Preserved Topic: Why I don't believe in God.

This has been a long time coming (had the initial discussion with Bugs months ago and it's taken this long to formalise and streamline my thoughts).

Atheism is an oft discussed subject in the Asylum but, somehow, I never quite seemed to agree with other people's thoughts, for one reason or another.

Anyways, I promised I'd think hard about this and bring my thoughts when I was ready so here goes...

I don't believe in God because... I don't need to.


*Phew*

I was so close to telling you I agree 100% with your answer... but I can't.

I have to ask for clarification. You don't need to... for what?

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs - I think your question summed it up just right

For what?

Life

For me it's the word "need", ripples the equilibrium.

:::tao:::

[edit] forgot slimey [ed]

[This message has been edited by Taobaybee (edited 01-16-2004).]

Dufty: Define "God." An atheist is one without god-beliefs of any kind for whatever reason. There are many gods. Atheism is not solely about the non-belief in the Christian God.

Just to clarify, atheism.

People often mistake an atheist for someone who believes that there isn't a God, when in reality an atheist is someone who lacks the belief of a God. They are two very different things. One simply states the individual defines non-existence of a God, while the other provides credit for the possibility that there is, or possibility that there isn't a God.

Bad link, InSiDeR.

Princeton's WordNet is the only entry on that page that objectively defines atheism.

1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God
This is strong atheism. Strong atheism, like strong theism, is irrational. Both state what they do not know as fact. For instance, "there are no gods" and "there are gods." Neither statement can be falsified thus neither are true to any current extent.

2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
This is weak atheism. Weak atheism is also called (a)gnosticism or agnostic atheism. If one claims identification with agnosticism, that person is identifying with weak atheism. Furthermore, to say, "I am an agnostic" is grammatically incorrect. "Agnostic" is an adjective. You cannot be an adjective. Agnosticism regards the how and atheism regards the what.

quote:

---

What is atheism?
By metahuman

Those who are without god-beliefs of any kind for whatever reason are, by definition, atheists. I am an atheist. The idea that atheism is a religion--that atheists subscribe to an atheistic doctrine--is an old idea, outdated by science. Dogmatism is defined as "an inclination toward or the act of asserting opinions as though they were facts" (wordsmyth). The opinion that gods exist is more than often held true as fact. To hold an idea as true despite all evidence to the contrary is an abdication of reason. To abdicate reason is to abdicate rationality. Thus, it is safe to say that those who positively claim the existence or non-existence of gods or of a god are behaving irrationally.

However, there are differing types of atheism: strong atheism and weak atheism. Strong atheism is essentially what Anglicans claim all "atheism" to be: the doctrine of non-existence of gods and the active promotion of that doctrine. I've concluded for the time being that strong atheism is as irrational as the strong belief in the existence of gods. This is due to the reasoning that neither side--strong atheism and strong theism--can produce evidence to support their claims. In addition, strong atheists ignore or actively deny the possibility of the existence of gods. It is reasonable to accept this possibility for several reasons known to us (three of which are listed): our current stage of cognition may not be advanced enough to determine whether what we define as illogical may actually be logical, we cannot 'know' (Kant), and we have no evidence to support strong atheism or strong theism, thus, a neutral position is optimal for rational inquiry.

Agnostic atheists (weak atheism) are atheists who are open to the possibility that gods may exist or not. I self-identify as an (a)gnostic atheistic rationalist. Believe it or not, strong theism esp. Christianity and Catholicism require theists to be fearful of their "God" for various reasons like eternal damnation and suffering, and religious societal outcasting (or oppression). This is a forced belief through fear. [ In support of Bertrand's Russell's "Why I Am Not A Christian." ]

---

Edit: Missed a bracket. ;p


[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 01-16-2004).]

Im not sure about this God/gods stuff....
But if there is something to it, I just hope He/She/They believe in me.

oops,
someone beat me too it while i was typing



[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 01-16-2004).]

I didn't see any indication that Dufty was limiting his post to the Christian God.

It pleases me to hear metahuman recognize that strong atheism is a belief and not provable. My belief in God is that, a belief. I cannot prove it to any of you no more than the strong atheist can prove He isn't there.

quote:

---

This is a forced belief through fear.

---

While this is a sufficient reason to believe, it is hardly the best one and certainly not the preferred one. Humbling oneself in God's service by extening His love to all of humanity is the purest motivation and the most powerful ever conceived. We love because He first loved us. I always feel bad when I think of great minds like Russell's because I doubt he ever fully understood that aspect of Xianity. And probably a lot of that impression came from Xians of his day, oh well.

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

While this is a sufficient reason to believe, it is hardly the best one and certainly not the preferred one.
Fear is sufficient reason to believe? Slave. Every action taken through Christianity is rooted in fear. I'm going to nickname you "Slave1."

Humbling oneself in God's service by extening His love to all of humanity is the purest motivation and the most powerful ever conceived.
Prove it, slave. Also explain how motivation can be "pure" and how motivation can be powerful. Motivation is simply the will or desire to act. Free will is not advocated by your religion. Evidence? Read the Decalogue a.k.a. the Ten Commandments.

We love because He first loved us.
Prove it. Your statement cannot be falsified. Therefore, it is neither truth, fact, however, it is an irrational assertion from ignorance based merely on propaganda written several hundred years after the so-called birth of Christ.

I always feel bad when I think of great minds like Russell's because I doubt he ever fully understood that aspect of Xianity.
I dare to say that neither Lord Bertrand Russell or any other would pity you for your unjustified desire to believe in that which is only imaginary at this point in time.

And probably a lot of that impression came from Xians of his day, oh well.
Christianity rarely changes. The Christians of Russell's time and the Christians nowadays are of the same type.

---

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 01-16-2004).]

quote:

---

Prove it, slave.

---

What was it you said to me....

"don't demand the impossible, it doesn't strengthen your argument"

Something like that...

Neither do insults.

You go a long way right off the bat to making sure people don't listen to you with your insults and unreasonable demands and dismisals.

I'd also like to point out that christianity is *not* rooted directly in the 10 commandments. It is rooted in the teachings of Jesus, which are based on change and diversion from the tenents of the old testament - primarliy boiling "god's" laws down to a simple rule, which I'll leave for Bugs to state, as he'll be able to word it properly.

And of course, since they beleive - whether or not it falls into your schema of "reason" - that Jesus and god are one and the same, your interpretation of the old testament is totally irrelevant.

quote:

---

Neither do insults.

You go a long way right off the bat to making sure people don't listen to you with your insults and unreasonable demands and dismisals.

---

Fortunately, Bugimus admitted that he is a slave in the service of a currently imaginary entity named "God." Oh, sorry, servant is a much kinder word.

quote:

---

I'd also like to point out that christianity is *not* rooted directly in the 10 commandments. It is rooted in the teachings of Jesus, which are based on change and diversion from the tenents of the old testament - primarliy boiling "god's" laws down to a simple rule, which I'll leave for Bugs to state, as he'll be able to word it properly.

---

First of all, I never said the Decalogue is the root of Christianity. No, in Christianity, the root is "God." Unfortunately, you failed to take into account the history and development of Christianity which would falsify your statement to some degree. So you're wrong here.

quote:

---

And of course, since they beleive - whether or not it falls into your schema of "reason" - that Jesus and god are one and the same, your interpretation of the old testament is totally irrelevant.

---

I suppose in the grand scheme of things, my opinion is irrelevant, however, the "Old" attribute of the Old Testament does not mean the book is outdated by the New Testament. It simply means it's much closer to the original doctrine of serving the meme of unreason.

By the way, if it's impossible, and yet Bugimus makes a claim disguised as truth thus claiming that it is possible then it is only right to say that he is a liar. But no, nobody is saying that... yet.

