First  Prev  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next  Last
Post Reply are you religious? if so, why?
Gextiv 
52308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Earth
Offline
Posted 8/16/12 , edited 8/16/12
I am religious because my parents are not.
I am not religious because my parents are religious.
My favorite one: The discovery channel made me non religious. ( I fall under this category)
Sound familiar?
13566 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / New York
Offline
Posted 8/16/12

Bazak wrote:


AshRandom wrote:


Bazak wrote:
i wonder how much you know of quantum physics and the statistics on the likelihood of the big bang theory

Not my field of expertise, but with guidance I can probably handle most of the math for it.

Not to change the subject but.... Anyone else ever noticed how religious people claim knowledge of things they cannot know (revelation)?

Here's a question:

Why is it that only scientists know the secret formula? Priests and prophets didn't give us the chemical formula for Teflon, or DNA. If cleanliness is next to godliness, then why is it that only chemists discover new kinds of soap? The chemical formula for every kind of soap has technically always existed, even in a universe where the atoms required for them had yet to be formed, so why didn't God whisper these formula into any of these charlatan's ears? Why doesn't he do it today? There are plenty of soaps left which science hasn't found yet.

If you think God's word comes from truthful revelations, then why are you listening to priests and prophets? Listen to scientists! If that's how it works then we're the ones who God actually talks to, he whispers all the secret formulas into our ears when we sleep at night. That's why we know all of them, and the other side knows none of them. We know real and powerful truths about the universe and if you don't believe us, we'll show you the power atomic. And you'll be so impressed you'll put it in every stupid action movie for the next ten thousand years. Oh wait, we already did that... See, this is what I'm talking about, religious types never hear about anything cool. I think the evidence proves they're listening to the wrong hot-line. It's just nothing but, "hey, stop touching your crotch!" and "I can see you sinning down there..."


really? i dont get why you avoid my whole post and focus on that bit.

next because that wasnt their calling in life, their calling was service to the lord and spreading his word. next many of the greatest discoverys of history and greatest scientists of history were christian and found the clue that led them to their discovery's in the bible. (i will provide examples in an edit later)

secondly god doesnt tend to act that way, if he simply gave us all the answers we would become lazy. next from the way your talking i would think your knowledge of Christianity comes from Catholicism. which has twisted it around so much its hardly recognizable anymore. so again why do you simply insult me and provide no evidence for your claims? and those last bits >.> so far as i know the bible doesnt actualy condemn the first one (could be wrong on that one) second one, well cmon there are always arses that cling to something to try and feel superior the bible doesnt teach that it teaches we are all equaly screwed up and should help one another which that arrogant attitude does nothing to help.(let alone spread gods word which is one more reason why the bible condemns it. i mean look at the pharisee's).


Unlimited nonsense. You don't even seem to realize it's all a work of fiction.

As for what the bible condemns, it doesn't condemn slavery, or genocide. In fact it endorses them repeatedly. Through the centuries, your book of salacious hate-speech has lead to an unimaginable amount of needless human suffering. To continue to endorse the bible is unethical and immoral. To claim that there are "good parts" or, "moral lessons" of the bible amid the sea of blood, bigotry and tyranny is no different from endorsing Mein Kampf, they both have "good parts" and "moral lessons" plus they both inexcusably try justify genocide and human slavery. It's revolting.
21541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/16/12 , edited 8/16/12
lol sorry Bazak, the first comment was indeed for you, but the rest was a general comment for everyone else.

Also: http://www.snowboardingforum.com/political-wilderness/32797-infographic-showing-contradictions-bible.html
No contradictions, eh?
64284 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 8/16/12
Nope, not at all.

Everyone else around me does, I just laugh at them.
17090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 8/16/12
I am a devout follower of the way of Chuck Norris... I am kidding ofcourse I have always thought the idea of a god ridiculous religion rises an falls history has proven that many times over. It may take thousands of years to accomplish but the religions we have today will be replaced by other religions and everything we belive in today will fade into history. If you do beleive in god please do not take offense these are my own personal beliefs and opinions I also beleive if it was not for religion we would not have the kind of world we live in today so wether we believe in god or not we should respect religion.
sevink 
3042 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Cincinnati Ohio
Offline
Posted 8/16/12

Bazak wrote:


SoTa_PoP wrote:


sevink wrote:

I'd just like to point out as a History major who has studied the time era. There is tons of historical evidence that the first Christians were not Catholic rather, they were non sanctioned believers that followed specific teachings and gospels in their own homes. They worshiped privately, preached pacifism, and most did not want a unified Christian church.

When the Catholic church was established, they then started to pick and choose which gospels were and were not "worship worthy". So from the very start the Catholic church was already distorting Jesus's teachings.

Just wanted to throw that out there.

Edit: As someone who was raised by a man with a Theology PhD degree from Cambridge (if you are educated you know how truly impressive that is) I just want people to be aware of a few things.

1.The bible is full of gospels, meaning it is written by many many different people. Not one single person wrote it, so yes, there are bound to be contradictions.

2.The book is not to be read and taken literal or as fact. A lot of the way it was written was to help try and explain our universe while also teaching a moral and ethical lesson.

3.As Science progresses there are tons of parts of the bible that are no longer relevant or correct. And just because of this, doesn't prove the entire book to be right or wrong. The moral and ethical teachings are still very important and relevant.

4.The problem with Religion is not Religion it self, its the majority of people who follow it blindly. Religion is an easy answer for a lot of uneducated people who don't want to think. They would rather just believe everything they read in a Book and not be forced into thinking for their own, which directly goes against what I believe Religion to be.

