Religion

[crepesuzette]

Prove to all of us that your god created humanity and I will drop the subject. Unfortunately, you can't prove anything.
"Proven fact" is redundant.
When you said "atheists hate on us because we are religious and sometimes unfriend us if we won't accept a point of view that means we'd have to drop our religion to accept that" I practically died laughing. Don't play the victim here. You act as if there is a war on religion. You confuse a war on religion with not getting what you want.
Asking me to forget the atrocities committed by religion is kind of like asking a people to forget the history of racism. Or like asking South Africans to forget apartheid.



You have officially convinced me that your god is a giant asshole. Allowing evil to occur when one has the power to stop it, is just as evil as perpetrating the crime.


-double post merged. -Emerald Dream

i understand how you feel. i know that it's hard to accept a religion with so much hate and violence. but then again, you have to not lump everyone into the same category, like all religious people are hypocrites and all. depending on which generation and which time period they were raised in, they act a certain way. like the old generations may think that gay marriage is wrong, but for us, we find it perfectly alright. Why? because we are more knowledgeable and we are taught to believe that everyone has the right to get married, regardless of sexual orientation.

Sorry but religion srperates everyone.

what do you mean it divides everyone? sure it gives people a different name, but everyone should treat each other with respect.

[Taurus]

i understand how you feel. i know that it's hard to accept a religion with so much hate and violence. but then again, you have to not lump everyone into the same category, like all religious people are hypocrites and all. depending on which generation and which time period they were raised in, they act a certain way. like the old generations may think that gay marriage is wrong, but for us, we find it perfectly alright. Why? because we are more knowledgeable and we are taught to believe that everyone has the right to get married, regardless of sexual orientation.

Yet you still follow a book that, if followed properly, would have us both executed. Me for being an atheist, and you for tolerating homosexuals.

[Left Now]

As a Muslim i shall tell you religion was not made by any humans...
Religion is the main thing which is created by God...
In my belief,Religion is a strange way to reach the best fortune for any people,to reach the acceptance of god and be one of the goods...
I do not want to fight with any other religions because they are not hostile toward me and my religion,also there is no need to fight against secularism,if it doesn't choose a way to insult and ruin the important things of a religion...
Not like many persons,i believe that the cause of Terrorism and racism is not a religion...
It is the feeling of being needless to have a religion which cause people to act like crazy people...I respect any beliefs but i want other people to respect mine...
A church can be a really holy place like a mosque or temple can....
The holiness depends on how a human is doing to help other ones and this way which makes him or her to act like this is Religion...
I don't know others but religion is good and useful to me because it shows me how to act in life...
And also,the religions always order people to gain knowledge about the nature and the world...So they cannot be something for taking the place of knowledge and science in the past...

the last thing i have to say is to be kind with religion

[randomnessqueen]

Yet you still follow a book that, if followed properly, would have us both executed. Me for being an atheist, and you for tolerating homosexuals.

christians arent supposed to follow the old testament. that is the jewish bible. jesus gave his gospels in order to replace the jewish laws. if you notice, the old and new testaments have very different attitudes toward sin.

[Toogley Schmurp]

Religion is for the weak minded that need moral boundaries due to lack of common sense and decency.

[Left Now]

it is what you think not all the people

[AwesomeGuy15]

Im a christian that believes in God and the bible.

[Left Now]

You are welcomed for me friend

[Hunter_Steel]

Religion is for the weak minded that need moral boundaries due to lack of common sense and decency.

So by that logic: I am weak minded, my family is weak minded and all my friends are weak minded?

Sorry for stepping on your toes here but. Are you out of your mind?! If you ask me, religion makes a mind strong and gives a person who sees they have no purpose in life a purpose. It gives hope to those that have none, and it brings people together.

I have common sense and decency. You clearly lack respect for other people's beliefs. If you ask me, atheists are the weak minded. 80% of all suicides in the world are done by people who don't have a religion.

Religion tells us that there is always hope and where there's a will there's a way. There's always a silver lining, and people are better off with it than without it if you ask me. It separates people? Sorry if I am wrong about this but... What separation has it caused? Sure Muslims and Christians hate eachother. But not all do. I have quite a few muslim friends who don't follow the laws in the Qur'an that talk about killing for the sake of Alla because our society today doesn't permit it.

My aunt is a Buddhist. And the rest of my family is Dutch Reformed.

We're all very strong people. So yeah, saying religion is for the weak minded is calling nearly half or more than half of the Earth's population weak minded.

~Hunter

[Left Now]

This guy!Religion is way to gain moral and to have a good life.While religion is still ordering people to gain knowledge,it is a prove for those who think the religion is for weak minded.Because a thing against science will never order to gain knowledge and science...And be open minded

[naglfari]

So by that logic: I am weak minded, my family is weak minded and all my friends are weak minded?

Sorry for stepping on your toes here but. Are you out of your mind?! If you ask me, religion makes a mind strong and gives a person who sees they have no purpose in life a purpose. It gives hope to those that have none, and it brings people together.

I have common sense and decency. You clearly lack respect for other people's beliefs. If you ask me, atheists are the weak minded. 80% of all suicides in the world are done by people who don't have a religion.

Religion tells us that there is always hope and where there's a will there's a way. There's always a silver lining, and people are better off with it than without it if you ask me. It separates people? Sorry if I am wrong about this but... What separation has it caused? Sure Muslims and Christians hate eachother. But not all do. I have quite a few muslim friends who don't follow the laws in the Qur'an that talk about killing for the sake of Alla because our society today doesn't permit it.

My aunt is a Buddhist. And the rest of my family is Dutch Reformed.

We're all very strong people. So yeah, saying religion is for the weak minded is calling nearly half or more than half of the Earth's population weak minded.

~Hunter

Lol I can guarantee that suicide thing is bs. Sounds like something a right wing blogger would say.

I agree with you on religion giving people hope though I think that's why religious beliefs are stronger and more relevant in poorer and more violent parts of the world where people really need hope. But you can't ignore the amount of wart and injustice and terror caused in the name of religions either because its so easy to justify being a horrible person if you can convince yourself its what god wants

[Left Now]

Lol I can guarantee that suicide thing is bs. Sounds like something a right wing blogger would say.

I agree with you on religion giving people hope though I think that's why religious beliefs are stronger and more relevant in poorer and more violent parts of the world where people really need hope. But you can't ignore the amount of wart and injustice and terror caused in the name of religions either because its so easy to justify being a horrible person if you can convince yourself its what god wants

They just justified themselves wrong and are out of the religion because they took their own meanings from God's book.The book shall be translated by the educated religious people.

[naglfari]

The books themselves say plenty of messed up stuff too. Its best to just stick with the messages that are positive but then you have to admit you're picking and choosing and just be honest about the fact that the Bible and other religious texts were still written by people, not god

[Left Now]

But Quran was sent by god...Maybe the Bible got written by people after Jesus,but Quran was written by Writers and Hafiz people while Prophet was recieving the texts from Jebrael.(The angel of messaging)

[naglfari]

Yeah well that's what they all say. They all talked to god or an angel or Jesus. The book of mormons is supposed to be a direct transcription from an angel who said god lives on another planet and when you die if you were good you'll get your own planet and native Americans are actually Jews etc

[Left Now]

Chirt and Pirt(Garbages)
God is not in this mortal world,there is an immortal world which in this world isn't anyway to it except death...Only if you die you can transport there...

[naglfari]

The point is everyone from a abrahamic religion is claiming they were told everything by god or one of his angels. The catholic church even says that the pope talks directly with god today

What makes one any more likely than another?

[Bethany]

The point is everyone from a abrahamic religion is claiming they were told everything by god or one of his angels. The catholic church even says that the pope talks directly with god today

What makes one any more likely than another?

As a, well, fairly unbiased atheist, I can say that the Quran is more scientifically accurate than the Bible.

The Bible refers to the Earth as flat ("four corners") while the Quran refers to the Earth as rounded.

The Quran refers to the orbits of the moon, sun, and earth.

The Quran also refers, in a scientifically accurate way, to altitude sickness and the formation of groundwater, which weren't scientifically explained until later. This is as opposed to the Bible, which refers to the earth as stagnant and the moon as a light source (like the sun).

Simply based upon the scientific truths seen in the Quran, I would say Islam is more likely to be true than Christianity.

But...I'm an atheist anyways :D

[Jess]

This guy!Religion is way to gain moral and to have a good life.While religion is still ordering people to gain knowledge,it is a prove for those who think the religion is for weak minded.Because a thing against science will never order to gain knowledge and science...And be open minded

You don't need religion to have a good life or "gain moral" (be moral?).