Slavery
I was a slave before I was reconciled into relationship with God, and I had no idea. Now I serve gladly, out of gratitude, love, because of the freedom He's given me. Free will is not only advocated by the Christian "religion", but required.

I don't expect you to understand, believe or do anything other than rebutt that point, just clarifying.

[quote]
primarliy boiling "god's" laws down to a simple rule
[quote]

Actually, 2, one of em sticks in the craw a bit though

quote:

---

But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Matthew 22:34-40

---

edit: beat me (~waves at the original topic, disappearing on the horizon~)

[This message has been edited by JKMabry (edited 01-16-2004).]

quote:

---

Oh, sorry, servant is a much kinder word.

---

Yes, it is, and a more accurate one - a servant works willingly, a slave does not. Bugimus has chosen his role. He is not required to fulfill it.

In the same way, you can easily (and perhaps even more accurately) be called a slave to this thing that you infer to be reason and rationality. It causes you to instantly dismiss and condemn anything not falling into your narrow view of things. This is very much like any fundamentatist religious group.

Bugimus is free to use reason to assess his beleifs, and challenge his faith, and consider new ideas - open to the possibility that he hasn't thought of everything. You, on the other hand, seem to have closed your mind in this shroud that you seem to think is rationality.

quote:

---

does not mean the book is outdated by the New Testament. It simply means it's much closer to the original doctrine

---

I don't recall implying that "old" meant no longer valid.

What I said is that Jesus altered the course of things, and the religion that was built around him was built on his teachings (under the assumption that he is god) which made much of the old testament less valid to them.

quote:

---

you failed to take into account the history and development of Christianity which would falsify your statement to some degree. So you're wrong here.

---

I know very much about the history and development of christianity, and fail to see how it falsifies anything I said. Explain.

quote:

---

By the way, if it's impossible, and yet Bugimus makes a claim disguised as truth thus claiming that it is possible then it is only right to say that he is a liar.

---

Ok....
You'll have to clue me in as to what you are even referring to in this one....


{edit:spelling}

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 01-17-2004).]

Bugs..I think your answear can be used by non believer as well...I dont need to believe in God..."for life"

I dont see the need as well, first of all it gives you alot of boundries and restrictions to many things...as in faith, relationships and so on....it doesnt let me believe in what I migth choose to, because he will punish me for that...

I only see a reason to believe in God is to expect an immortal life after death, which to me seems to be totaly unecessary...one life is enaugh for me

I understand religion(regardless of which god or goddess or religion) do help many people in life as spreading a wise teachings, but it also lead people to take mythtical docrines literaly and turn them blind from sience as well common sense( dont worry I know you are well educated in science) and this causes alot of arguments, fights, wars...


also to quote Einsten...he had said some of the most interesting things about God:

" I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him"


" My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment. "

" A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt about the significance of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation"

" It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished"

for Eisntein God simple ment a universe or Law's of nature...I find it quite more reasonable and rational to believe rather than God of Chritianity...also I find God of Chritianity quite ironic....He loves you but if you dont do (blah blah blah) you are going to hell...I wouldnt see much love in that, ohh well it seems to me God is based on stricked father to his child....as if you dont do what I say you wont get a candy. It portraits God too human like emotional and imperfect...it also offerce you a gift of immortality...which seems kinda dumb to me, since perhaps only greedy person with eternal dominance would want...
maybe God is not quite what we know about him....he is the most powerful afterall, perhaps he gave us a good reason to believe in him and believe what he himself only wants us to believe in him, eh? so we could all serve him? or maybe he is an evil dictator who enjoys tormenting his creation? hehe

anyway metahuman you dont have to prove yourself around here anymore, no minds will be changed...we had very long arguments and everyone showed their point of view and for the record most of us here( I think) understand you fine...you are not the only atheist or someone who doesnt like the idea to have a law maker in the skys....save your strenght its going to be pointless arguing...for the records as I mentioned(bugs is not blind fallower, he is very well educated in science...whatever/whoever he chose to worship/serve to is perhaps a personal matter....

[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 01-16-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 01-16-2004).]

Congratz, Dufty. I hope your discovery keeps you well and happy for a long time to come.

from the Devil's Dictionary:

RATIONAL, adj.
Devoid of all delusions save those of observation, experience and reflection.

~
you seem to have some strong beliefs about what you don't believe

*hides paradox in pandora's box*

ed says: you are just a figleaf of my imagination.

[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 01-17-2004).]

DL-44:

George Carlin sums it up nicely...

quote:

---

In the Bullshit Department, a businessman can't hold a candle to a clergyman. 'Cause I gotta tell you the truth, folks. When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!

But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is fucked up.

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever fuck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn't give a shit, I decided to look around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.

And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.

Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I'm unworthy. Doesn't tell me I'm a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite.

I've often thought people treat God rather rudely, don't you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. Do this, gimme that, I need a new car, I want a better job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday His day off. It's not nice. And it's no way to treat a friend.

But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you'd really like to fuck that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you'd have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and fuck up Your Plan?

And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will Be Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants to anyway, why the fuck bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It's all very confusing.

So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don't pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two reasons: First of all, I think he's a good actor, okay? To me, that counts. Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't fuck around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with.

For years I asked God to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog, Joe Pesci straightened that cocksucker out with one visit. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a simple baseball bat.

So I've been praying to Joe for about a year now. And I noticed something. I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don't. Same as God, 50-50. Same as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe, the wishing well and the rabbit's foot, same as the Mojo Man, same as the Voodoo Lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles, it's all the same: 50-50. So just pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself.

And for those of you who look to The Bible for moral lessons and literary qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want to look at the Three Little Pigs, that's a good one. Has a nice happy ending, I'm sure you'll like that. Then there's Little Red Riding Hood, although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn't care for, by the way.

And finally, I've always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I like the best? "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again." That's because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no God. None, not one, no God, never was. In fact, I'm gonna put it this way. If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody's okay? All right, tell you what, I'll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a God, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I've got a little cramp in my leg. And my balls hurt. Plus, I'm blind. I'm blind, oh, now I'm okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci. Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!


(Copyright 1999 by George Carlin. Printed without permission.)

---

quote:

---

anyway metahuman you dont have to prove yourself around here anymore, no minds will be changed...we had very long arguments and everyone showed their point of view and for the record most of us here( I think) understand you fine...you are not the only atheist or someone who doesnt like the idea to have a law maker in the skys....save your strenght its going to be pointless arguing...for the records as I mentioned(bugs is not blind fallower, he is very well educated in science...whatever/whoever he chose to worship/serve to is perhaps a personal matter....

---

It's called mental masturbation.

Regarding your last comment about religion as "personal matter", I must say, "BULLSHIT!" If Bugimus' religion was something personal for him, he'd keep it to himself instead of sermonizing whenever anyone states their position regarding theism. As for him being well-educated in science, well, that's yet to be shown to me. Your opinion of Bugimus is absolutely meaningless to me.



[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 01-17-2004).]

Do you really have to be that arrogant?

and perhaps you should try being more polite...




proving something to strangers on internet doesnt seems like Bugs is going to waste his time on that.....I am sure you are an adult...perhaps you understand...

if not well take a look at FAQ there are old posts/debates on argument about God...you can read a plenty over there

edit: fine whatever [pic removed]

[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 01-17-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 01-17-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 01-17-2004).]

Polite? On the Internet? To behave politely requires in-person interaction.

Now that Bush recently started the American Stasi are we to be subjected to the restriction of discussion on this forum as well? I am reasonably sure this is the correct forum this type of stuff.

quote:

---

Philosophy and other Silliness
What is reality? What are morals and ethics? Is there a Dog? Who really *is* on first? We're deep. You be deep too.