5.Religion is a GREAT thing that has been used horribly. Does every single person NEED Religion? No of course not, some people are able to create and find a morally good, way to live without ever needing to resort to Religion to teach them how.

6.Religion is different for every single person, so for you judge an entire group of people is just as moronic as the extremest that want to keep Gay marriage illegal. I do not blame the whole for the actions of extremists. The same way I do not fear or blame Islam for 9/11 or the terrorists that have killed so many. (We should not blame the gun that kills, rather the shooter)


^Everyone should just read this


i agree there is much good information here (notably everything above the edit.)
secondly it is written by many differnt people in the same way that a single book is written by many different type writers and authored by one person. next there are no contradictions that i have not seen resolved when using a literal translation that havent been caused by allegory of a different part of scripture (because they didnt want to believe it) and trying to say one bit says something different than what it says.

next yes it is.

three, not true provide an example.

four i would have to say no its when people take on line of the bible and ignore what the rest says that problems occur. next i would say dont follow blindly as well the bible can be proven.

the problem is a bunch of people got together and perverted what is said in the bible for their own use (and even tried to allegorize bits of it when the politicians werent happy with what they were preaching. such as jesus returning and casting down all rulers and reigning as our king.)

six. i dont judge them god does. neither do i hate them or act cruely to them god loves homosexuals just as much as any of us and hates their sins just as much as he hates mine.



1. The book is made up of gospels. You can say one person wrote it if you consider taking all the gospels and putting it into a single Book as "writing" it. To me, its like someone making a collection of short stories and putting them together, and editing them together. That to me is not writing, that's being an editor.

2.I choose to believe my grandfather who was a Theology professor for 25 years at the University of Cincinnati, who had a PhD from Cambridge, and was also a Minister for 25 years would have a level of expertise in Religion I will never have. I choose to believe him, and his accrued knowledge through life. So I'm sorry random internet man, I will adamantly disagree with you on this point.

3. How about how the world is only 5000 years old? We know from Geology beyond a matter of a doubt the Earth is older than that. There is an example of the Bible being completely wrong where Science has proven otherwise. Or how about Evolution, if you read the Bible as literal (like you believe) then we all are from 1 man and 1 women. The theory of Evolution has tons of scientific evidence, and here in his own words Pope John Paul II
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."[31]


4.I agree with you saying a lot of people pick one line and ignore what the actual message is. You are just proving my point that for a lot of people, they use religion as a think crutch.

5. So you agree modern Christianity is perverted and no longer the original teachings of Jesus? Do you belong to a Church? What Church doesn't distort his teachings? Or use for their own gain.

6. You personally may not judge, but the vast majority of Christians I have run into are just that. Judgmental beyond belief, they think they are superior to heathens who don't listen to Gods word. Its just another example of the hypocrisy of many Christians. Are all of them this way? OF COURSE NOT, when I speak, I can only speak from my knowledge, and the people I've met, I recognize not all Christians are this way, or even the majority, I can only say the majority I've met personally.
5246 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / San Jose
Offline
Posted 8/16/12

shuyi000 wrote:

There is no evidence of a god, that is a fact...
The law of physics can exist from nothing, that is a fact.
You can get life from non-living things, that is a fact.

To believe in something you need evidence, not faith...!


Yeah you're right. But people still choose to have faith in this without any proof or evidence.
5246 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / San Jose
Offline
Posted 8/16/12 , edited 8/16/12

Watermelonheaven wrote:


Michaeln93 wrote:


Watermelonheaven wrote:


Michaeln93 wrote:


Watermelonheaven wrote:

I used to be Buddhist but I'm agnostic now. I see agnosticism as the middle ground between religion and atheism.

I don't think I can be sure any god is real but, at the same time, it's hard to prove that god isn't real.


Nooo, it's pretty easy. You can use philosophy to make a hardcore religious person rethink about religion. All the things people say to prove god is real are absolutely ridiculous and child's play.

"Well who created us other than god?"

"No other being out there is as powerful as god, so he must created us!" << Can't ask this question unless you're assuming there is a god so this isn't even a counterproductive argument.

And what's with priest molesting children? This is not a false rumor, these things actually happens.

I don't think those are even valid arguments. A religion is separate from its followers.

It's not that easy to prove/disprove something as profound and unknown as the supernatural. It's actually very hard to prove that some things don't exist, especially if this entity is supposedly something we can't see, hear, smell, taste, etc. For instance, you can't prove to me that there isn't a gold-rimmed white mug in the orbit of Mars at this very moment. You can say why it is unlikely and we can interpret the unlikeliness as a 'doesn't exist,' but the off-chance is still there.


Those weren't arguments. Those were questions asked by theist. I am not even making an argument.

You are correct, it is not that easy to prove or disprove of something that is unknown. But first of all, you would have to tell me where did this concept of "gold-rimmed white mug in the orbit of Mars" come from? What is the reason for this to exist in the first place? What was the premises that led you to believe that such a thing exist?

For the concept of God, there are reasons of how this came to be. A few may be because humans are discomforted and needed something to put faith in, or maybe because humans are born with a degree of curiosity and anxiousness to work things out when they can not understand some things. In this case, humans often look into reality and think to themselves how does all these things exist ; the world, the beauty, the life, the shapes, the forms, the colors, etc. They cannot comprehend how they exists and assumed there must be a higher power somewhere that created them all, and that humans doesn't have the capacity to or can't possibly ever comprehend. A being that is said to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient - the Creator.

