawed I am. And yet the Christian doctrine that God, through belief in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, will forgive me, and that the whole reason Christ came, died, and rose was FOR me (and all of mankind) because He wanted to forgive me and have fellowship with me makes not a whit of rational sense. I know humans who don't want to forgive me for stupid things I've done, and they are just as screwed up a person as I am. Why would a holy God want to do that? This is the quandry of, and thus the necessity for, faith as the key to spiritual belief. It is not only the belief that God is, but that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 By "friends who love each other", I meant gay friends. ^_~ And actually, there are several states that still have laws (generally unenforced, but they remain on the books) against anal and oral sex. (EDIT: Yes, even in their own homes.) Would you be willing to allow gays a civil union that has every single right that marriage does? If so, what's the difference, other than the words used? And actually, I do not think polygamy should be illegal. I do see it as the government intruding on people's private lives. I do not think that prostitution should be illegal, nor do I think responsible drug use that doesn't harm others should be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goomf Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 No man is in hell' date=' except he choose to be there. Hell was created for the rebel angels. G-d never meant for any man to be there, but men chose to go there by their rebellion.[/quote'] That's like candy coating it. Let's view the analysis. Put a gun to someone's head and say 'kiss my shoe or die'. That person has a choice between disobeying and dying or obeying and not dying. Obey me and believe in me or go to hell. That person has a choice between disobeying and going to hell or obeying and not going to hell. It seems there are choices in both matters. The only difference is the severity of the consequences. Thus, if we say one is under duress, the other is under duress as well considering a situation under duress is that situation at that time without reflection of the consequence. Personally, if I were given these LIMITED choices and believed in Christianity and Hell, I wouldn't want to suffer through eternity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.