---

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 01-17-2004).]

Being polite is required no matter where...telephone, internet, in-person....wherever...

I mean, if politeness only required in person...so if I am applaying to college am I suppose to expect email from admission such as: " Greatings Fucker! we have got your bullshit applications! and you are accepted to our Bullshit college! YAY! Who cares what I said?! it's internet! it gives mne right not to be polite! "

why even intelectual and well educated adults are so rude?..........

edit: ohh and I always wanted to know;...what are you trying to accoplish here by offending religions(particulary christianity), I mean I am not christian but....whats your purpose? to prove that everything is bullshit? if so, all I can say you are already lost the argument...

[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 01-17-2004).]

I have to assume that posting a george carlin rant had some sort of point.

You may want to actually use your own mind, and form some words to get that point out.

I find it sadly humorous how arrogant and presumptuous you are about needing things "proven" to you, yet your words are somehow supposed to be taken as absolute, because you feel yourself "educated" somehow....as if you are some golden ray of intellect falling on us dark ignorant masses...



You put yourself up awful high on that little pedastal of yours. Talk about "mental masturbation"

Anyway, if you feel like actually stating your point, or responding to my earlier ones with actual thought - rather than quoted comedy routines - feel free. I won't hold my breath waiting for anything relevent though.

quote:

---

Being polite is required no matter where...telephone, internet, in-person....wherever...

---

Says who?

quote:

---

I mean, if politeness only required in person...so if I am applaying to college am I suppose to expect email from admission such as: " Greatings Fucker! we have got your bullshit applications! and you are accepted to our Bullshit college! YAY! Who cares what I said?! it's internet! it gives mne right not to be polite! "

---

That would actually be taken quite humorously... but then again, that's my opinion.

quote:

---

why even intelectual and well educated adults are so rude?..........

---

...because everyone else are either ignorant fools or just plain ol' idiots.

quote:

---

edit: ohh and I always wanted to know;...what are you trying to accoplish here by offending religions(particulary christianity), I mean I am not christian but....whats your purpose? to prove that everything is bullshit? if so, all I can say you are already lost the argument...

---

Aren't you the caring fella...

Are you offended by the truth? Typical.

quote:

---

You put yourself up awful high on that little pedastal of yours.

---

Aw, it's not that high, DL. It's only a few meters over your head.

quote:

---

Are you offended by the truth? Typical.

---

Hah! Still waiting for you to offer any. You have offered a great deal of conjecture and opinion, but that's about it so far......

Wow!
Write a post, go offline for a few days (stoopid ISP) and come back to a food-fight!

GrythusDraconis Thank you. If ever I find that my worl/outlook changes, I may reconsider my current but, until that time, it's where I'm at.

In answer to the 'need' question, I'll elaborate slightly:

*NOTE* The following ramble is an opinionated mass of thoughts to which I'll try and build in some structure, but can't promise!

Since I first heard about God, I wondered what exactly could exert so much power on the mind of my family, friends and neighbours. What unseen force drove them to church every Sunday and compelled them to take me with them (I have questioned everything from the day I learned to say 'Why?', and to this day, I still question).

In his misguided way, metahuman is right in line with my belief that the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven. This question of proof drove my questioning.

I have, over the years, spent a great deal of time talking with individuals who follow many religious doctrines and each one seems to follow the same pattern:

1: Here are a set of rules/guidelines within which you should conduct your life and by doing so, you will be considered 'Good' by your peers. (Some suggest a great reward after death, others suggest reincarnation in a pleasant form while others get really confusing, simply due to the sheer volume of deities to worship.

2: Accept ad follow these rules/guidelines unquestioningly.

3: Take time to thank God(s) for caring enough to concieve these rules and lay them down for us.

4: Don't question the existence of God(s), just have faith that (s)he exists.

I hope that didn't come over as patronising in any way. The one consistent factor in all my years is that I have the utmost respect for ANYONE's faith/belief system.

Anyway, the notion of faith bothered me because I find it dificult to accept things as being the truth, without evidence. Furthermore, I can't accept that a higher power (God) has a hand in guiding our lives (if it should transpire that I am incorrect in my assumption, I don't think that God and I would get along too well!).

When I meet individuals who have faith, I am overwhelmed. To (again, no offence intended) blindly have faith is a) a beautiful thing and b) something I could never do.

I don't know if my way is right or wrong, but that's for me to work out I guess. What I do know is that I have no room in my life for religion and consequently, God.

When I wonder about the physical make-up of world around me, I turn to science.
When I wonder about the complexities of existence, I turn to philosophy.
When I wonder about the beauty of life, I turn to art.

Between these 'doctrines' I find my answers, or I at least find the path which will guide me to those answers.

Given all this, why do I need God to complicate things?

Hope that made sense.


Psst!

Dufty: I love that post...

It's funny that so much can come from someone just saying that they don't believe in god...

[This message has been edited by Rauthrin (edited 01-17-2004).]

I came back to this thread because I was intrigued to see if Dufty had added any more comments to his initial starter.
I find it rather sad to say that I am not surprised that it has been dominated by an arrogant self opinionated individual, who seems to either not know, or care, whether they insult others.
The reason for my posting again is this:
I find the picture you have posted Ruski, to be offensive. I have tried to think of it as harmless fun but I can't.
The title "Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded", shows, at best, a great lack of understanding and compassion. Did you stop to think if anyone here reading this had been affected with "Down's Syndrome", or if they had children who had been affected? I know quite a few people whose lives have been touched in this way, and the spirit they show to make the best they can out of their lives, makes them all winners to me.
The biggest obstacle they usually have to overcome in their lives is the prejudice and ignorance shown to them by others who should know better.
I don't feel like I am overeacting here, and I'm not "demanding" the removal of the picture. Arguing, anywhere is usually counterproductive, what's needed more is open discussion, the difference is not subtle.
If you are interested I have stated my beliefs as best I could HERE I know they are not my words, but it does sum up far better than I can do at the moment, how I try to live my life.
::tao::
[edit] Whoops, Dufty you posted as I was writing this. heh[/edit]

[This message has been edited by Taobaybee (edited 01-17-2004).]

Great replay Dufty!

quote:

---

Are you offended by the truth? Typical

---

I am still wondering what kind of " truth" is metahuman talking about...

As for everything else DL summarized it clearly

..well we have another "god" in asylum, if you dont agree with him you are wrong...

[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 01-17-2004).]

There can be no real proof. Proof would prove the existance of God (or non-existance) and would take faith (an important part of Christianity) out of the picture, thus ruling out free-will, and the God-given right to make a choice in the first place.

If it came out that God and heaven and hell were definately real, people would simply believe, just because. At least they would if they feared eternal damnation.

My 2 cents, everyone has a right (regardless of who/where they think it comes from) to choose their path and we should all be tolerant of those choices. People not believing in God don't bother me, and people believing in God should not bother others. It is a shame it can't be like that, because maybe the world would be a little nicer sometimes.

metahuman, DL said this about you,

quote:

---

In the same way, you can easily (and perhaps even more accurately) be called a slave to this thing that you infer to be reason and rationality. It causes you to instantly dismiss and condemn anything not falling into your narrow view of things. This is very much like any fundamentatist religious group.

---

I think he has described how you interact with others here very accurately. You speak of DL-44 being offended by truth. Are you offended by the fact that you cannot abide individuals having opinions different from your own?