Now as you all could probably tell, I am an atheist. The reason I don't believe in a higher power is because I can not believe in something I have never seen before with my own eyes. The bible is nothing more to me than a fairy tale, a story to be told by the bonfires, gathered around by children waiting for some day they can tell the stories to other groups of kids with a side of their own fabricated part.

Plus I've seen, read, and heard of a lot of things that occurred in this world that very much contradicts the image of God.

If I have no choice but to believe in God, I would have to say I believe in God spiritually, nothing more than a feeling of comfort, liveness deep within the soul of oneself.

Alright, my bad. They are questions. Bad questions. The one about the priest doesn't even have anything to do with proving or disproving the existence of a higher power. The first questions are something that a religious, god-fearing person would ask. Of course an atheist wouldn't understand them. It is like asking a man what it feels like to have a period. He won't understand the question.

No offense intended, but using the inability to sense something in order to support the non-existence of something is not very good. We can't observe or sense that there are stars other than the ones we already know of, but we still 'know' that there are more stars than the ones we have seen. Even being able to sense something does not always mean that the senses are reliable. Crazy people don't usually think they are crazy.

A reason for something to exist? Do we really even know why some things exist? Why do the planets exist? We don't know why we exist. My being agnostic does not mean I might believe in a god, a supernatural entity (or more than one entity) that possesses all the exact traits ascribed to him/her/it by any known religion. I simply find it hard to dismiss something simply because I can't observe it. Such unfounded certainty makes me feel as though I am being too sure of myself, too cocky. I am simply saying 'I don't know for sure' because that's really all I can do. There is the chance, however slim, that there could have been or that there currently is or that there eventually will be a higher power. It does not mean that, if such a thing exists, that it will be something we have ever described in any known religion. It does not even mean that such an entity needs to be in this universe or in this dimension in order to exist.

Atheism denies the possibility that any higher power can possibly exist. In a reality known to be full of gray areas, being so certain about something we know don't fully understand seems unrealistic to me. To me, atheism is like a modern religion. Natural laws? Mathematics? Science? All these things are entirely artificial. These things require some faith to accept, not unlike religion. We've only been here for an insignificant amount of time compared to the planets and stars. To the universe, we are less than specks of dust. Really, what do we know?

...we can't answer that without fearing that we may know less that we think we do. To cope, we create systems that 'organize' the world around us so that we might seem to understand. Inconclusive results and I-don't-knows are dismissed as 'fake' or 'bad' even if they are questions we have no way of answering. Every question MUST have a definite answer. We simply can't tolerate not knowing something.


Yes they are bad. They're questions and assumptions from Christian fundamentalist. The one about the priest is an example to give you an idea why a minister of religion would do something so morally wrong as to molest children. Priests are said to answer to God so he can judge the sins that people commits, so Priest are like God's right-hand man but they still do something that I know "God" would disapprove of entirely.

"but using the inability to sense something in order to support the non-existence of something is not very good."
Your argument is a valid argument but it is not a sound argument because of vice-versa. If we do not have the ability to sense something in order to claim it's existence how can you tell me otherwise I am wrong to claim it does not exist? Especially when you claim something to exist when you yourself have no idea of its existence makes it a false declaration. Your analogy of the stars doesn't make any sense to me. Because we know that stars do exist, we can claim the possibility that there are more stars we have yet to identify.
For God, we cannot conclude that there may be one that we haven't been able to sense, because we have not been able to develop the evidence and clarify or approve the existence of a supernatural entity in the first place. No premises or false premises inference a false conclusion.

I'm asking for the reason why the object you mentioned exist is because I want to know what are its beneficial factors or disadvantages contribution to the universe. Everything that exists in this world benefits and risks the others so until you can tell me what kind of contribution this object have for the universe, it is not even worth debating about it. I am not blindly dismissing the possibility of God's existence, it's just because we have science. They have evidence to back up the theory of how stars are formed, aka when life is born. This is why I chose to believe in the Big Bang theory, because the evidences are tangible.

Yes they are artificial, but they are systems humans created to explain and comprehend the things around us and to the extent of my knowledge, it has not fail us has it?
Posted 8/16/12 , edited 8/16/12

Michaeln93 wrote:


Watermelonheaven wrote:


Michaeln93 wrote:


Watermelonheaven wrote:


Michaeln93 wrote:


Watermelonheaven wrote:

I used to be Buddhist but I'm agnostic now. I see agnosticism as the middle ground between religion and atheism.

I don't think I can be sure any god is real but, at the same time, it's hard to prove that god isn't real.


Nooo, it's pretty easy. You can use philosophy to make a hardcore religious person rethink about religion. All the things people say to prove god is real are absolutely ridiculous and child's play.

"Well who created us other than god?"

"No other being out there is as powerful as god, so he must created us!" << Can't ask this question unless you're assuming there is a god so this isn't even a counterproductive argument.

And what's with priest molesting children? This is not a false rumor, these things actually happens.

I don't think those are even valid arguments. A religion is separate from its followers.

It's not that easy to prove/disprove something as profound and unknown as the supernatural. It's actually very hard to prove that some things don't exist, especially if this entity is supposedly something we can't see, hear, smell, taste, etc. For instance, you can't prove to me that there isn't a gold-rimmed white mug in the orbit of Mars at this very moment. You can say why it is unlikely and we can interpret the unlikeliness as a 'doesn't exist,' but the off-chance is still there.


Those weren't arguments. Those were questions asked by theist. I am not even making an argument.