[VictoriaGotaSecret]

Atheist!

[Left Now]

Of course it is your belief and i will respect it....

[TheRashad]

I belive in Allah (God) as we call in In islam , I belive in that higher power that rules the world and control it , I belive in islam because it belives in other celestial religons and in islam you won't be a real muslim until you belive in all other prophets like Jesus christ and Moses and David ...etc and there books (bible and so ) my prophet Muhammad was a peace spreader and he never used war except when muslims were attacked and Muhammad was never agressive even he was forgiving his Jewish neighbour who was throwing rubbish in front of his house.
All the religions that say that there is one god (Allah) are true but yhey were modified by the religion men as in Christianity whrn the monks hid some verses of bible and never shared them and some modified them to be suitable for their desires.
I want to say, that islam is true religion that was never modified tell now and it is the religion of peace and forgiveness but some poeple dont understand it right and just use violence as a weapon to spread islam and this is very stupid and wrong

[Toogley Schmurp]

So by that logic: I am weak minded, my family is weak minded and all my friends are weak minded?

Sorry for stepping on your toes here but. Are you out of your mind?! If you ask me, religion makes a mind strong and gives a person who sees they have no purpose in life a purpose. It gives hope to those that have none, and it brings people together.

I have common sense and decency. You clearly lack respect for other people's beliefs. If you ask me, atheists are the weak minded. 80% of all suicides in the world are done by people who don't have a religion.

Religion tells us that there is always hope and where there's a will there's a way. There's always a silver lining, and people are better off with it than without it if you ask me. It separates people? Sorry if I am wrong about this but... What separation has it caused? Sure Muslims and Christians hate eachother. But not all do. I have quite a few muslim friends who don't follow the laws in the Qur'an that talk about killing for the sake of Alla because our society today doesn't permit it.

My aunt is a Buddhist. And the rest of my family is Dutch Reformed.

We're all very strong people. So yeah, saying religion is for the weak minded is calling nearly half or more than half of the Earth's population weak minded.

~Hunter

Jeez, didn't need your life story there, but it appears it is a tad bit late for that. So anyway, you just supported my earlier comment by saying, religion makes a mind strong. By saying that you are implying that the person's mind was weak when they found religion. While the mind is weak it is easy to manipulate by authority figures, such as, oh I dunno... your precious little god, the christofascists ( if you don't understand what it means, don't come to false conclusions and use common sense), and the catholic church. But wait there's more! I declare shennagans on your false percentage!

[tundravortex]

im"iroquois indian"(Mohawk)

[chrisf55]

Personally, I am an Athiest. I choose not to believe in a God because I see it as an impossibility. I won't be one of those D-bag athiests that doesn't respect people's religions, but I don't think the same way. I do, however, go to a Christian church every now and then because I like it and there are a lot of good people there.

[randomnessqueen]

its only really abrahamic religions that critisize other religions.
dharmic religoins are more open, and its not uncommon for one to practise more than one because they only improve each other.
even sikh dharma, which is also monotheistic and has its own form of baptism, is completely excepting of other religious paths. and not in the liberal christian sense of 'you are wrong but i can accept you in spite of that', but rather see other religions as just other paths to god.

[mattywiz96]

ive m a man of science with facts not myths sorry :p

[Eddie.37]

I'm a baptized Catholic, but I stopped believing, and don't really practice anymore (unless it's those days when mom nags me to church)

[darthearth]

Personally, I am an Athiest. I choose not to believe in a God because I see it as an impossibility. I won't be one of those D-bag athiests that doesn't respect people's religions, but I don't think the same way. I do, however, go to a Christian church every now and then because I like it and there are a lot of good people there.

How do you see it as an impossibility? I'm curious.

I think we are immortal spirits reading out the brain of the body and that we move on after this. I believe this way because I don't see how electromagnetic waves can become p-conscious. If there is spirit then it seems logical to have a "God" organizing things, but not necessarily micromanaging here in the physical world.

[chrisf55]

How do you see it as an impossibility? I'm curious.

I think we are immortal spirits reading out the brain of the body and that we move on after this. I believe this way because I don't see how electromagnetic waves can become p-conscious. If there is spirit then it seems logical to have a "God" organizing things, but not necessarily micromanaging here in the physical world.

I don't understand the question. I mean exactly what you read, I see it as an impossibility that there is a god that created all things because we know how things were created.

[chargersfan]

I don't understand the question. I mean exactly what you read, I see it as an impossibility that there is a god that created all things because we know how things were created.

I'm an atheist and you are wrong. We don't know how things were created (If you are talking about the Universe as a whole) But the reason I'm an atheist is
that I don't believe a God exists, but I don't believe a God exists, as apposed to me believing a God doesn't exist. The difference here is that the 2nd one makes a claim as appose to the first one doesn't. If somebody tells me a God exists, in order to verify it using proper verification methods, (Such as burden of proof)
you have to be able to prove that a God exists. Same thing with anything else such as if you wanted to make a claim that Bigfoot exists, you can't prove that he doesn't exist, but you can't prove that he exists either, therefore you don't believe he exists (I hope) because you have no such evidence to believe in such. I apply this same thing to God, a God may exist, it is possible, but I have no proof that one does exist, any even if one did exist, there is no way for me to know if it is a God of the mainstream religions (Such as Islam, or Christianity) a God of any sort of religion in human history, or a God of any religion that we know of at all. So I take the default position of not believing in any Gods until I get undisputed evidence. But you can't claim we know how everything was created, because we don't.

[chrisf55]

I'm an atheist and you are wrong.
Typical way Athiests start a sentence.

We don't know how things were created (If you are talking about the Universe as a whole)
I wasn't.

But the reason I'm an atheist is
Never asked you why, you responded to me.

that I don't believe a God exists, but I don't believe a God exists, as apposed to me believing a God doesn't exist.
Wut?

The difference here is that the 2nd one makes a claim as appose to the first one doesn't.
Still wut.

If somebody tells me a God exists, in order to verify it using proper verification methods, (Such as burden of proof)you have to be able to prove that a God exists.
Or, you could just not be a jerk and let them believe a God exists, instead of asking for proof.

Same thing with anything else such as if you wanted to make a claim that Bigfoot exists, you can't prove that he doesn't exist, but you can't prove that he exists either, therefore you don't believe he exists (I hope) because you have no such evidence to believe in such.
(I would probably understand you better if you used better grammar, and didn't make your sentences a complete mess.) You contradicted yourself in writing this, because if you can't prove that something exists, that's proof enough that it doesn't exist.


I apply this same thing to God, a God may exist, it is possible, but I have no proof that one does exist, any even if one did exist, there is no way for me to know if it is a God of the mainstream religions (Such as Islam, or Christianity) a God of any sort of religion in human history, or a God of any religion that we know of at all.
If you were able to receive proof that a God exists, (like you said you couldn't) you would also know which one it is, since the proof would provide enough information.

So I take the default position of not believing in any Gods until I get undisputed evidence.
You will never have undisputed evidence, so that's a strange reason for not believing.

But you can't claim we know how everything was created, because we don't.
If you'd look back on the post you quoted me on, you'd see that I never said 'Everything', I said 'things'. And by 'things', I mean theories like how our planet was formed, which I believe to be true because there is nothing to prove it wrong.

[chargersfan]

[QUOTE=chargersfan;2298796]I'm an atheist and you are wrong.
Typical way Athiests start a sentence.

[QUOTE=chargersfan;2298796]We don't know how things were created (If you are talking about the Universe as a whole)
I wasn't.

[QUOTE=chargersfan;2298796]But the reason I'm an atheist is
Never asked you why, you responded to me.

[QUOTE=chargersfan;2298796]that I don't believe a God exists, but I don't believe a God exists, as apposed to me believing a God doesn't exist.
Wut? :what:

[QUOTE=chargersfan;2298796]The difference here is that the 2nd one makes a claim as appose to the first one doesn't.
Still wut. :what:

[QUOTE=chargersfan;2298796]If somebody tells me a God exists, in order to verify it using proper verification methods, (Such as burden of proof)
you have to be able to prove that a God exists.
Or, you could just not be a jerk and let them believe a God exists, instead of asking for proof.

[QUOTE=chargersfan;2298796]Same thing with anything else such as if you wanted to make a claim that Bigfoot exists, you can't prove that he doesn't exist, but you can't prove that he exists either, therefore you don't believe he exists (I hope) because you have no such evidence to believe in such.[QUOTE]
(I would probably understand you better if you used better grammar, and didn't make your sentences a complete mess.) You contradicted yourself in writing this, because if you can't prove that something exists, that's proof enough that it doesn't exist.