Aside from this trait making you a very unpleasant person to deal with it also indicates that you are insecure in your beliefs. I am more than happy to explain why I hold the positions I do to you. In fact, I have been doing just that and it has been met with you saying I'm brainwashed, nearly calling me a liar, and even questioning my education. I want to have an intelligent conversation with you, I'm not interested in swapping insults.

quote:

---

God has formed us moral agents... that we may promote the happiness of those with whom He has placed us in society, by acting honestly towards all, benevolently to those who fall within our way, respecting sacredly their rights, bodily and mental, and cherishing especially their freedom of conscience, as we value our own.
--Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814

---

To that end, I'll respond to a few things.

I said that fear of punishment is a sufficient reason to believe, I did not say it was the best reason. Simple as that.

quote:

---

Free will is not advocated by your religion. Evidence? Read the Decalogue a.k.a. the Ten Commandments.

---

The doctrine of Free Will is one of the most basic and fundamental concepts in Xianity. What evidence do you require? I'll go ahead and quote one of the most quoted verses from Jesus' teachings: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." The invitation has been made and it is open to all to choose for or against it.

It would seem that you're saying that the 10 commandments nullify free will. That doesn't make a lot of sense because God does not force anyone to follow those commandments. A cursory glance at human history should prove that beyone any doubt. The fact that so many don't follow God's wishes should prove that we do have a choice in our own actions.

quote:

---

Prove it. Your statement cannot be falsified. Therefore, it is neither truth, fact, however, it is an irrational assertion from ignorance based merely on propaganda written several hundred years after the so-called birth of Christ.

---

You need to know that it is a standing agreement around here that when I start sounding like a preacher, I am speaking from my faith. Please understand that I have stipulated numerous times, and still do, that I cannot prove conclusively to anyone that God exists and that Jesus is His son. I have come to this conclusion based on the weight of the evidence and the facts that point in that direction.

One of my goals in discussing my faith here with such a diverse crowd is to make sure that everyone understands my faith. I believe it is based on sound reasoning and I want people to clearly understand what it is they are free to choose. My job is to be a messenger of this faith and to demonstrate the life it calls one to. I hope that helps you understand more where I am coming from.

quote:

---

If Bugimus' religion was something personal for him, he'd keep it to himself instead of sermonizing whenever anyone states their position regarding theism.

---

You would like it if everyone kept their opinions to themselves? You're both right. My faith is an intensely personal matter and it is so wonderful that I want others to have the option in sharing in it as well. And don't tell me that what works for me can't work for others, after all didn't Jefferson also say,

quote:

---

It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.
--Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816

---

. . : slicePuzzle

Dufty, I hope you are ok with the food fight that developed there. I am glad you're back so we can deal with your original points.

quote:

---

I have questioned everything from the day I learned to say 'Why?', and to this day, I still question.

---

The day you stop asking why is the day I'll track you down and smack you!

I think your post makes lots of sense and it is very clear that you are asking many of the important questions.

I am a bit taken back at your points 1-4. Are you seriously telling me that out of all the discussions you've had with people of faith, this is a complete list? Follow a set of arbitrary rules and don't ask why? This makes me very sad because it probably means that the people you know actually see it that way.

Look, you know I'm a Christian. I hope you know that I've never stopped asking why. Sure there are guidelines on how to live a life of fulfillment but what process in this life doesn't require the proper steps to make it work correctly? The larger point, however, is that Xianity is NOT ABOUT FOLLOWING THE RULES TO GET TO HEAVEN.

Xianity is all about realizing, yes taking that leap of faith, that God will accept you as you are, forgive all your sins, and treat you like one of his own. Once you make that step of faith, you follow the rules, so to speak, out of love for God and your fellow humans. God does not decide to let you into heaven because you did x number of good deeds, but because you trust Him to be your God. The apostle Paul explained this in the book of Romans. Our faith in God is counted to us as though we were perfect and without sin.

So a couple of questions for you then,

1) What exactly does it mean to you to blindly have faith?

2) Why don't you think that you and God wouldn't get along if He is indeed there?

quote:

---

Given all this, why do I need God to complicate things?

---

I'm going to stick with my original answer above... LIFE. What I mean by that is that Christ came not to condemn us all to hell but to give us life. And He doesn't stop there, He wants us to live our lives more fully. He created us for a purpose and when we join in His perfect will to fulfill that purpose, our lives overflow with every good thing. I am not telling you what to do because it is absolutely your call. You stated it perfectly above when you said it's for you to work out. You can go it without Him, I'm just saying you are missing out on so many great things if you do.

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

Given all this, why do I need God to complicate things?

Hope that made sense.

---

Everything you said makes perfect sense, and I agree whole hreatedly that god and religion only complicates things.

{edit: and back to bugimus -

I Have had countless discussions with Bugimus (with whom I disagree on *so* many things ) about religion and many other subjects, and know full well that his position is always well reasoned and completely his own.

Though I may disagree with the comclusions to which his use of reason has brought him, I acknowledge, accept, and respect the path that lead him there. And that applies to a great many people with whom I strongly disagree.

to further quote Thomas Jefferson -

quote:

---

Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it

---

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 01-18-2004).]

Bugs...I personally do not trust Paul's gospel. From hisotry Paul was rival with (Mary Magdaline=Jesus' favorite companion) after Jesus died, she beggan preaching her ideas, since she was so close to Jesus her ideas to apostles seemed very radical, especially to Paul. Paul imediatly yelled " why would Jesus choose women a above us men?" and they banished her from the crowd. The gospels were written around 60 years after apostles deaths...and Mary's gospel around 100 years after her death(yes they have found it!) . There were women movement in christianity, but they were cast out...Mary Magdaline became know as prostite (which she never was) and so on...

alot of other gospels were removed, since apostles wanted especially Mary Magdaline to be removed from stories of Gospels...of course we know there are alot of Maries(Jesus' Mom) Mary who washed Jesus' legs...they were all different!
it seems bible is very incomplete! and I do not trust it....

over all Gospels portrait the moments very differently from what archiologists have discoverd, including story of David, the apposltes and revelation.

Speaking of Revelation, it has been discovered to be a book of past rather than future. the book of revelation speaks of war during when Israelitis were rebeling among Romans, the number 666 was a number of Emperor Ceaser Nero, who was considered to be " the Devil"

and as it mentioned the christianity became major faith in Roman empire...the book of revelation overall gave people courage and will to fight against the Romans...and the only reason they won, is because it had many fallowers, and emperor decided not to fight them but rather make this particular religion official...

The Birth of Jesus between Matthew and Luke are very different, perhaps he was never born in cattle as Matthew stated...but rather Bethlehem...whom am I supposed to trust?


again, Seems like many people never heard of how did they all got together.

from what I have heard, the Jews were over taxed, and had lots of trouble with authorities. There was Jesus he was standing somewhere around the city and preaching, which attracted angry Paul and his friends fisher men...John etc.

They were attracted by his speach, Jesus said alot of radical things, which made them join him to cause revolt movement. It was particula against jew authorities, the high priests and rabbies. Jesus did not like the way they worshipedand wanted to change everything(he gained all his knowledge by spending alot of time near temples listening priests debating, since he alwasy came with his father to sell woodwork)

It appears that Jesus was not the First Messiah for Jews...he was the first who used non-violent movement.

quote:

---

you are missing out on so many great things if you do.

---

but Bugs, how would you know? why dont you try spending time with Buddha! maybe he has greater things to offer for you?

or perhaps sumbiting your will to Allah? heh....not being catholic gave me so much more room to try so many great things which I never did. (no I am not talking about drugs or alcohol)

just my 2 cents

[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 01-18-2004).]

quote:

---

This makes me very sad because it probably means that the people you know actually see it that way.

---

This makes me sad too. In all my searching, I've met very few people who have actually taken the time to consider their faith/religion. Almost all of them simply accept that it's how things are.