You are correct, it is not that easy to prove or disprove of something that is unknown. But first of all, you would have to tell me where did this concept of "gold-rimmed white mug in the orbit of Mars" come from? What is the reason for this to exist in the first place? What was the premises that led you to believe that such a thing exist?

For the concept of God, there are reasons of how this came to be. A few may be because humans are discomforted and needed something to put faith in, or maybe because humans are born with a degree of curiosity and anxiousness to work things out when they can not understand some things. In this case, humans often look into reality and think to themselves how does all these things exist ; the world, the beauty, the life, the shapes, the forms, the colors, etc. They cannot comprehend how they exists and assumed there must be a higher power somewhere that created them all, and that humans doesn't have the capacity to or can't possibly ever comprehend. A being that is said to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient - the Creator.

Now as you all could probably tell, I am an atheist. The reason I don't believe in a higher power is because I can not believe in something I have never seen before with my own eyes. The bible is nothing more to me than a fairy tale, a story to be told by the bonfires, gathered around by children waiting for some day they can tell the stories to other groups of kids with a side of their own fabricated part.

Plus I've seen, read, and heard of a lot of things that occurred in this world that very much contradicts the image of God.

If I have no choice but to believe in God, I would have to say I believe in God spiritually, nothing more than a feeling of comfort, liveness deep within the soul of oneself.

Alright, my bad. They are questions. Bad questions. The one about the priest doesn't even have anything to do with proving or disproving the existence of a higher power. The first questions are something that a religious, god-fearing person would ask. Of course an atheist wouldn't understand them. It is like asking a man what it feels like to have a period. He won't understand the question.

No offense intended, but using the inability to sense something in order to support the non-existence of something is not very good. We can't observe or sense that there are stars other than the ones we already know of, but we still 'know' that there are more stars than the ones we have seen. Even being able to sense something does not always mean that the senses are reliable. Crazy people don't usually think they are crazy.

A reason for something to exist? Do we really even know why some things exist? Why do the planets exist? We don't know why we exist. My being agnostic does not mean I might believe in a god, a supernatural entity (or more than one entity) that possesses all the exact traits ascribed to him/her/it by any known religion. I simply find it hard to dismiss something simply because I can't observe it. Such unfounded certainty makes me feel as though I am being too sure of myself, too cocky. I am simply saying 'I don't know for sure' because that's really all I can do. There is the chance, however slim, that there could have been or that there currently is or that there eventually will be a higher power. It does not mean that, if such a thing exists, that it will be something we have ever described in any known religion. It does not even mean that such an entity needs to be in this universe or in this dimension in order to exist.

Atheism denies the possibility that any higher power can possibly exist. In a reality known to be full of gray areas, being so certain about something we know don't fully understand seems unrealistic to me. To me, atheism is like a modern religion. Natural laws? Mathematics? Science? All these things are entirely artificial. These things require some faith to accept, not unlike religion. We've only been here for an insignificant amount of time compared to the planets and stars. To the universe, we are less than specks of dust. Really, what do we know?

...we can't answer that without fearing that we may know less that we think we do. To cope, we create systems that 'organize' the world around us so that we might seem to understand. Inconclusive results and I-don't-knows are dismissed as 'fake' or 'bad' even if they are questions we have no way of answering. Every question MUST have a definite answer. We simply can't tolerate not knowing something.


Yes they are bad. They're questions and assumptions from Christian fundamentalist. The one about the priest is an example to give you an idea why a minister of religion would do something so morally wrong as to molest children. Priests are said to answer to God so he can judge the sins that people commits, so Priest are like God's right-hand man but they still do something that I know "God" would disapprove of entirely.

"but using the inability to sense something in order to support the non-existence of something is not very good."
Your argument is a valid argument but it is not a sound argument because of vice-versa. If we do not have the ability to sense something in order to claim it's existence how can you tell me otherwise I am wrong to claim it does not exist? Especially when you claim something to exist when you yourself have no idea of its existence makes it a false declaration. Your analogy of the stars doesn't make any sense to me. Because we know that stars do exist, we can claim the possibility that there are more stars we have yet to identify.
For God, we cannot conclude that there may be one that we haven't been able to sense, because we have not been able to develop the evidence and clarify or approve the existence of a supernatural entity in the first place. No premises or false premises inference a false conclusion.

I'm asking for the reason why the object you mentioned exist is because I want to know what are its beneficial factors or disadvantages contribution to the universe. Everything that exists in this world benefits and risks the others so until you can tell me what kind of contribution this object have for the universe, it is not even worth debating about it. I am not blindly dismissing the possibility of God's existence, it's just because we have science. They have evidence to back up the theory of how stars are formed, aka when life is born. This is why I chose to believe in the Big Bang theory, because the evidences are tangible.

Yes they are artificial, but they are systems humans created to explain and comprehend the things around us and to the extent of my knowledge, it has not fail us has it?


I'm not saying that a higher power must exist. I am simply saying that we ought not to be so sure of ourselves and the artificial constructs we are so proud of. Saying something exists even if you have no idea where or when it existed still does not detract from the truth of its existence. Intent does not make something true or false, facts do.

I'm asking for the reason why the object you mentioned exist is because I want to know what are its beneficial factors or disadvantages contribution to the universe. Everything that exists in this world benefits and risks the others so until you can tell me what kind of contribution this object have for the universe, it is not even worth debating about it.

What? So if we cannot determine or know something's worth or purpose, it is not worth debating about? If we don't know the worth of something, how do we deem it worthless and not a valid topic of debate? The wording used here makes it seem as though unmeasurable worth and unknown purpose are being equated with worthlessness. Our feelings have worth that cannot be measured. I am certain they are not worthless.