[QUOTE=chargersfan;2298796]I apply this same thing to God, a God may exist, it is possible, but I have no proof that one does exist, any even if one did exist, there is no way for me to know if it is a God of the mainstream religions (Such as Islam, or Christianity) a God of any sort of religion in human history, or a God of any religion that we know of at all.[QUOTE]
If you were able to receive proof that a God exists, (like you said you couldn't) you would also know which one it is, since the proof would provide enough information.

[QUOTE=chargersfan;2298796]So I take the default position of not believing in any Gods until I get undisputed evidence.[QUOTE]
I don't see why you even said 'until' in this sentence, you will never have undisputed evidence. That's why religions are called beliefs, because you believe in them, not because there is undisputed evidence, but because you think it is right.


If you'd look back on the post you quoted me on, you'd see that I never said 'Everything', I said 'things'. And by 'things', I mean theories like how our planet was formed, which I believe to be true because there is nothing to prove it wrong.

Good job trying to correct me though. :cool:

I actually did say if you were referring to the Universe as a whole because I wasn't positive. And just because there is nothing to prove something wrong doesn't mean it's right as I explained in my last post. If you are talking about the Big Bang Theory or Evolution, a lot of Christians (Old-Earth Creationists) will tell you that it did happen but that God had it happen that way. I just say that there is no way to know that.

[Loreley]

I am an orthodox christian.

[Caldwell]

I am an atheist because there is absolutely no reason to believe an all-powerful deity created the Universe. There just isn't. Religion and its roots clearly demonstrate that it's all a big scheme. It has devolved into nothing more but a ploy to obtain money. Even before that, it did nothing but cause unnecessary violence.

The fact that somebody can even convince themselves that there's such a thing as Satan, or Hell, or Heaven for that matter, is astounding. What is so hard to grasp about life? We are born, we live, and then our body stops functioning, then we die and aren't conscious anymore. There doesn't need to be a magical world that we get transported to forever after.

That said, perhaps there is some form of spiritual force in the universe, it's impossible to be certain. Then again, it's also impossible to be certain that there isn't a flying teacup orbiting the Earth that is invisible and completely undetectable. But I remain confident that we simply are, and that we were not created by a cosmic overlord who created a set of rules for us to follow, lest we burn in fire forever.

[chargersfan]

I am an atheist because there is absolutely no reason to believe an all-powerful deity created the Universe. There just isn't. Religion and its roots clearly demonstrate that it's all a big scheme. It has devolved into nothing more but a ploy to obtain money. Even before that, it did nothing but cause unnecessary violence.

The fact that somebody can even convince themselves that there's such a thing as Satan, or Hell, or Heaven for that matter, is astounding. What is so hard to grasp about life? We are born, we live, and then our body stops functioning, then we die and aren't conscious anymore. There doesn't need to be a magical world that we get transported to forever after.

That said, perhaps there is some form of spiritual force in the universe, it's impossible to be certain. Then again, it's also impossible to be certain that there isn't a flying teacup orbiting the Earth that is invisible and completely undetectable. But I remain confident that we simply are, and that we were not created by a cosmic overlord who created a set of rules for us to follow, lest we burn in fire forever.


Well said.

[superstarB]

Just Christian (maybe Lutheran)

[PecorellaDP]

I am an atheist because there is absolutely no reason to believe an all-powerful deity created the Universe. There just isn't. Religion and its roots clearly demonstrate that it's all a big scheme. It has devolved into nothing more but a ploy to obtain money. Even before that, it did nothing but cause unnecessary violence.

The fact that somebody can even convince themselves that there's such a thing as Satan, or Hell, or Heaven for that matter, is astounding. What is so hard to grasp about life? We are born, we live, and then our body stops functioning, then we die and aren't conscious anymore. There doesn't need to be a magical world that we get transported to forever after.

That said, perhaps there is some form of spiritual force in the universe, it's impossible to be certain. Then again, it's also impossible to be certain that there isn't a flying teacup orbiting the Earth that is invisible and completely undetectable. But I remain confident that we simply are, and that we were not created by a cosmic overlord who created a set of rules for us to follow, lest we burn in fire forever.

This pretty much sums up why I have become an Atheist. I find it silly that a God pretty much made this whole universe in 7 days. Also, I find it hard to believe that Earth is the only planet with life. There are millions and millions of galaxies, so how can there only be life here?

[Miserabilia]

Before I start: if you are religious, I am not trying to insult you, I am simply stating why I MYSELF do not "beleive"
For me the world is just the world how I see it. In my imagination I can make many great thoughts for it, but in the end, its just the same old world. Everything makes sense, everything is put together in a logical way. But for me this does not mean there is a god.
For example: how did the universe come to existence?
Some say big bang, some say god. But isn't it just the same? Both the Big Bang and "gods creation" cannot be explained. Both leave me with the questions:
-Where did the big bang come from?
( If you answer "god' i can just say: )
-Where did "god" come from?
If you answer god didnt come from anywhere because time didnt exist yet, cant I say the same thing about the big bang?
The fact is that the creation or existence of our universe cant simply be explained.
I whould rather come up with some complicated solution that provides a different look on everything then just say `god` or `big bang` ya know?
Anyway, sorry for the long rant.

[General Stark]

I am a Christian, and no specification needs to bee done. One is either a Christian or they aren't. Many claim to be Christians but don't understand what it really means to be one. Christians do, however, vary beliefs on certain theological issues, but that will not change rather they are or are not Christians.
I believe in Christianity because of what I consider to be overwhelming evidence that supports it. The biggest evidence of all is myself. Who I am. The way that I have changed because of my belief in Christ and my acceptance of Him being my Lord and Savior.

[Pinkamena]

I'm areligious. I don't care about religion at all.

[Placebo]

I am an atheist because there is absolutely no reason to believe an all-powerful deity created the Universe. There just isn't. Religion and its roots clearly demonstrate that it's all a big scheme. It has devolved into nothing more but a ploy to obtain money. Even before that, it did nothing but cause unnecessary violence.
A deity doesn't need to be all powerful to create the universe, nor does it need to be any part of a religion (which is where the all powerful idea comes from).
Also, religion has done plenty of good in the world, not just bad as you implied by saying it did nothing but cause unnecessary violence. Look at organisations like the Samaritans, Christian Aid, and all the work Churches did before there was any kind of health care system in the UK to help look after the poor ill.

What is so hard to grasp about life? We are born, we live, and then our body stops functioning, then we die and aren't conscious anymore.
I'd imagine because a lack of consciousness which is eternal is something which hasn't been experienced and so people can't imagine it and some are scared of the idea of it.

[saea97]

I'm an atheist because there isn't a god.

More interestingly, I'm an antitheist because religion warps minds and causes harm throughout the world. It doesn't matter that good people can be religious and do charity work; bad people can also be atheists and commit murder. It is the doctrine itself that matters, and many tenets of religions are poison to civilized society. You only have to look at the position of women in Islamic countries to understand this.

[Eddie_96]

Christianity but more specific I'm Catholic :)

[Placebo]

I'm an atheist because there isn't a god.
Not sure if serious that you think you know that.

More interestingly, I'm an antitheist because religion warps minds and causes harm throughout the world.
It also brings solidarity and helps people. Of course there's a positive and negative to it.

It doesn't matter that good people can be religious and do charity work;
It does if they do it in the name of religion, or religion is the cause of it. That would mean the religion is doing "good".

bad people can also be atheists and commit murder. It is the doctrine itself that matters, and many tenets of religions are poison to civilized society. You only have to look at the position of women in Islamic countries to understand this.
Many are also helpful to society in bringing a moral background (if you look at most major modern laws, they can be found with a base in religion). There are positives and negatives and you're only looking at the negatives.
Also, you say "You only have to look at..." and then pick one of the most extreme examples.

[saea97]

Not sure if serious that you think you know that.

Well, you've only had 2000 years to prove it... The null hypothesis is the correct scientific assumption until evidence is provided, and given the extent of scientific advancement, the lack of evidence is beginning to speak louder and louder.

It also brings solidarity and helps people. Of course there's a positive and negative to it.

I get that people derive happiness from their religion and I would never seek to take that away from them. I would personally not want to delude myself to feel better. As for solidarity, well that only goes as far as one's own religion, doesn't it? That's not real solidarity.