It's this acceptance which causes me to mistrust religions. It seems to me that historically, religion has little or nothing to do with God but is merely a method whereby someone (the Church) has said:

'Right, this is how we want people to act, so lets devise a structure which not only gets everyone to do what we want (government rule/laws), but if they don't do it or if they question why we ask them to do it, everyone else will call them outcasts so we won't need to lift a finger. That'll keep em in line and if it doesn't, we'll call them heretics and burn/excomunicate/outcast them ourselves'.

It's an over-simplified view, but it's the root of my mistrust.

If only we lived in a world where religious diversity was genuinely encouraged and everyone was free to believe what they liked (the illusion of free speach is not sufficient evidence of this existing yet) without facing the contempt of others.

As for your questions Bugs:
1) What exactly does it mean to you to blindly have faith?

I'm not entirely certain but for me, there has to be a degree of tangability... for example, do I believe that leaves are green? Yes, because I can see them and I have been eucated to believe that the particular reflected part of the spectrum is called green. Do I believe in God? Show me God (or at least evidence of) and I'll be queuing up at the altar with the next man.

I accept that my understanding of the world requires a degree of faith in what I have been taught, but I also believe that it is first necessary to consider and question these teachings in order to further understand or indeed disprove, but this practice has already been labelled science.

What I can't accept is "This is how it is... believe it".
I simply can not bend to this.


2) Why don't you think that you and God wouldn't get along if He is indeed there?

That's an easy one

Most all Gods, in any religion (and particularly God of the bible and Allah) are jealous, vengeful and intollerant (of other deities and religious practices).

The same God(s) did nothing to prevent the slaughter of millions in their name (I'm refering to the countless religious wars and inquisitions over the last 7 thousand years).

God seems to bear all of the human elements I have tried hard to purge from my reportoire because they breed 'evil' thoughts and/or behaviour (in me at least).

Failing the existance of God, I turn my anger to those who perpetuate intollerance. That's the core of it I think... I object to religious intollerance and I resent 'preaching'.

I cannot accept the existance of an all-powerful being who is apparently so insecure in his alleged omnicience that such intolerance is not actively discouraged... unless he just doesn't care, in which case, why should I?


It's getting late and I'm losing touch with my cognitive processes.


[edit - UBB]

[This message has been edited by Dufty (edited 01-18-2004).]

Dufty,
I find your posts here to be honest and moving. I feel I can understand where you are coming from, and in order for a full and balanced discussion to take place I will, in the very near future, write down in my own words my personal beliefs.
This is not something I undertake lightly. I am an intensely private person and the thought of publishing what is in essence, the very core of my being, is abhorrent to me. However, over the past year in the ?Ozone Asylum? I have read many accounts of people?s beliefs, people whose opinion/judgment I have come to trust as honest and sincere.
So for proper dialogue to take place it is fitting that I let you and those ?others? know more about me.
Until then, I think you have a vague idea of where I'm coming from by my online name "Tao".
'Tis late and I need to sleep.

MH. I try to think what motivates you to relish in disproving the Christian God in a way that seems to portray you arrogantly insensitive. Believe me I know how it feels to be the recipient of harsh insensitive remarks, but I figure, its not that some posters don't like me. Its that there is prejudice directed at me because of what I represent. There are others in this asylum who speak the same language you do, its just that they don't come across as strong as you do. To me when a poster has to resort to foul language and hurtful personal remarks, it shows childish immaturity and insecurity when they cannot debate, rebutt or discuss in a rationalized considerate way.

Per MH & Bugs
While this is a sufficient reason to believe, it is hardly the best one and certainly not the preferred one.

Fear is sufficient reason to believe? Slave. Every action taken through Christianity is rooted in fear. I'm going to nickname you "Slave1."

I would say yes in the beginnings of a my call to Christ there was fear of God when I was small and into early adulthood. And this was due to the biblical God of the OT and teachings I received in faith. But as I matured in faith the fear is no longer there. And I believe this is the way one travels in wisdom of faith if one keeps looking for that deep relationship with God. Just like in our childhood fears in life we mature in all things that we are no longer afraid of, so with the our spirit, it matures in the knowlege of who God is for us too. I say that its like God is one big giant magnet and we are tiny mirco magnets that gravitate to him as we grow in faith and when we live the gospel we latch on to the magnet & melt into it and become one with it. In this the greatness of God magnifies in all things. "My soul doth magnify the Lord", says Mary in scripture because she was full of grace. Christians are already stepping into their heaven by the visions they have thus been allowed to see so far So if you want to label Christians as slaves, I can think of no other name I would love to be called than a slave to the love of God. So label me slave3

Humbling oneself in God's service by extening His love to all of humanity is the purest motivation and the most powerful ever conceived.

Prove it, slave. Also explain how motivation can be "pure" and how motivation can be powerful. Motivation is simply the will or desire to act. Free will is not advocated by your religion. Evidence? Read the Decalogue a.k.a. the Ten Commandments.

Here again, you speak too soon MH. I am sure you have humbled yourself up to this point in your life. If you are a married person you vowed to humble yourself to your wife in your vows of marriage. I know husbands do a lot of that for love of spouse. So what motivites humbleness, love does. So if married you are slave to your wife/husband. Same thing with the persons you love, would you humble yourself for brother, sister, mother, father, son, daughter, Yes. Definitly Yes. Or your labeled an uncaring, selfish person. This desire to act comes from love, which is universally practiced and MH has yet to rationalize. Evidence of motiviation is love of which nothing is asked for in return for it. Love is powerful and because of it, it has motivated our history.

We love because He first loved us.

Prove it. Your statement cannot be falsified. Therefore, it is neither truth, fact, however, it is an irrational assertion from ignorance based merely on propaganda written several hundred years after the so-called birth of Christ.


In the same way, I know we have to rely on scripture of what we know of the history of Jesus Christ and his ministry when he lived on the earth, but all history is based on someones recorded writing. And there is no proof of history that certain history is true, so why are you apt believe lets say American history or Egyptian history and not the recorded history of Jesus Christ? Its irrational to believe a event in history happened if you were not there, since you rely on a historians facts, which could be false. 800 years from now will our ancestors believe the holocaust happend or was it propaganda?

On another point, "we love because he first loved us" cannot be proven, no more than it can be proven 150 years from now that your mother and father loved you. Or if anyone loved your or you loved anyone. No one would be alive to tell about it. Does that mean it was true or false? Your offspring would hope that you did. You have to agree love sustains us as a society. Everyone wants to be loved. Even cats and dogs do. Even the most learned intelligent cannot explain scientifically how the emotion of love originates in the human person. Because if that person could, that person would be God.

And Christianity rarely changes. The Christians of Russell's time and the Christians nowadays are of the same type.

Thanks for saying this MH. Because thats what we want to hear. Truth will never decieve or be decieved or change. Christians rely on this.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 01-19-2004).]

.. and then of course there is God's perspective on things...

Whether you believe or not.. whether you agree or not ... whether you like it or not.. no matter how much you deny and try to break faith down to a pathetic blind irrational system of thinking, (and the strength vehemence and passion of the 'anti-God' people always arouses my suspicion) ... apparently he is coming to kick everyone's butt. In Noah's day and Jesus time the did and said exactly the same things "prove it" they said "where is this God of yours" they said. Well, he did prove it.. they got their buts kicked ... on so many occasions.

I will probably get mine kicked too.. but God will always have my vote ... all that science, and this age of reason and enlightenment <cough> shows me is.. that man is an ass that thinks he's a Unicorn. God does not need us to believe in him to be validated. In fact it is perfectly right and prophetic that the majority do not believe at all.. Completely perfect.



[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 01-20-2004).]