Admitting we don't know something and never will is a bad thing? This seems to solidify the fact that we can't tolerate not knowing and will dismiss unanswerable questions or fabricate our own answers. Why can we not just take something, regard its inability for us to know about it, and accept that we can't know about it?


Yes they are artificial, but they are systems humans created to explain and comprehend the things around us and to the extent of my knowledge, it has not fail us has it?

We only understand them because they tell is what we want to know on OUR terms. Just like how it is impossible to completely understand being someone else because you can't even know what it is like to be that person from that person's perspective (the most we can do is attempt to understand that person's experiences from OUR OWN perspective), there will be things we cannot completely understand or put into words. These unexpressable unknowns DO exist. Because they exist, is it not unreasonable to deduce that more of them must exist? I'm sure you also know that we have also yet to find or create anything that is invincible, indestructible, all-knowing, perfect, all-encompassing, etc. Science is just a system we have created. It has taken the place of religion in explaining natural phenomenon. How can we claim it is perfect and will not fail us? To a devout believer, there is evidence of a god or of gods.
20090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 8/16/12
I can't believe in any kind of religion, christianity in particular. They're always trying to convert us non-believers. The thing that gets me is that their concept of an "all-loving god" is a joke.

Want to get a christian off your back? Ask them this and demand nothing less than a straight answer: "why does god let bad things happen to good people?" It's a logic bomb for christians. There's no answer at all. Nobody has ever been able to answer this straight up.

I put this challenge out there for all the christians on this topic. Give me a straight answer as to why bad things happen to good people.
166 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Florida
Offline
Posted 8/16/12 , edited 8/16/12
I'm 'Christian'
I'm not into religion, not into church, not into a lot of what modern day Christianity has become.
I'm into Jesus and having a personal relationship with him. I'm into love and peace<3


btw.. not posting here to debate, or try to defend my point of view. Just answering the original question
8498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / i'm there. you kn...
Offline
Posted 8/16/12

Watermelonheaven wrote:


Michaeln93 wrote:


Watermelonheaven wrote:


Michaeln93 wrote:


Watermelonheaven wrote:


Michaeln93 wrote:


Watermelonheaven wrote:

I used to be Buddhist but I'm agnostic now. I see agnosticism as the middle ground between religion and atheism.

I don't think I can be sure any god is real but, at the same time, it's hard to prove that god isn't real.


Nooo, it's pretty easy. You can use philosophy to make a hardcore religious person rethink about religion. All the things people say to prove god is real are absolutely ridiculous and child's play.

"Well who created us other than god?"

"No other being out there is as powerful as god, so he must created us!" << Can't ask this question unless you're assuming there is a god so this isn't even a counterproductive argument.

And what's with priest molesting children? This is not a false rumor, these things actually happens.

I don't think those are even valid arguments. A religion is separate from its followers.

It's not that easy to prove/disprove something as profound and unknown as the supernatural. It's actually very hard to prove that some things don't exist, especially if this entity is supposedly something we can't see, hear, smell, taste, etc. For instance, you can't prove to me that there isn't a gold-rimmed white mug in the orbit of Mars at this very moment. You can say why it is unlikely and we can interpret the unlikeliness as a 'doesn't exist,' but the off-chance is still there.


Those weren't arguments. Those were questions asked by theist. I am not even making an argument.

You are correct, it is not that easy to prove or disprove of something that is unknown. But first of all, you would have to tell me where did this concept of "gold-rimmed white mug in the orbit of Mars" come from? What is the reason for this to exist in the first place? What was the premises that led you to believe that such a thing exist?

For the concept of God, there are reasons of how this came to be. A few may be because humans are discomforted and needed something to put faith in, or maybe because humans are born with a degree of curiosity and anxiousness to work things out when they can not understand some things. In this case, humans often look into reality and think to themselves how does all these things exist ; the world, the beauty, the life, the shapes, the forms, the colors, etc. They cannot comprehend how they exists and assumed there must be a higher power somewhere that created them all, and that humans doesn't have the capacity to or can't possibly ever comprehend. A being that is said to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient - the Creator.

Now as you all could probably tell, I am an atheist. The reason I don't believe in a higher power is because I can not believe in something I have never seen before with my own eyes. The bible is nothing more to me than a fairy tale, a story to be told by the bonfires, gathered around by children waiting for some day they can tell the stories to other groups of kids with a side of their own fabricated part.

Plus I've seen, read, and heard of a lot of things that occurred in this world that very much contradicts the image of God.

If I have no choice but to believe in God, I would have to say I believe in God spiritually, nothing more than a feeling of comfort, liveness deep within the soul of oneself.

Alright, my bad. They are questions. Bad questions. The one about the priest doesn't even have anything to do with proving or disproving the existence of a higher power. The first questions are something that a religious, god-fearing person would ask. Of course an atheist wouldn't understand them. It is like asking a man what it feels like to have a period. He won't understand the question.

No offense intended, but using the inability to sense something in order to support the non-existence of something is not very good. We can't observe or sense that there are stars other than the ones we already know of, but we still 'know' that there are more stars than the ones we have seen. Even being able to sense something does not always mean that the senses are reliable. Crazy people don't usually think they are crazy.