It does if they do it in the name of religion, or religion is the cause of it. That would mean the religion is doing "good".

I disagree. Jihadists commit terrorism in the name of religion. That doesn't make the religion bad necessarily (I could commit a crime in the name of cake but does that make cake bad? "In the name of x" is just a nonsense phrase that is totally ambiguous with regard to the rightness of x) just like doing good in the name of a religion doesn't make the religion good. You have to base that judgment on the doctrine; the Bible and the Qu'ran are morally reprehensible, THEREFORE the religion is bad.

Many are also helpful to society in bringing a moral background (if you look at most major modern laws, they can be found with a base in religion). There are positives and negatives and you're only looking at the negatives.
Also, you say "You only have to look at..." and then pick one of the most extreme examples.

I'm sorry, I don't think any books exist in the world that I would be less likely to want my morals from than the Bible and the Qu'ran. No, I'm not saying everything in the holy texts is morally bad, but if you think religions provide a good moral background then you are HEAVILY cherry-picking the text. Go and read Leviticus.

That's not an extreme example, that's a world religion with hundreds of millions of adherents.

[TheJaded]

I am technically Catholic, but I'm not that religious.

I don't agree with the atheists about religion. It's perfectly fine to not believe in a god or a religion, but being against religion? It's the person that turns religion bad, not the religion itself.

What makes religion bad is not the practices of the religion, but what people do to try to spread it. People should have a right to believe what they want. At the base, most religions are pretty much the same. They all branched off from each other. There is a "higher power", moral codes, etc., etc. But, people justify religious wars by saying they're fighting in the name of God, or Allah, or etc. War should NEVER be ok!

I believe that there is a God, and God would probably love all people the same, no matter their faith. As long as you're a good person, your religion shouldn't matter! I have friends who are Jews, Wiccans, Strong Roman Catholics, Atheists, and one who is a member of a very tiny religion that I don't remember.

Just my thoughts... :)

[teen.jpg]

Atheist

[LikeAJay]

I'm a atheist because i don't see a God here. He hadn't proven to me.

[Chelsea716]

I am neither a atheist nor agnostic. I am unsure on if there is a force that some how came to be to create the universe or "universes" or if it a being. If there was just a freak event to kick start everything at some point.... There is no "god" in my mind but there is the idea of a strang force that everyone thinks is a "god" being.

[Camazotz]

It's perfectly fine to not believe in a god or a religion, but being against religion? It's the person that turns religion bad, not the religion itself.

I love these words of wisdom. I'm an atheist, but this is how I feel about the tiny portion of our group that insists that religion is the root of all evil and is to blame for a lot of the world's problems.

Man is the root of all evil (that we know of). We created evil, we commit evil, and we invented the code of morality that defines evil. Man is also good, but one cannot deny that the Man is also evil.

[yviedarling]

I believe in being the absolute good. And I consider myself Christian because I believe there is a God, and that Jesus was a real person who died for the betterment of man. I believe it because I just can't stand the "do whatever you want and no harm will come to you" kind of mentality. You should always try to be good. Because, why not?

[saea97]

I believe it because I just can't stand the "do whatever you want and no harm will come to you" kind of mentality. You should always try to be good. Because, why not?

Obviously it's commendable to always try to be good, but why does this necessitate following Christianity? Atheists are perfectly good people, by and large.

[yviedarling]

Obviously it's commendable to always try to be good, but why does this necessitate following Christianity? Atheists are perfectly good people, by and large.

Never said it did. That's just what I believe Christianity is, so that's why I follow it. I have nothing against atheists. Actually, the majority of people I love the most are atheist.

[saea97]

Never said it did. That's just what I believe Christianity is, so that's why I follow it. I have nothing against atheists. Actually, the majority of people I love the most are atheist.

Sure, but it seems to me then that the reason you believe in Christianity and God is because you believe it's the nicest course of action, rather than due to reasoned evidence that the Abrahamic God exists or that the Bible is true in any regard. Would that be fair to say or am I misinterpreting?

[badthoughts]

edit

[saea97]

It doesn't.

Too often, I think the argument against Christianity bases itself primarily on several things: 1) the day-to-day absence of a tangible deity, a supreme ruler and creator, 2) reliance upon a book, the bible, consisting of volumes of other books, all of which were written by man and which contain inconsistencies and contradictions 3) reference to the earlier volumes of the bible, known as the old testament, as basis for deeming the Christian God as vengeful and tyrannical and not an appealing god to serve, and 4) historical events of horrible violence that were committed by Christians and/or in the name of Christianity.

I suppose one could make a convincing argument against Christianity.

Generally, this depends on the type of person. I care largely about the truth, so 1 and 2 in your list are notably important to me. But I do also hold with number 3 as an antitheist. Number 4 doesn't really appeal to me. I tend not to use it as it doesn't have any power to reveal whether Christianity is true. If I were to mention it it would probably be in flippant response to someone trying to construct an argument out of "Stalin and Mao were atheists therefore xyz", but I don't see the point in it really. Atrocities committed by Christians don't reflect on you as a Christian, just as Stalin's atrocities don't reflect on me as an atheist.

However, what many fail to understand is that the heart of Christianity is not the bible, nor the church, nor actions committed by man either good or bad. The heart of Christianity is one man. A man who was as real as any other figure in history. And specifically, it is the events involving that man that beat the heart of Christianity and give us our lifeblood of belief. Three things matter, that's it. Nothing else matters, not the Vatican, not Genesis or creation or evolution or any other bullshit that is not the following three things: 1) The man, Yeshua (Jesus), and his teachings. 2) His death. 3) His resurrection from the dead. If something does not involve those three things, then it doesn't pertain to the heart of Christianity and it does not matter.

The teachings of Jesus, at least what we have recorded, are of sound wisdom and universal and based on love. However, to use Samuel's argument, understanding and applying the teachings of Jesus does not necessitate being devoted to him, also known as being a Christian. Where the game changes, so to speak, is with his death. Jesus was a better-than-good man, perfect we believe, never having done wrong to anybody, yet he was sentenced to a criminal's death, nailed up on a cross and left to hang there until he died. It's appalling, but it was necessary. This is where we believe we get our salvation - his death in place of ours. And equally as important, we believe that he was raised from the dead. Literally. He was a corpse, then he came back to life. This is the hope for Christians - life after death.

As I said above, I care about the truth. I commend your morality, but I simply don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead (such a thing is grossly unscientific and would be documented in every textbook in the world if there was definitive proof), and there's no evidence that any hope for an afterlife has any basis at all. So that's my issue there: There's always a lot of "we believe..." when Jesus is concerned but no substantiation.



Do you truly want that?

Are you ready and willing today to renounce and abandon things you have said and things you believe, and to adopt and accept things that you have spoken against, if he demonstrates his existence?

If he demonstrated his existence definitively (I don't know how that would work, but he's God, he can figure it out), I would acknowledge his existence, of course. But no, I probably wouldn't worship him even then. I actively don't want God to exist, and I think if he does, he's morally reprehensible and has a lot to answer for.

[badthoughts]

edit

[saea97]

What does he have to answer for? Certainly not for the actions of man?

Where has his morality failed?

What I meant by that is largely summed up by the standard Epicurean "Problem of Evil and Suffering". Aside from that, I also find some of God's acts in the Old Testament pretty barbaric (Sodom and Gomorrah, slaughter of the Canaanites, etc.) and wouldn't wish to worship someone so apparently capricious and merciless.


And to whose morals are his compared?


That's an interesting one. Obviously, I judge people's actions by my own moral standards (given they're the only moral standards I fully comprehend); I'm a fairly balanced individual who regards murder, rape, thievery (mostly) and so forth as wrong, so I think it's moderately appropriate to measure God (who is supposedly far more just and righteous than simply "fairly balanced") by that standard. But yes, I suppose that God's morals may be unknown or incomprehensible in the long run, and so it's not fair to apply my standards or anyone else's to his actions. I just don't find that a satisfying answer when I see widespread starvation in the Third World or read the book of Joshua.

[badthoughts]

edit

[galacticwitch]

where all the wiccans at? *woot woot*

[TheSpiceMustFlow]

So long as you dont kill anyone over your religion, or as long as you are not specifically instructed to kill people by your religion, im fine with it. All religions have faults, some more then others. Even Atheism can cause problems by those too bound by it.