I think God is sleeping...since one day for him is like million yeasrs for us....he is snoozing all the way....after all look whats happening! it's not like he cares...he needs to sleep

ok...matthew, mark, luke, and john...which one is paul's gospel? i'm a little confused on your comments there ruski. and yes, there are a number of other books written by different authors out there, but for various reasons they were found to be inconsistent or not divinely inspired and not included in the collected bible. i personally find it rather amazing that books written by numerous authors over more than 1500 years all line in tone, theme, and detail. most inconsistencies are simply mistranslations from the original text or misinterpretations that are easily explained. check out some of josh mcdowell's books if you're interested in that sort of thing, 'evidence that demands a verdict' among others.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Fig,

I will be at your Grace Community Church on Jan 30. My sons band is in the battle of the bands deal. His band name is Worthwhile and its alternative music. Its just young teenagers starting a band. He is the drummer and his name is Gabriel. Maybe I will see you.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 01-21-2004).]

Ehh you got me there fig

I didnt mean his book....but rather his words...so yeah...

cool jade, didn't know anything about that but i'll have to check it out, depending what i have going on that night i'll try to make it.

ruski, no worries can i ask why exactly you don't trust paul's writings tho? i've heard you mention a lot of things that sound like they could be factual but i've got no idea where you're getting those facts from, ya know? just curious.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Yummy tidbits from this discussion.

quote:

---

"Those who positively claim the existence or non-existence of gods or of a god are behaving irrationally." - Metahuman

"Im not sure about this God/gods stuff....But if there is something to it, I just hope He/She/They believe in me." - Norm

"I understand religion(regardless of which god or goddess or religion) do help many people in life as spreading a wise teachings, but it also lead people to take mythtical docrines literaly and turn them blind from sience as well common sense." - Ruski

"God is one big giant magnet and we are tiny mirco magnets that gravitate to him as we grow in faith and when we live the gospel we latch on to the magnet & melt into it and become one with it." - Jade

---

Thanks for these wonderfully thought provoking thoughts. I guess the only thing I have to add is that I do not know if there is a God the creator, but I firmly believe there is a God the rule-maker. I feel that the God of the bible, if real, is not the creator that he claims to be at the beginning of the bible. I feel that an all powerful creator would not care so much about the choices of humanity, and would not judge humans for their choices made with our limited brain capacity.

[edit]One more thing, Here is the FAQ about God[/edit]


.quotes.

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 01-23-2004).]

He was pretty much sexist, since Mary Magdaline was Jesus' closest companion I woul very much like to her her teaching. Unfortunatly Paul discriminated her simple because he felt more important than her(plus her teaching were too radical for him and perhaps did not match his oppinion). And thats how her gospel was taken away from bible...and alot of stories have been changed for she was supposed to be removed from many stories of bible....

all because of Paul and because he believed that Jesus would not chose woman above 12 men...

Ruski, much of what you say about Paul seems to come from a TV show I saw a couple months ago. I think we watched the same show, yes? I think you are referring to Peter because Paul wasn't one of the original apostles.

I'm glad you are looking more into the early history of the church. I hope you keep it up but remember there are a lot of sources of information about the early history. Try to get a good mix of them to get a better chance of getting a more balanced view.

Now you say that you do not trust one of the gospels in the NT. But why would you trust another that was written so much later? I feel that the farther we get from the people who knew Jesus and the later the works were written, the less we want to rely on their accuracy. That's a general rule of thumb.

quote:

---

over all Gospels portrait the moments very differently from what archiologists have discoverd

---

Really? Do you have some specific examples?

quote:

---

Speaking of Revelation, it has been discovered to be a book of past rather than future.

---

This has been discovered? By whom? This is an interpretation of the book of Revelation that has been around since the 1st century. In fact, I believe the earliest Xians knew exactly who "666" was referring to. If the number referred to an emperor, I would pick Domitian (sorry Emps). Domitian required that when his proclamations were read they began with the words ?Our Lord and God Domitian commands. . .? Everyone who addressed him in speech or in writing was to begin with the words: Lord and God. The Xians wouldn't do this, of course, and that made them targets of persecution.

quote:

---

It appears that Jesus was not the First Messiah for Jews...

---

Well, there were many who claimed that title before Jesus and many after Jesus and there are some Jewish sects today that think the Messiah walks among them. Jesus was "the one" according to the NT. That is *the* point of Xianity, Jesus is absolutely central. If he wasn't the Messiah, then Xianity is null and void.

quote:

---

but Bugs, how would you know? why dont you try spending time with Buddha! maybe he has greater things to offer for you?

---

I am aware of what Buddha offers. He tells me that if I want ultimate happiness, I must strive to empty myself of everything. I must move from the physical to the ethereal and thus release myself from this hell in which I wallow. Once I can let it all go, I will eventually attain enlightenment. Interesting idea to be sure. But how can I make a judgement as to which approach to life is based on the truth? Xianity and Buddhism are utlimately incompatible. Which one is correct? This is the task before me, not which one I *like* more. Trust me, if I thought Buddha was more credible than Christ I would be saffron clad and incense obsessed

Keep this in mind when you consider Buddhism and Islam, Christ claimed to be God, Buddha and Mohammed did not.

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

Now you say that you do not trust one of the gospels in the NT. But why would you trust another that was written so much later? I feel that the farther we get from the people who knew Jesus and the later the works were written, the less we want to rely on their accuracy. That's a general rule of thumb.

---

I never said I trusted any of them.
---------------------------------------------------
and thast excatly why I do not like idea of chritianity, the reason he claims to be God.

I do not see any good reason to admire him ar all...all powerful creator of universe does not feel special enough and wants to be worshiped. aye! I don't see how can he keep punishing his creation for their stupidities for which only he himself can be held responsible.

now buddha is another story, he was a rich bastard who found a way! to helped millions to reach peace and happiness without money!
at that time! now thats an archivement! YAY! (of course he did moret han that )

AND he is not GOD! hehe

quote:

---

Well, there were many who claimed that title before Jesus and many after Jesus and there are some Jewish sects today that think the Messiah walks among them. Jesus was "the one" according to the NT. That is *the* point of Xianity, Jesus is absolutely central. If he wasn't the Messiah, then Xianity is null and void.

---

yes, yes...just an oppinion and a story spread by several men....to more and more men....

quote:

---

This has been discovered? By whom?

---

do not worry yourself not by just one man...but by biblical scholars and archiologists.

and bugs, it was emperor Nero...he was killing whole lot of christians! and they waged war against him
here is some random link about him and his war agains hebrew http://www.agabus.co.uk/hebrews/

link added: http://www.angelmessage.org/pilgrimspromise/antichrist.htm


and thats to whom 666 was refered to, so yeah book of revelation=history
(I am not sure how"I did not pay attention to that part", but they some how can turn your name from letters into a numbers....some additions and subtractions some letters are certain numbers or something,so basicaly they showed it with name Emperor nero in hebrew and it turned out 666...if anyone knows about that numbers stuff please let me know more)


ohh and I remembered just now, Nero forced everyone to worship Roman Gods including christians, this is a damn good reason for christians to lead war agains him me think.


[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 01-25-2004).]

Ruski, your understanding of the facts we have to work with is a bit imcomplete. Of course, my understanding is incomplete too but there are several things you're saying that really need correction. This can be done by further study and reading on your part. I am pleased that you are reading about this stuff at all and I am not criticizing you for that. Keep on reading and learning so we can continue these discussions together.

I hope you don't mind me speaking to you that way, I hope you trust that I am sincere in wanting you to learn and grow That really is my motivation.

Anyways, I didn't say that there were not good reasons to think Nero was the one mentioned in Revelation. I'm just saying that I think Domitian is a better choice. But to be sure they were both enemies of the early church.