A reason for something to exist? Do we really even know why some things exist? Why do the planets exist? We don't know why we exist. My being agnostic does not mean I might believe in a god, a supernatural entity (or more than one entity) that possesses all the exact traits ascribed to him/her/it by any known religion. I simply find it hard to dismiss something simply because I can't observe it. Such unfounded certainty makes me feel as though I am being too sure of myself, too cocky. I am simply saying 'I don't know for sure' because that's really all I can do. There is the chance, however slim, that there could have been or that there currently is or that there eventually will be a higher power. It does not mean that, if such a thing exists, that it will be something we have ever described in any known religion. It does not even mean that such an entity needs to be in this universe or in this dimension in order to exist.

Atheism denies the possibility that any higher power can possibly exist. In a reality known to be full of gray areas, being so certain about something we know don't fully understand seems unrealistic to me. To me, atheism is like a modern religion. Natural laws? Mathematics? Science? All these things are entirely artificial. These things require some faith to accept, not unlike religion. We've only been here for an insignificant amount of time compared to the planets and stars. To the universe, we are less than specks of dust. Really, what do we know?

...we can't answer that without fearing that we may know less that we think we do. To cope, we create systems that 'organize' the world around us so that we might seem to understand. Inconclusive results and I-don't-knows are dismissed as 'fake' or 'bad' even if they are questions we have no way of answering. Every question MUST have a definite answer. We simply can't tolerate not knowing something.


Yes they are bad. They're questions and assumptions from Christian fundamentalist. The one about the priest is an example to give you an idea why a minister of religion would do something so morally wrong as to molest children. Priests are said to answer to God so he can judge the sins that people commits, so Priest are like God's right-hand man but they still do something that I know "God" would disapprove of entirely.

"but using the inability to sense something in order to support the non-existence of something is not very good."
Your argument is a valid argument but it is not a sound argument because of vice-versa. If we do not have the ability to sense something in order to claim it's existence how can you tell me otherwise I am wrong to claim it does not exist? Especially when you claim something to exist when you yourself have no idea of its existence makes it a false declaration. Your analogy of the stars doesn't make any sense to me. Because we know that stars do exist, we can claim the possibility that there are more stars we have yet to identify.
For God, we cannot conclude that there may be one that we haven't been able to sense, because we have not been able to develop the evidence and clarify or approve the existence of a supernatural entity in the first place. No premises or false premises inference a false conclusion.

I'm asking for the reason why the object you mentioned exist is because I want to know what are its beneficial factors or disadvantages contribution to the universe. Everything that exists in this world benefits and risks the others so until you can tell me what kind of contribution this object have for the universe, it is not even worth debating about it. I am not blindly dismissing the possibility of God's existence, it's just because we have science. They have evidence to back up the theory of how stars are formed, aka when life is born. This is why I chose to believe in the Big Bang theory, because the evidences are tangible.

Yes they are artificial, but they are systems humans created to explain and comprehend the things around us and to the extent of my knowledge, it has not fail us has it?


I'm not saying that a higher power must exist. I am simply saying that we ought not to be so sure of ourselves and the artificial constructs we are so proud of. Saying something exists even if you have no idea where or when it existed still does not detract from the truth of its existence. Intent does not make something true or false, facts do.

I'm asking for the reason why the object you mentioned exist is because I want to know what are its beneficial factors or disadvantages contribution to the universe. Everything that exists in this world benefits and risks the others so until you can tell me what kind of contribution this object have for the universe, it is not even worth debating about it.

What? So if we cannot determine or know something's worth or purpose, it is not worth debating about? If we don't know the worth of something, how do we deem it worthless and not a valid topic of debate? The wording used here makes it seem as though unmeasurable worth and unknown purpose are being equated with worthlessness. Our feelings have worth that cannot be measured. I am certain they are not worthless.

Admitting we don't know something and never will is a bad thing? This seems to solidify the fact that we can't tolerate not knowing and will dismiss unanswerable questions or fabricate our own answers. Why can we not just take something, regard its inability for us to know about it, and accept that we can't know about it?


Yes they are artificial, but they are systems humans created to explain and comprehend the things around us and to the extent of my knowledge, it has not fail us has it?

We only understand them because they tell is what we want to know on OUR terms. Just like how it is impossible to completely understand being someone else because you can't even know what it is like to be that person from that person's perspective (the most we can do is attempt to understand that person's experiences from OUR OWN perspective), there will be things we cannot completely understand or put into words. These unexpressable unknowns DO exist. Because they exist, is it not unreasonable to deduce that more of them must exist? I'm sure you also know that we have also yet to find or create anything that is invincible, indestructible, all-knowing, perfect, all-encompassing, etc. Science is just a system we have created. It has taken the place of religion in explaining natural phenomenon. How can we claim it is perfect and will not fail us? To a devout believer, there is evidence of a god or of gods.


the first thing i never understand when i question a christian on Christianity is, "i know you think god created everything, but what created god?" then they (almost always) say, "oh, well, he was just THERE. he's been there for all eternity." then i say, "that's fricking ridiculous. you can't just BE there. you have to be created somehow. and we don't even know if there IS(/was) an eternity. it's just a theory."
Posted 8/16/12
So I'm gonna skip over all of this ^^^

....And just stick to on topic: yes and no. Like I want to be religious and believe that I'm gonna get a do over in another life. The whole heaven spiel just doesn't sit right with me. But I guess you could say I still believe in a God. I damn well believe in bad sh*t out there so I hope there's a God to counter act all that; though it does make me question why he'd approve of allowing the bad sh*t to exist to begin with. How can you be all powerful and yet still allow evil to manifest? Doesn't jive.
5246 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / San Jose
Offline
Posted 8/17/12

Watermelonheaven wrote:


Michaeln93 wrote:


Watermelonheaven wrote:


Michaeln93 wrote:


Watermelonheaven wrote:


Michaeln93 wrote:


Watermelonheaven wrote:

I used to be Buddhist but I'm agnostic now. I see agnosticism as the middle ground between religion and atheism.