[Jasperf]

what up:] my faith kind of weird. im chistian but i dont belive in jesus or hell or the bible!! a little stange but i do belive in god and heaven. that me for ya :)!!!:yeah:

The meaning of Christian is the belief of Christ... Christ =jesus

Never said it did. That's just what I believe Christianity is, so that's why I follow it. I have nothing against atheists. Actually, the majority of people I love the most are atheist.

Sure, but it seems to me then that the reason you believe in Christianity and God is because you believe it's the nicest course of action, rather than due to reasoned evidence that the Abrahamic God exists or that the Bible is true in any regard. Would that be fair to say or am I misinterpreting?

You don't at all have the right to tell her what she believes or why you think she believes that! Most laws are bassed off Christian acts anyway!

There is nothing different between the Christian God, and the Muslim God. The only difference is that Islam believes that Allah is one God, not 3, but one.

Only certain parts of Christianity believe this, mostly Catholicism


-merged multiple posts. -Emerald Dream

[saea97]

You don't at all have the right to tell her what she believes or why you think she believes that!


I'm not telling anyone to believe anything, I'm encouraging reasoned thought without bias or a priori assumptions. I made a civil argument (which, since you want to talk about "rights", I am entirely entitled to do) based on what I believe to be a salient point, which, notably, you have not actually addressed, except to say:


Most laws are bassed off Christian acts anyway!


Which is entirely irrelevant, and holds no explanatory power to explain either:

a) if the Christian God exists
b) if the Bible is a positive source of morality

Just because it's illegal to kill, and the Bible says "thou shalt not kill" doesn't mean the law is "based off Christian acts".

[Jasperf]

Just because it's illegal to kill, and the Bible says "thou shalt not kill" doesn't mean the law is "based off Christian acts".

I've coarse western laws are bassed of Christian beliefs of what is morally correct, because when al the laws were being formed everyone was Christian. Otherwise where did they get their laws from, one guy thinking oh let's make it illegal to kill someone, just cause we can.

[Capto]

Of course Western laws are based on Christian beliefs of what is morally correct. This is because when all the laws were being formed, everyone was Christian. Otherwise where did they get their laws from, one guy thinking, "oh let's make it illegal to kill someone, just cause we can?"

FTFY. Also, ever heard of Hammurabi?

[Miserabilia]

I've coarse western laws are bassed of Christian beliefs of what is morally correct, because when al the laws were being formed everyone was Christian. Otherwise where did they get their laws from, one guy thinking oh let's make it illegal to kill someone, just cause we can.

Are you kidding me?
Are you saying that poeple that are not christian are okay with murder?
Murder is wrong, and it does not have to be because the bible says it is.
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4ljyvTeE61r3zat8.gif

[Capto]

I've coarse western laws are bassed of Christian beliefs of what is morally correct, because when al the laws were being formed everyone was Christian. Otherwise where did they get their laws from, one guy thinking oh let's make it illegal to kill someone, just cause we can.

Fine, fine. I'll admit that canon law is based upon Christian belief. And that canon law helped with some other European law. But a majority just came from common sense. Don't forget that codes of laws have existed for much longer than you think.

[Jasperf]

Are you kidding me?
Are you saying that poeple that are not christian are okay with murder?
Murder is wrong, and it does not have to be because the bible says it is.
image (http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4ljyvTeE61r3zat8.gif)

That's not what saying all. I'm saying that when our common laws were being developed everyone was taking what the bible said and using it in every day life constantly.

[Jasperf]

Fine, fine. I'll admit that canon law is based upon Christian belief. And that canon law helped with some other European law. But a majority just came from common sense. Don't forget that codes of laws have existed for much longer than you think.

An so how long has Christianity been around...

[Miserabilia]

That's not what saying all. I'm saying that when our common laws were being developed everyone was taking what the bible said and using it in every day life constantly.

Oh?
one guy thinking oh let's make it illegal to kill someone, just cause we can.
now read that.

[Capto]

That's not what saying all. I'm saying that when our common laws were being developed everyone was taking what the bible said and using it in every day life constantly.

Laws were first being developed 2000 years before the birth of Christ.

[Miserabilia]

An so how long has Christianity been around...

Only 2000 years.
Thats nothing compared to how long human societies have existed

[Jasperf]

Only 2000 years.
Thats nothing compared to how long human societies have existed

Ah no you are wrong there. Christianity did not start when Jesus was born.

[Capto]

Ah no you are wrong there. Christianity did not start when Jesus was born.

You're right. It started after Jesus was born.

[Miserabilia]

Ah no you are wrong there. Christianity did not start when Jesus was born.

hahaahaa. No, exactly, because before that, is was jewism.
christianity is based around jesus christ.
Before that it is hebrew.

[saea97]

I've coarse western laws are bassed of Christian beliefs of what is morally correct, because when al the laws were being formed everyone was Christian. Otherwise where did they get their laws from, one guy thinking oh let's make it illegal to kill someone, just cause we can.

I don't need the Bible or the law to tell me it's wrong to commit murder. Do you?

[Miserabilia]

I don't need the Bible or the law to tell me it's wrong to commit murder. Do you?

exactly

[Jasperf]

I don't need the Bible or the law to tell me it's wrong to commit murder. Do you?

Because over centuries that has been imbedded into society. Before that, it wasn't thought wrong to kill someone.

[Capto]

Because over centuries that has been imbedded into society. Before that, it wasn't thought wrong to kill someone.

i am 12 and what.

[Jasperf]

I don't need the Bible or the law to tell me it's wrong to commit murder. Do you?

i am 12 and what.

God your not even meant to be on this site

[Capto]

God your not even meant to be on this site

Why should I not be here now? Let me present my case. The Bible didn't come up with the idea of criminality, especially for murder. Look up the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu, at least I think that's what it's called. It was written what, 2100 B.C.E.? It's famous for being the oldest code of laws on the planet known as of now.

Just keep in mind that canon law isn't the only law.

[saea97]

Because over centuries that has been imbedded into society. Before that, it wasn't thought wrong to kill someone.

Oh go on, please, I'd love to see you try to substantiate that one.

Edit: Furthermore, even if you were to prove it correct that the advent of Christianity is the only thing that stopped rampant murder throughout mankind, you still would have no more than zero evidence for the truth of any of it.

[Miserabilia]

Because over centuries that has been imbedded into society. Before that, it wasn't thought wrong to kill someone.

Yes it is.. It is part of the human brain.
You can see groups of monkeys with rules like you cant kill eachother, and if you do you will be banished.
And those monkeys, arent christrian, are they?
Although some christians sure do have monkey intelligence

[Jasperf]

Yes it is.. It is part of the human brain.
You can see groups of monkeys with rules like you cant kill eachother, and if you do you will be banished.
And those monkeys, arent christrian, are they?
Although some christians sure do have monkey intelligence

If your implying I'm a monkey brained Christian then your wrong because I'm atheist. It's not part if the human brain, people have been killing each other for centuries! If it were part of the human brain not too kill, then it would be mentally impossible!

[Jasperf]

Why should I not be here now? Let me present my case. The Bible didn't come up with the idea of criminality, especially for murder. Look up the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu, at least I think that's what it's called. It was written what, 2100 B.C.E.? It's famous for being the oldest code of laws on the planet known as of now.

Just keep in mind that canon law isn't the only law.

I am talking about around 500ad when all western society and stucture had fallen apart and new ones were being formed, where did the people turn to for what was right and wrong then? Because that is where and when common law formed

[Jasperf]

God your not even meant to be on this site

Why should I not be here now? Let me present my case. The Bible didn't come up with the idea of criminality, especially for murder. Look up the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu, at least I think that's what it's called. It was written what, 2100 B.C.E.? It's famous for being the oldest code of laws on the planet known as of now.

Just keep in mind that canon law isn't the only law.

Please enlighten me on other laws except for... The law

The reason your not meant to be on here is because it's 13+

[Capto]

I'm 15 years old. There is no such thing as 'the law'. There are several types of law. You should do some reading. :)

Common law as we know it was developed circa 2000 B.C.E.

[Camazotz]

Ah no you are wrong there. Christianity did not start when Jesus was born.

You're right. It started after Jesus was born.

Hahaha, what Capto said.

Because over centuries that has been imbedded into society. Before that, it wasn't thought wrong to kill someone.

Yes it was.

God your not even meant to be on this site

It's a meme- he's mocking how stupid your comment was.

Why should I not be here now? Let me present my case. The Bible didn't come up with the idea of criminality, especially for murder. Look up the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu, at least I think that's what it's called. It was written what, 2100 B.C.E.? It's famous for being the oldest code of laws on the planet known as of now.

Just keep in mind that canon law isn't the only law.