You mentioned making war against the emperor. The early Xians had no army and they did not make war on anyone. Even if they wanted to, they had no means.

Constantine was the first Roman emperor to convert to Xianity, partly because his mother was a Xian. Once that happened, Xianity could rise from persecution by the empire and it even became the official religion under Constantine's reign.

. . : slicePuzzle

Ruski - As Bugimus said, it's great that you are working to expand your knowledge in this area.

You need to be careful, however, not to jump on every "fact" you see printed somehwere which seems to support the idea you'd like it to support. If yo are too eager to disprove the teachings of christianity, there is no way you can be objective enough to analyze the information yo are coming across - you will instantly jump to the conclusion that is already in you rhead.

In this way, you will end up being exactly like the people you are trying so hard to discredit.

It's also important to remember that just because one source says things one way, doesn't mean that it is true...

Take a little more time to cross reference things, and do it with the goal of learning - not debunking. You'll be much better for it.

quote:

---

I don't see how can he keep punishing his creation for their stupidities for which only he himself can be held responsible.

---

i think this goes to the heart of why so many people question or deny the existance of God. he cannot, by definition, be pigeonholed or catogorized by such a question. he is beyond our human conception or definition. otherwise he would not BE God.

they say "God is love". love is something you give and recieve by choice. i can love you all day long, but unless you recieve it (by choice - and it's sometimes harder to recieve than give - call it egotism, narcissim, whatever) it doesn't benefit you at all. and what has it done for me? it breaks my heart, so to say.

unless you recieve love (God?) into your heart, (imho) you have no clue as to what love is or how to give it. and if you think you know what love is (like "i love my kids" or " i love my girl/boyfriend") , then maybe you DO have a clue.

we are all judged (God forbid) by ourselves, as well as others. by what we do and say, and our own personal interpretations of the data we have available. as far as i know (for a certainty) only YOU know what is REALLY in your heart, your intentions. and that is all that really matters in the long run (how you judge yourself?)

somebody might be thinking: what are you saying, we are our own god/judge? Not me! it's all up to you.

ed says: go fish

[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 01-26-2004).]

quote:

---

I am aware of what Buddha offers. He tells me that if I want ultimate happiness, I must strive to empty myself of everything. I must move from the physical to the ethereal and thus release myself from this hell in which I wallow. Once I can let it all go, I will eventually attain enlightenment. Interesting idea to be sure. But how can I make a judgement as to which approach to life is based on the truth? Xianity and Buddhism are utlimately incompatible. Which one is correct? This is the task before me, not which one I *like* more. Trust me, if I thought Buddha was more credible than Christ I would be saffron clad and incense obsessed

---

Bugimus, that paragraph irritates me. I understand your preference for Jesus Christ vs Buddha along with Christianity vs Buddhism. However, I think that you've possibly misinterpreted the concepts/precepts of Buddhism. The idea is not to stray away from materialism or physical reality to acheive happiness. The idea is to acheive ultimate happiness and understanding through training of the mind. One could easily be a Christian and still respect and practice some ideas of what Buddhism provides. The idea is to train the mind to be happy at all times, even in situations where anger and unhappiness clutter the mind. The goal isn't to leave your home and family, leave your car, your job, your posessions. The stereotype following buddhism is the eastern monks which devout their life to acheiving it their way. Modern Buddhists are everyday people, not saffron clad and incense obsessive. If being a businessmen and working hard expands one's consciousness and makes one happy, that's their preference. If living amoung monks, relieving one's self of physical attachments, life bonds, and currency makes one happy, that is also one's preference. The idea is that anyone can be happy, it's not to be a tool of the teachings of Buddha. Buddha's teachings are a guidance and moral basis of the foundation of Buddhism, but are not Buddhism as a whole. The idea is to be an individual, to understand and think for yourself. By understanding and contemplating the necessary morals, one can determine happiness.

Buddhism is for some. It isn't for others.

InSiDeR, as with Xianity, Buddhism comes in many flavors. I am speaking from my understanding of it and I tend to prefer versions that are more firmly rooted in the original teachings. If you prefer the version you described to me, that's fine. I'm sure there are no rules against that. And I was not putting down the religion by my comment about saffron and incense. I was trying to say that I would prefer to follow a more strict path if I were to embrace Buddhism.

. . : slicePuzzle

Hmm...

"modern" buddhists......

".......it's not to be a tool of the teachings of Buddha"

I am afraid that what you speak of isn't buddhism. Yes, some may call it that. But that doesn't make it so.

The people you speak of are no more Buddhists than people lighting a candle and praising the Goddess are witches, no more buddhists than "california rolls" are Japanese.

Please elaborate more, DL.

What's to elaborate on? What you are talking about is taking a small bit of buddhist mentality and applying it to your preexisting everyday life.

It's like saying you're jewish because you've been circumsized....

I never said I was Buddhist, though.

I'm no expert on Buddhism and I certainly don't claim to be. But if that path does not teach abandoning the physical and the desires of the individual, how is one to achieve Nirvana which has none of that? Is that not the state of being that Buddha supposedly attained? Isn't it taught that he was the first to find this path back to ultimate oneness with the universe?

. . : slicePuzzle

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Buddhism/budism.htm

Nice link! On the main page it says:

quote:

---

They do believe in reincarnation: the concept that one must go through many cycles of birth, living, and death. After many such cycles, if a person releases their attachment to desire and the self, they can attain Nirvana.

---

This is the concept I was referring to in my original comments.

. . : slicePuzzle

Yes, metareligion has a lot to offer to stimulate your every intelligent though.

Certainly we can agree that not everyone has to conform 100% to a degree of religous philosophy to be considered apart of a religion. For example, not every Buddhist has to believe in Reincarnation to be a Buddhist, I think? To my understanding Buddhism is a way of living. Just as Christianity is a way of living. One doesn't have to let the religion regulate their life, rather than looking at the collective basics of the religion, respect them, and practice them, while still thinking differently on other parts of the religion.

Wait a second, I don't think you can call Christianity simply "a way of living". I would argue as soon as you break from what Christianity *is*, meaning what it was from the beginning, then you should no longer call it Christianity. You can call it an offshoot or a hybrid religion I suppose but it just screws with a reasonable use of our language to call something that which it is not.

Example, tell me how you can have "another" view of Christ being the savior of all mankind and still be within the teachings found in the NT?

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 01-26-2004).]

Well what do you think Baptism is? Mormanism? Catholicism? Methodism? Are they not all different interpretations of the same basic idea?

Of course each of the groups you mention have different ways of regarding baptism. But to say that Christianity is "just a way of living" sounds to me like saying baptism is just a way to remove dirt from the skin. Do you see the different level of distinction I'm drawing?

No.

I think the term "Christianity" should carry the full weight of the original teachings while of course allowing for many different interpretations. But I think removing its most important and striking feature of eternal life granted by the creator to the fallen creation by saying it's just a way of living *this* life is doing damage to what it stands for, and has stood for since the days of Christ.

Ok, my misinterpretation... Buddhism is a way of life. Christianity is whatever you called it.

quote:

---

I never said I was Buddhist, though.

---

Ok. And.....I never said you were either

quote:

---

It's like saying you're jewish because you've been circumsized....

---

I'm sorry, that post lead me into thinking otherwise.

It's precisely the volume and diversity of 'religions' practiced in the world today that reaffirms to me that I'm better off out of that particular game alltogether.


Psst!

DL, thanks I will keep it in mind.
Btw, I dont want to disprove their teachings, its just in my oppinion the teachings are not what people seem to think they are.

Bugs:
I am getting back at this

quote:

---

Really? Do you have some specific examples?