I don't think I can be sure any god is real but, at the same time, it's hard to prove that god isn't real.


Nooo, it's pretty easy. You can use philosophy to make a hardcore religious person rethink about religion. All the things people say to prove god is real are absolutely ridiculous and child's play.

"Well who created us other than god?"

"No other being out there is as powerful as god, so he must created us!" << Can't ask this question unless you're assuming there is a god so this isn't even a counterproductive argument.

And what's with priest molesting children? This is not a false rumor, these things actually happens.

I don't think those are even valid arguments. A religion is separate from its followers.

It's not that easy to prove/disprove something as profound and unknown as the supernatural. It's actually very hard to prove that some things don't exist, especially if this entity is supposedly something we can't see, hear, smell, taste, etc. For instance, you can't prove to me that there isn't a gold-rimmed white mug in the orbit of Mars at this very moment. You can say why it is unlikely and we can interpret the unlikeliness as a 'doesn't exist,' but the off-chance is still there.


Those weren't arguments. Those were questions asked by theist. I am not even making an argument.

You are correct, it is not that easy to prove or disprove of something that is unknown. But first of all, you would have to tell me where did this concept of "gold-rimmed white mug in the orbit of Mars" come from? What is the reason for this to exist in the first place? What was the premises that led you to believe that such a thing exist?

For the concept of God, there are reasons of how this came to be. A few may be because humans are discomforted and needed something to put faith in, or maybe because humans are born with a degree of curiosity and anxiousness to work things out when they can not understand some things. In this case, humans often look into reality and think to themselves how does all these things exist ; the world, the beauty, the life, the shapes, the forms, the colors, etc. They cannot comprehend how they exists and assumed there must be a higher power somewhere that created them all, and that humans doesn't have the capacity to or can't possibly ever comprehend. A being that is said to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient - the Creator.

Now as you all could probably tell, I am an atheist. The reason I don't believe in a higher power is because I can not believe in something I have never seen before with my own eyes. The bible is nothing more to me than a fairy tale, a story to be told by the bonfires, gathered around by children waiting for some day they can tell the stories to other groups of kids with a side of their own fabricated part.

Plus I've seen, read, and heard of a lot of things that occurred in this world that very much contradicts the image of God.

If I have no choice but to believe in God, I would have to say I believe in God spiritually, nothing more than a feeling of comfort, liveness deep within the soul of oneself.

Alright, my bad. They are questions. Bad questions. The one about the priest doesn't even have anything to do with proving or disproving the existence of a higher power. The first questions are something that a religious, god-fearing person would ask. Of course an atheist wouldn't understand them. It is like asking a man what it feels like to have a period. He won't understand the question.

No offense intended, but using the inability to sense something in order to support the non-existence of something is not very good. We can't observe or sense that there are stars other than the ones we already know of, but we still 'know' that there are more stars than the ones we have seen. Even being able to sense something does not always mean that the senses are reliable. Crazy people don't usually think they are crazy.

A reason for something to exist? Do we really even know why some things exist? Why do the planets exist? We don't know why we exist. My being agnostic does not mean I might believe in a god, a supernatural entity (or more than one entity) that possesses all the exact traits ascribed to him/her/it by any known religion. I simply find it hard to dismiss something simply because I can't observe it. Such unfounded certainty makes me feel as though I am being too sure of myself, too cocky. I am simply saying 'I don't know for sure' because that's really all I can do. There is the chance, however slim, that there could have been or that there currently is or that there eventually will be a higher power. It does not mean that, if such a thing exists, that it will be something we have ever described in any known religion. It does not even mean that such an entity needs to be in this universe or in this dimension in order to exist.

Atheism denies the possibility that any higher power can possibly exist. In a reality known to be full of gray areas, being so certain about something we know don't fully understand seems unrealistic to me. To me, atheism is like a modern religion. Natural laws? Mathematics? Science? All these things are entirely artificial. These things require some faith to accept, not unlike religion. We've only been here for an insignificant amount of time compared to the planets and stars. To the universe, we are less than specks of dust. Really, what do we know?

...we can't answer that without fearing that we may know less that we think we do. To cope, we create systems that 'organize' the world around us so that we might seem to understand. Inconclusive results and I-don't-knows are dismissed as 'fake' or 'bad' even if they are questions we have no way of answering. Every question MUST have a definite answer. We simply can't tolerate not knowing something.


Yes they are bad. They're questions and assumptions from Christian fundamentalist. The one about the priest is an example to give you an idea why a minister of religion would do something so morally wrong as to molest children. Priests are said to answer to God so he can judge the sins that people commits, so Priest are like God's right-hand man but they still do something that I know "God" would disapprove of entirely.

"but using the inability to sense something in order to support the non-existence of something is not very good."
Your argument is a valid argument but it is not a sound argument because of vice-versa. If we do not have the ability to sense something in order to claim it's existence how can you tell me otherwise I am wrong to claim it does not exist? Especially when you claim something to exist when you yourself have no idea of its existence makes it a false declaration. Your analogy of the stars doesn't make any sense to me. Because we know that stars do exist, we can claim the possibility that there are more stars we have yet to identify.
For God, we cannot conclude that there may be one that we haven't been able to sense, because we have not been able to develop the evidence and clarify or approve the existence of a supernatural entity in the first place. No premises or false premises inference a false conclusion.