Jasperf, read this post, and then do some research into what he's talking about because he's right.

Please enlighten me on other laws except for... The law

He did. Now do your own research, he can't spoon feed you an entire lesson of history. (I mean, I guess he could, but to ask of such a thing is idiotic when you can just type in some words and click some links and find out for yourself)

Capto, if there were a reputation + button, just know that I would have tried spamming it on every post on this page alone. Good job, friend.

[Jasperf]

Jasperf, read this post, and then do some research into what he's talking about because he's right.



He did. Now do your own research, he can't spoon feed you an entire lesson of history.

Excuse me but you haven't read my last post, and if you did then you obviously did not understand it

[Jasperf]

I'm 15 years old. There is no such thing as 'the law'. There are several types of law. You should do some reading. :)

Common law as we know it was developed circa 2000 B.C.E.

In what ever country you live in there is 'the law'.

[Camazotz]

Excuse me but you haven't read my last post, and if you did then you obviously did not understand it

I didn't understand it, I guess. What are you saying? That laws weren't laws until the Bible? Because you're wrong. Are you saying that there wasn't a basic moral code before the Bible? Because you're still wrong.

People from 2000 BCE had a conscience, knew right from wrong, and wouldn't kill a stranger on a street because they didn't have a book to say "don't kill".

[Jasperf]

None of what you just said is what I said at all.

[Miserabilia]

If your implying I'm a monkey brained Christian then your wrong because I'm atheist. It's not part if the human brain, people have been killing each other for centuries! If it were part of the human brain not too kill, then it would be mentally impossible!

It is part of the human brain... There is seriously a part of the human brain that knows when something is right and wrong, and a few actions are stored in there.
Killing is one of those primal things that feel wrong.
Ofcourse this is only subcontious and you can make lots of exceptions: people may kill because of anger, or war. Christianpeople have killed to.
People have always killed. But no matter where you look, killing feels wrong and killers are often banished or excluded.
Its a primal fear of getting killed yourself too.
If someone is a dangerous person, you want them away.
Its primal.

[Jasperf]

No there is not, it is wrong because you have growen up being told and showed its wrong. If you grew up in an environment where killing was a constant occurance than you wouldn't feel it's wrong, you would feel it normal. Like stealing, I know stealing is wrong because my mother has always told me it is, if I grew up in a family where they stole constantly I would think nothing of it

[Capto]

Capto, if there were a reputation + button, just know that I would have tried spamming it on every post on this page alone. Good job, friend.

Aww, thanks. :)

In what ever country you live in there is 'the law'.

lolwut.

That's not related at all to what we were discussing. Modern law has gone through much more than you might think.

EDIT:

If your implying I'm a monkey brained Christian then your wrong because I'm atheist. It's not part if the human brain, people have been killing each other for centuries! If it were part of the human brain not too kill, then it would be mentally impossible!

Sorry I couldn't reply to this earlier. I was too busy laughing. It's against communal human nature to kill someone in their community.

[Miserabilia]

No there is not, it is wrong because you have growen up being told and showed its wrong. If you grew up in an environment where killing was a constant occurance than you wouldn't feel it's wrong, you would feel it normal. Like stealing, I know stealing is wrong because my mother has always told me it is, if I grew up in a family where they stole constantly I would think nothing of it

Wow, are you even reading what i am writing??
RIGHT AND WRONG IS IN YOUR BRAIN FROM BIRTH ON.
its part of human nature.
Its also in the bible because the bible is created by humans.
IT IS IN YOUR BRAIN, NOT TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.
(unles you have some kind of mental disorder)
It is not taught, it is not from the bible, it is part of the human brain.

[Jasperf]

Wow, are you even reading what i am writing??
RIGHT AND WRONG IS IN YOUR BRAIN FROM BIRTH ON.
its part of human nature.
Its also in the bible because the bible is created by humans.
IT IS IN YOUR BRAIN, NOT TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.
(unles you have some kind of mental disorder)
It is not taught, it is not from the bible, it is part of the human brain.

Yes right and wrong may be in you brain but whether you consider murder wrong or not isn't

[saea97]

Yes right and wrong may be in you brain but whether you consider murder wrong or not isn't

I don't understand how you can concede the former without the latter; that's literally the same thing.

[Jasperf]

I don't understand how you can concede the former without the latter; that's literally the same thing.

No it isn't, you can think any thing is right or wrong, like how you think bei g gay is right, many people would disagree.

[saea97]

No it isn't, you can think any thing is right or wrong, like how you think bei g gay is right, many people would disagree.

I don't understand your argument here. You just admitted that we have an inbuilt sense of right and wrong. Therefore, all people of sound mind (i.e. not sociopaths or psychopaths) know that murder is wrong. This is, as has been stated, largely an evolutionary trait; the fact that Biblical morality overlaps with conventional morality in some areas (while spectacularly differing in others) is irrelevant as long as you've already conceded that humans can tell right from wrong.

[Jasperf]

I don't understand your argument here. You just admitted that we have an inbuilt sense of right and wrong. Therefore, all people of sound mind (i.e. not sociopaths or psychopaths) know that murder is wrong. This is, as has been stated, largely an evolutionary trait; the fact that Biblical morality overlaps with conventional morality in some areas (while spectacularly differing in others) is irrelevant as long as you've already conceded that humans can tell right from wrong.

What I am saying is that everyone has a sense of right and wrong, but what they think is write and wrong is different from person. Not everyone thinks that killing another human is wrong, and throughout history this has been shown aswel.
Not everyone that think murder is morally ok, are phychopaths

[saea97]

What I am saying is that everyone has a sense of right and wrong, but what they think is write and wrong is different from person.

Perhaps marginally, not to the degree that a random person on the street is likely to think murder is permissible.

Not everyone thinks that killing another human is wrong, and throughout history this has been shown aswel.

This could easily be explained by shifting social perceptions or by the fact that it's a lot harder to get away with murder nowadays. Knowing it's wrong doesn't completely obstruct a person from committing murder.

Not everyone that think murder is morally ok, are phychopaths

Actually, I'd say a modern civilized point of view would very much be that they are.

Also, where does religion fit into this? Given this debate all stemmed from you saying modern laws derive from the Bible, it seems like you're very much moving down a tangent.

[Miserabilia]

No it isn't, you can think any thing is right or wrong, like how you think bei g gay is right, many people would disagree.

Okay, let me put this to you one more time:

the idea that murder is wrong, is imbedded in the human brain.
From birth one.
I don't know how you still do not understand this simple fact.

[Jasperf]

Okay, let me put this to you one more time:

the idea that murder is wrong, is imbedded in the human brain.
From birth one.
I don't know how you still do not understand this simple fact.

Because it is not! Something that people learn during their lives cannot be embedid in their children's brains! It's nature and nurture, and knowing that murdering is wrong is nurture. Not nature.

[Miserabilia]

Because it is not! Something that people learn during their lives cannot be embedid in their children's brains! It's nature and nurture, and knowing that murdering is wrong is nurture. Not nature.

Are you even capable to simple human thinking?
Listen to what I am saying.

The fact that murder is wrong and murderers are dangerous is in our brains.
From birth.
Not because it is taught, but because thats how the human brain works.

[Jasperf]

Are you even capable to simple human thinking?
Listen to what I am saying.

The fact that murder is wrong and murderers are dangerous is in our brains.
From birth.
Not because it is taught, but because thats how the human brain works.

No that is the simple human nature of being afraid of death.

[Capto]

No that is the simple human nature of being afraid of death.

Not unique to humans.

But the main point is that you claimed that common European law during the late-antiquity and medieval ages came from the Bible. Which is simply untrue.

[johnc15]

I'm Christian (Catholic)

[Jasperf]

I did not say that the laws came from the bible I said it came from people who were stongly Christian.

And I did not say that it was unique to humans

[Capto]

I did not say that the laws came from the bible I said it came from people who were stongly Christian.

Then how did Indian, Chinese, and Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican law come about?

EDIT: And what about roman law? Or Greek law? Or Old-Persian law? Or Mesopotamian law?

[Jasperf]

Then how did Indian, Chinese, and Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican law come about?

At no point have we been talking about that?!? There were no Indians in England in 500ad

[Capto]

At no point have we been talking about that?!? There were no Indians in England in 500ad

You said prior in this thread: 'the law'. I was discussing: 'the law'.

[Jasperf]

You said prior in this thread: 'the law'. I was discussing: 'the law'.

Is there no law in your country, wtf are you on about!

[Capto]

Is there no law in your country, wtf are you on about!