---

yes, an exemple of the story of David, bible portriats him a very heroic and innocent person. But there have been numerouse speculations done how he could have been involved in murder of king Saul.
Also when he defeated Goliah, bible cliamed he was just a regular boy, but appearently he did had some kind of Military training otherwise he would not be fighting, since that duel was based on best fighter from opposite sides before the big battle usually began.
David also had an adventabe in battle, unlike bible portraist him as if GOliah was more powerful...Goliah had most likely dasabilities in vision and muscles by suffering from tumor which in first olace caused him to be that huge.

and Bugs I know that early christians did not have an armies. They were being more like a rebels or kinda like partisans...I know they did not have any kind of miliary training....

also,I dont think it was the same tv show we saw...perhaps but I doubt it...because I am pretty much sure they mentioned it was Paul not Peter...( I might be wrong)

now outcydr

quote:

---

i think this goes to the heart of why so many people question or deny the existance of God. he cannot, by definition, be pigeonholed or catogorized by such a question. he is beyond our human conception or definition. otherwise he would not BE God.

---

the way you say those things as if God is too "holy" or imposible to understand him with our human minds....this brings me a question, why would humans write books about him claiming this are his worlds and they are absolute true!? If afterall we are beyond understanding him...and why would we deserve punishment...

IMO if he did give those commands to us as they are said in bible,his speech and emotions are way too human and I do not see anything godly about him.
so yes I think I do have a right to ask thopse questions as you would ask anything him you wanted during your prayers. His commands are rather irrational and do not fit our modern civilized society IMP, but you still fallow them because he does not speak anymore...
or perhaps you liek the ideas and agree with them...again just IMO

Jesus Christ lived and acted like a normal human being, perhaps he was more intelectual that majority of Jews surrounding him. Still we do not know more than half of his life and how he spend it...


Ohh and I never understood the original sin....why would desire for knowledge be a sin?
Seems like GOd created Adam as an idiot a blind machine whom he expected to worship and fallow him, but Eve went for knowledge and SHared the knowledge with Adam...whats so sinnful about this anyway? and why nakedness is "bad"? if he created us naked....why is it bad to him? afterall, if its bad why not creat us with fur to cover our nakedness or something like that?



[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 01-26-2004).]

quote:

---

...David, bible portriats him a very heroic and innocent person...

---

Ruski, have you read the story of David? What would you think of a person, a king, who fell in love with a married woman, committed adultery with her, and wanted her so badly that he had her husband killed to make her his wife? Heroic? Innocent? Noble?

One of the aspects of the Old Testament stories that lend them considerable credibility is how they describe the noble and the depraved behavior of the Israelites. Quite often, they are portrayed in a very negative light.

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

Quite often, they are portrayed in a very negative light.

---

then how come they are so important in bible? Why is everyone studing them?
just because of history?
or because this is was the greates leader jews had?

you managed to shock me even more


[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 01-27-2004).]

Ruski, why would a people, the Jews, want such terrible things written about their greatest king? Think about it, if the bible is just a bunch of made up stories, why was their greatest king an adulterer and a murderer? Does it seem strange?

. . : slicePuzzle

No, should it?

afterall look at Stalin, Hitler, Nero, etc. all kings/rulers/emperors were nuts! but I doubt that jews and others knew about Davids personal life that much during his reign...

It was perhaps written way later about him, it's usually is...
its not like people know everything about him....all his personal life, after all yes it is possible that alot of details were made up about him. =)

If ancient Greek mythology was just a bunch of made up stories, why would the Greeks portray their Heroes, Gods and Godesses in such a bad light?

So, Hail Zeus!

quote:

---

No, should it?

---

Only if it were made up. Because if you were going to invent a national hero, one would think he/she would cast a positive light on the inventors. And I seriously doubt his actions were not known to the people during his reign.

MW, the reason I made the point is to combat the idea that the OT has no historical credibility. This argument comes up from time to time around here. If you have read the OT you will notice that the Israelites were a very wicked and wayword people much of the time. So much so that God was going to kill them off once and only stopped because Moses pleaded with him not to. I think the fact that the OT describes the good with the bad is one of the supporting characteristics of its authenticity.

. . : slicePuzzle

Or simply a useful dramatic tool. One that is necessary if the goal is to convince people they need to follow the rules.

=)

Not much to bring to the table... however, what an amazing thread.

On the issue of religion- does it not all stem from doubt? Or to use a nicer word, ignorance? (Maybe thats not nicer...)
We dont know how much we dont know. And it is human to want to fill those voids with things so we can lean our elbows on tables that aren't really there, so to speak.
Often times we get so caught up in the different ways we, as people, fill these voids- that we forget that we have some innate sense of what is right and wrong.
It is easy to be preoccupied with disagreeing about God, or Gods, or customs, traditions, what it means to be Christian or Buddhist, and forgetting that no one will ever have the same standards or ideas, exactly. We are different. So, our beliefs, or theories, will differ.

I personally believe it is beautiful to wonder, to not know, because that is essentially what makes us human, the ability to question, and our trains of thought. But with that, why cant we accept, and deal with what we do know, to some extent. Why not concentrate our effort on the obvious- being a good person , being kind to others, and so on.
Many religions teach this, in one way or another. On the subject of Buddhism, the beauty of eastern religions is that you can take some of one and some of another to create your own structure of faith and reason without many contradictions, which most people do anyway. To call yourself a "Buddhist" defeats the point- are the labels what matter? We all sometimes give and take from sets of beliefs.

A lot of dust got blown up talking about these things we dont know, or think we know. I suppose thats where faith comes in. And good luck with that. We've been liberated with consciousness and feeling, the ability to have singular opinions and the blessing of debate, and it is wonderful to see it exercised.
But lets not make preconceptions about others. We won't all be the same, and thats beautiful.

quote:

---

Why not concentrate our effort on the obvious- being a good person , being kind to others, and so on.

---

I'm curious to know why you say those are obvious. I am also very interested in how you would deal with someone who not only thinks those are not obvious but thinks that harming others for personal gain is perfectly natural and proper.

[edit] poor wording [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 02-09-2004).]

Hmm.

This is a good point. Touche.
(bit of gathering thought time-)

I think my saying these things are obvious may be presumptuous. We do create the society we live in, so I suppose stepping on others' faces to get a few inches up may seem the obvious answer to life's problems for some.
Its debatable whether compassion, kindness and the like are innate to humans or whether we really are shaped by the society we live in. Though its a circle, because not only are we shaped and created by society, but we created society in the first place. Would that make society a representation of the average human?

I believe mankind (** humankind) is inherently good.
And I can see how people would argue the other way.
What I meant was, perhaps concentrate on the things intrinsic to yourself, the way you interact with others- would you naturally be horrible just because?
I can see how faith would be a stepping stone and guide to how to live your life to help others. And questioning may be second nature to others yet. I just personally believe that rather than concerning ourselves with these questions (which for most is inevitable nonetheless) we could spend our time trying to do what is (ahem, sorry for this highly debatable statement) generally accepted as right (eesh that sounds bad) and though we can argue the details of that, I believe most people would do good. In a vastly general sense. Because we all have a sense of pain and pleasure, and that much is relatively clear cut.

Thank you, though.

[edit]sorry, political correctness (hmph)[/edit]


[This message has been edited by helloelise (edited 02-22-2004).]

I believe we are born neutral, but that without some sort of positive intervention it is much easier and common for us to be wicked. It takes much more effort to do the "right thing" in most circumstances and I believe most opt for the path of least resistance.

So what about my second question?

quote:

---

I am also very interested in how you would deal with someone who not only thinks those are not obvious but thinks that harming others for personal gain is perfectly natural and proper.

---

How do you personally deal with people like this?

Preferably with a baseball bat. =)