I'm asking for the reason why the object you mentioned exist is because I want to know what are its beneficial factors or disadvantages contribution to the universe. Everything that exists in this world benefits and risks the others so until you can tell me what kind of contribution this object have for the universe, it is not even worth debating about it. I am not blindly dismissing the possibility of God's existence, it's just because we have science. They have evidence to back up the theory of how stars are formed, aka when life is born. This is why I chose to believe in the Big Bang theory, because the evidences are tangible.

Yes they are artificial, but they are systems humans created to explain and comprehend the things around us and to the extent of my knowledge, it has not fail us has it?


I'm not saying that a higher power must exist. I am simply saying that we ought not to be so sure of ourselves and the artificial constructs we are so proud of. Saying something exists even if you have no idea where or when it existed still does not detract from the truth of its existence. Intent does not make something true or false, facts do.

I'm asking for the reason why the object you mentioned exist is because I want to know what are its beneficial factors or disadvantages contribution to the universe. Everything that exists in this world benefits and risks the others so until you can tell me what kind of contribution this object have for the universe, it is not even worth debating about it.

What? So if we cannot determine or know something's worth or purpose, it is not worth debating about? If we don't know the worth of something, how do we deem it worthless and not a valid topic of debate? The wording used here makes it seem as though unmeasurable worth and unknown purpose are being equated with worthlessness. Our feelings have worth that cannot be measured. I am certain they are not worthless.

Admitting we don't know something and never will is a bad thing? This seems to solidify the fact that we can't tolerate not knowing and will dismiss unanswerable questions or fabricate our own answers. Why can we not just take something, regard its inability for us to know about it, and accept that we can't know about it?


Yes they are artificial, but they are systems humans created to explain and comprehend the things around us and to the extent of my knowledge, it has not fail us has it?

We only understand them because they tell is what we want to know on OUR terms. Just like how it is impossible to completely understand being someone else because you can't even know what it is like to be that person from that person's perspective (the most we can do is attempt to understand that person's experiences from OUR OWN perspective), there will be things we cannot completely understand or put into words. These unexpressable unknowns DO exist. Because they exist, is it not unreasonable to deduce that more of them must exist? I'm sure you also know that we have also yet to find or create anything that is invincible, indestructible, all-knowing, perfect, all-encompassing, etc. Science is just a system we have created. It has taken the place of religion in explaining natural phenomenon. How can we claim it is perfect and will not fail us? To a devout believer, there is evidence of a god or of gods.



I understand what you're trying to say but I am not speaking in general, I am speaking for myself that I can not accept a higher power without seeing one with my own eyes. You never see any signs of this higher power yourself, you only witnessed it with your ears. You heard it from someone else who happens to hear it from someone else and so on and so forth. I believe the person or people who started all this was either trying to gain popularity, money, power, or just for moral reasoning.

That is not what I'm trying to say at all. You are using a fallacy here, distorting what I'm trying to say by making it look like it's bad. Yes some things in this world can not be measured or able to put a value on but it doesn't mean it's worthless and again, it's not what I'm trying to say at all. I just can't put it into words that makes it more easy to understand.

"Because they exist, is it not unreasonable to deduce that more of them must exist?"

Because some of them exist, it will not be faulty if you think more of them exist even if they might not, like your analogy of the stars. But saying something exists without knowing if any exists AT ALL is fatuous.

"Science is just a system we have created. It has taken the place of religion in explaining natural phenomenon. How can we claim it is perfect and will not fail us? To a devout believer, there is evidence of a god or of gods"

No it's not that science has taken the place of religion in explaining natural phenomenon, that would imply that science is an alternative option. I would say that science is more like the complete opposite, it defies religion. Science is just a system we created, but we created it to explain and understand the things that already existed. It's not like the things around us only appeared after we thought of the concept of science. "How can we claim it is perfect and will not fail us?" Well that is why we do not conclude the things in the blink of an eye. Scientist take ages to try to understand these phenomenon. They try to experiment with it themselves. I am not in anyway saying science is perfect and will not fail it, I am saying it has not fail us. I mean, oppose to the theory of an invisible entity floating around causing all these phenomenon, which one do you believe in more?

And like the guy before me asked ; If God created the universe who created God? Everything has to come from something they say, so where did God come from? If God existed by himself how can it be wrong to think that maybe the universe also exists by itself? How about the possibility that maybe life also exists by itself? These two actually makes more sense then the theory of God's existence because they have at least 100 times the evidences..
8485 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Sasebo, Nagasaki-shi
Offline
Posted 8/17/12

RudeCoder wrote:

I'm religious because it encourages me to be a good person. Religion taught me the virtues of being a good person, as well as gives me sort of a mental commitment to being that good person. I'm not the best religious person, as I've certainly committed my fair share of "sins." But religion also reminds me that just because I'm not perfect does not mean that its over, and I can choose to go back to being a good person if I wanted to.

I have a bunch of friends that are atheist (the result of attending a liberal arts college). They decided that religion has no place in their life and that in its extreme form it can be destructive (which I agree with as well), but they still know how to be good people. We all agree that people are entitled to whatever they want to believe in. Some people use it to define their life, some people use it as guidance and some people use it as a platform to cause harm to other people. There are many other things in this world that people can use for those purposes, like loyalty to a country or even a sports team. Ultimately, its people themselves that decide what to do with their beliefs.


So.. you can't encourage yourself to be a 'good' person without the use of religion?

I dunno, I think I manage pretty well with the whole 'ethically correct' thing without guidance from a supreme being.

Unless suddenly, I became a supreme being without my knowledge or consent. :S

First  Prev  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.