I'm offering discourse on the history of law and legalism. What are you on about?

[Jasperf]

I'm so lost hah, lets just stop :p taking to much time haha

[Capto]

Nope. We shall resume after you look up the Codex Theodosianus, law under the Frankish Empire, and the Corpus Julius Civilis. Only if you wish, of course.

Also note the phrase: ecclesia vivit lege romana.

[Miserabilia]

I did not say that the laws came from the bible I said it came from people who were stongly Christian.

And I did not say that it was unique to humans

Thats the same thing.

At no point have we been talking about that?!? There were no Indians in England in 500ad

He meant that all those way older cultures already had laws that claimed not to kill, and that has nothing to do with christianity


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Jasperf]

Thats the same thing.

It's not the samething, as everyone interprets pieces of the bible, meaning that something one person says is backed up in the bible, another person would disagree with.

He meant that all those way older cultures already had laws that claimed not to kill, and that has nothing to do with christianity

Yes but earlier we said that the laws we were talking about we're the western laws. Which then went on to be the laws for countries like India, when England colonized.


-please do not double post. -Emerald Dream

[Miserabilia]

Yes but earlier we said that the laws we were talking about we're the western laws. Which then went on to be the laws for countries like India, when England colonized.

India already had laws... All ancient cultures already had laws, saying not to kill..... The bible and christianity have nothing to do with it, and I am done here this is hopeles goodbye sir

[Capto]

Yes but earlier we said that the laws we were talking about we're the western laws. Which then went on to be the laws for countries like India, when England colonized.


Western law was directly derived from Roman law.

[Jasperf]

Western law was directly derived from Roman law.

When Rome fell around 500ad, all customs and laws, religion ect was dedtroyed, wiped out by the The Huns, Franks, Vandals, Saxons and Visigoths. When Europe entered the dark ages, there was no law, it was quite seriously, Everyman for himself. Then once again, religion tool over, as when times are bad, people turn to the crazy ideas!( e.g when Germany was in ruins the people turned to the Crazy Nazi party)

[Capto]

When Rome fell around 500ad, all customs and laws, religion ect was dedtroyed, wiped out by the The Huns, Franks, Vandals, Saxons and Visigoths. When Europe entered the dark ages, there was no law, it was quite seriously, Everyman for himself. Then once again, religion tool over, as when times are bad, people turn to the crazy ideas!( e.g when Germany was in ruins the people turned to the Crazy Nazi party)

Nope.avi

ERE and the Papal states continued Roman law, and later, the Frankish Empire adopted Roman law.

Like I said, ecclesia vivit lege romana.

[Jasperf]

Nope.avi

ERE and the Papal states continued Roman law, and later, the Frankish Empire adopted Roman law.

Like I said, ecclesia vivit lege romana.

Like I said earlier, we are speaking of specifically England

[Capto]

Like I said earlier, we are speaking of specifically England

English feudal law was introduced to the Anglo-Saxons who had prior had a standard Germanic law by the Norman conqueror William, who was a Norman. William the Conqueror brought the Roman-influenced Frankish law with him. Not canon law.

[Jasperf]

English feudal law was introduced to the Anglo-Saxons who had prior had a standard Germanic law by the Norman conqueror William, who was a Norman. William the Conqueror brought the Roman-influenced Frankish law with him. Not canon law.

But when Rome once again ruled the world, because of Christianity. They bassed their entire lives from the bible, I've coarse the laws are bassed on passages in the bible, otherwise when someone asked 'why is it wrong to steal?', they could reply with 'because the bible says so'. Though there may have already been a concept of laws, they adapted them to suit Christianity.

-leaving thread

[Capto]

But when Rome once again ruled the world, because of Christianity. They bassed their entire lives from the bible, I've coarse the laws are bassed on passages in the bible, otherwise when someone asked 'why is it wrong to steal?', they could reply with 'because the bible says so'. Though there may have already been a concept of laws, they adapted them to suit Christianity.

-leaving thread

Nope. Rome did not base their entire lives on Christianity. Nothing near to it.

[Jasperf]

Nope. Rome did not base their entire lives on Christianity. Nothing near to it.

Excuse me! During the Middle Ages going against cristianity was against the law, your head was cut off!

[Capto]

Excuse me! During the Middle Ages going against cristianity was against the law, your head was cut off!

So? That's respect for the Bible.

[Jasperf]

So? That's respect for the Bible.

That's showing that Christianity ruled!
Like I said I'm leaving this thread.

[Capto]

Christianity didn't rule. That's just stupid. It's just that they wouldn't just spit on the Bible.

[Jasperf]

Christianity didn't rule. That's just stupid. It's just that they wouldn't just spit on the Bible.

the church did rule

[Capto]

the church did rule

In the Papal States, sure. Nowhere else. History is my forte, Jasper. :P

[Jasperf]

In the Papal States, sure. Nowhere else. History is my forte, Jasper. :P

um in the late middle ages the church ruled over Europe!

[Capto]

um in the late middle ages the church ruled over Europe!

No. The Catholic Church had influence over much of Europe, but there were few states that instituted actual canon law, if any. I believe perhaps Teutonic Prussia, the Outremer states, and the Knights in Cyprus may have, considering their religious natures.

But regardless, European feudal law still sees its roots in Roman law that was developed prior to the founding of Christianity.

[Jasperf]

No. The Catholic Church had influence over much of Europe, but there were few states that instituted actual canon law, if any. I believe perhaps Teutonic Prussia, the Outremer states, and the Knights in Cyprus may have, considering their religious natures.

But regardless, European feudal law still sees its roots in Roman law that was developed prior to the founding of Christianity.

by ruled, do you know what i mean? they didnt like take over ect, just, almost ever country's leader bowed to the church. At that stage in history, the law was barely existent, it was a ruthless time, and what the church and king said, was the law.
if the pope released a papal document, it was obeyed...

[ForeverTwelve]

Protestant Christian, no specific denomination.

[foxtrot.12]

im what we call apostolic christian..i'd be suprised if you've heard of it but we have a wikipedia page and a website we're really conservative and follow the bible directly it's pretty durned complicated but makes a whole lot o sense

[foxtrot.12]

I don't believe in god. I don't believe in any kind of religious philosophy or anything similer. It maks me angry to even think about the horrors of religion. I think we should all burn our bibles.

I did hear an interesting idology from a friend of mine though. He said, that this is what he got from the bible:

In the beginning god created a perfect world. And there was no sin or hate or any of that. But there was an uprising in heaven and Lucifer, God's most prized angel, was cast out of Heaven down into the pits of hell ((werever this "hell" is)) along with 2/3 of the angels of heaven. Satan then began to "fuck" with gods perfect world, tainting humankind. This created free will. A good against evil kind of dilema. And this tension between good and evil, between satan and god, will eventually snap, and the war of armageddon will be upon us. Humans simply cought in a power struggle between two heavenly beings. But we are the last army, whos side do we choose?

And the bible is so contradictory and BS becasue god is an absent god. He allows us to live independently and satan taints us. So literally, even the bible is no pure.


Its all bs of course. But interesting sounding. Would make a good book ((HAHAHAHAHAHA))
i have to admit it must be easy to live that way but dont you feel kind of without a purpose...and as far as the bible i've seen how it works and if you do it right its amazing

[foxtrot.12]

I think the reason that God is "absent" in saving us from evil (someone brought this up) is because he gave us free will and He'd want us to make the right decision ourselves, so we can sort of be our own deliverers from evil.

And I think that God doesn't save us from death lots of the time is because maybe the person who's dying, he's made plans for them in their afterlife so he's just gonna let it happen cuz he knows their spirit will be o.k.
you got it!

[Capto]

by ruled, do you know what i mean? they didnt like take over ect, just, almost ever country's leader bowed to the church. At that stage in history, the law was barely existent, it was a ruthless time, and what the church and king said, was the law.
if the pope released a papal document, it was obeyed...

Facepalming so hard right now.

The law was existent. It was powerful. The law DOMINATED the medieval era, which, if you may note, is also called the FEUDAL era due to its reliance on the FEUDAL LEGAL system.

OF COURSE THEY BOWED TO THE CHURCH. But that DOES NOT mean that the Church controlled all their affairs.

In fact, the Church, the Holy See, and the Holy Inquisition were all at times dominated by foreign European powers with more influence than the actual Papacy and a goal in mind. See the Avignon Papacy, the Golden Bull, and the Saeculum Obscurum.

[saea97]

i have to admit it must be easy to live that way but dont you feel kind of without a purpose...and as far as the bible i've seen how it works and if you do it right its amazing

"Having a purpose" tends to be irrelevant to most atheists. The reason I don't believe in God is because of the lack of (even a sliver of) evidence, not because I actively desire an easy life, as you imply, or because I don't want to have a purpose. I just think about it rationally.

[JRwulf64]

Im catholic but im not one to judge others at all. I hate it when religion gets involved in things because its not really an arguing point. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and if you dont think that its right then just dont say anything...kinda like that whole if you dont have anything nice to say, dont say anything at all. Religion shouldnt be butting in to issues in society today and vice-versa. No argument should contain the words "The bible says..." yes we know the bible says that but if someone chooses to believe something else then let them think that. Dont go all off on them because they dont share the same views as you. Diversity defines who we are. if everyone was the same perfect human being all sharing the same points of view what would be the point?

[Jasperf]

I'm a Atheism and I don't believe anything.

Please explain The incorrupt bodies for me, for even scientist have had to give up on trying to work out why they haven't deteriorated.

[xxdrakeTxx]

Im lavayen wich is a religion mix between atheism and satanism but i dont belive in hell or heaven satan is more like a mascot for my religion

[RyanCrest]

Im lavayen wich is a religion mix between atheism and satanism but i dont belive in hell or heaven satan is more like a mascot for my religion

A mascot? Like Smokey the Bear?

[whatsgoinon53]

One question that really has been on my mind...and other opinions.

First off, why do members of one faith criticize members of another? How can we know for sure that our faith is right?

I think that every major religion in the world holds a piece of the truth. If they all started acting in the manner they say they should, then maybe we could find the real truth.

Personally...I believe in a higher entity. Right now that idea is with belief in God. However, I don't label myself 'Christian' because I don't agree with some of the Christian beliefs. I agree with the beliefs of the Baptist denomination the most, though. I was raised Baptist. My mother was raised Catholic but at 17 broke away, my dad was raised Baptist.

I don't believe in the traditional fire and brimstone hell, though. I believe that if you die and your not worthy of God and the light, your soul stays here on Earth.

When it comes to the Islam world's anger at the Pope's statements, here's what I have to say:

1) The Pope quoted the writing that stated the Islam is violent and evil.
2) The Islam responds how? By violence!

so..yea...

What do you believe and why do you believe it?


I was raised as a baptist as well but I converted into the denomination called Church of Christ which is similar to Baptist with a few slight changes.

I know what you mean when you stated; how do we know that we are right? We don't, that's the thing. It's just what we believe that triggers us to defend our faith.

The Islam people definitely shouldn't have responded with violence. It was against what they believe to respond that way too.

[Korin]

Agnostic Polytheism.

[Micci]

I was raised as a Christian, but I consider myself as agnostic for personal reasons.

Anyways, I don't know why the religions are so split up. From my knowledge of other religions, it seems like they're almost identical, but there are just a few similarities. I can only say this for the various branches of Christianity, though.

For the other religions, they all have a central God, they believe that their God loves them, they have certain things that their God doesn't want them to do and they have a certain idea of how their God looks. For Atheists, I guess you could assume that their God would be themselves.

I think religion is the way it is because we, as a race, can't stop arguing about the petty details of it.

[Luminous]

Being raised in an extremely strict Jewish environment, and being only 13, I guess I'm Jewish. But I hate it. I don't see why I should have to wear skirts that go below my knees, and shirts below my elbows, and no pants or shorts. I had to do that until I was 12 years old. For only one year of my life I have been allowed to wear pants. The rest of the extremely small Jewish community near me are all jerks, I'm not saying ever Jew is, it's these specific people and their personalities. They entered their tiny Hebrew school in a contest on Facebook, and they hacked to get it to win, but they were kicked out. Stuff like that.

My personal beliefs are: Nothing. I don't believe anything. When you die, there's just nothing. But I admire those who can believe in something strongly, but they don't push it onto others, and they are good people. Like the Shaytards on youtube, they are Mormon but basically the best family ever. I don't classify myself as any religion. Or agnostic or atheist.

[Yugen]

I identify as Baha'i. Although, I'm sure I don't follow it straight to the books or anything.

[PeterPanMan]

I am a Disciple of Christ (Christian) and I believe there is a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I am not extremely religious, I am just the casual Christian you could say.

[Bobbybobby99]

I am pagan, and put wicca for accuracy of the poll. It does, however, offend me to a very,very limited extent that you put Wicca rather than Pagan. It was tempting to put other,but for accuracies sake I put Wiccan. As someone who worships the Greek gods, believes and personally interacts with demons, angels(and dislikes them heavily), and other spirits, uses Nordic runes in spell casting,and practices magic and threefold return (1/3 return is my interpretation, but anyways) Wicca isn't very accurate. More like Greco-satanistic Pagan with Wiccan and nordic influences. But yeah, still a nice poll :)

[Kameraden]

I am pagan, and put wicca for accuracy of the poll. It does, however, offend me to a very,very limited extent that you put Wicca rather than Pagan. It was tempting to put other,but for accuracies sake I put Wiccan. As someone who worships the Greek gods, believes and personally interacts with demons, angels(and dislikes them heavily), and other spirits, uses Nordic runes in spell casting,and practices magic and threefold return (1/3 return is my interpretation, but anyways) Wicca isn't very accurate. More like Greco-satanistic Pagan with Wiccan and nordic influences. But yeah, still a nice poll :)

...Sorry. I can't hold my laughter. Please, tell me more about your encounters with Hades.

[Luminous]

EDIT:::: I think it's really cool that you are Pagan I have never met anyone who actually is

[Human]

Please don't flame others for their beliefs or I'll have to stop the debate and lock the thread

[irishmaniac2000]

The thought of following a religion that some other human thought up is beyond my comprehension. take the time and think of your own beliefs. don't be a sheep. you habe a powerful mind for a reason.

[LouBerry]

I'm a Christian, and I attend a Baptist church, but I guess my views are a bit too liberal to actually say I belong to a certain denomination.

[Mayon]

Well I have far to many thoughts on religion to write them up here so I will just do it like this:

The Good
Many people use religion to comfort themselves, provide reassurance etc from suicide and self harm. It also 'answered' some questions that we didn't/don't have the technology to prove with science.

The Bad
Because religion answered a lot of questions about the world and how we came to be here, this meant that very little science was done during those years. We are hundreds of years behind on a scientific front, if religion did not exist, we would be permanently striving to find out how an why we are here.

The Ugly

Millions of people have died at the hands of religion conflict and extremists - all motivated by who thinks they are right and that everyone else is wrong. I have never heard of an extremist athiest!

(Apologies for grammar & spelling, tiny laptop keyboards are not ideal for lots of writing!)

[Laquifa]

I'm just agnostic.

[removeddddd]

...Sorry. I can't hold my laughter. Please, tell me more about your encounters with Hades.

it's no more ridiculous than people "communicating" with jesus or God. What you just said is very offensive.

[Obsidian]

I'm a nondenominational Christian. I used to be Catholic but I didn't like all the rules that went along with it, like that you had to go to confession or take communion every Sunday or all that other stuff. I believe in Jesus but not in all the rules that the different denominations of Christianity come up with. Those aren't important to me, only God is.

[ovoxo23]

I'm Catholic

[xxdrakeTxx]

Ok this is kinda off topic but why follow the judeo/christian religion when u can empower ur self. instead of never even knowing ur own cappabillitys the older gods tought this and u can atually talk to the gods . spiritual satanism will open ur eyes to the truth of religion and at the same time give u the power to learn things that were once forgotten . and satan is not evil . please atleast check it out for ur self

[thewhiteyeezus]

I think its bullshit that people have to fight over religion. Before i start though i must say im raised catholic but will probably change when i grow up because of hate and misunderstanding. This is why im afraid to read the bible i dont want to misunderstand and tell others how god will kill us all lol. But about the qua'ran my grandfather said that in it is basically if you dont believe in allah youre better off dead. Yet we catholics are supposed to be peaceful and loving yet some dont accept other religions or gay/bi people and many others. Hell idk if there is a god but when i die ill accept whoevers up there though they might send me to hell. I dont care what ur religion is though. But all this makes me wonder why im going to a catholic school, then again i want educational stuff, so yeah. ( also i gotta go to this retreat on sunday and i recently found that its not mandatory and so no ones gonna show up and ill be fucked lol.) Forreal though everyone should shut the fuck up and accept others beliefs. The end

[Tarannosaurus]

I use bits and pieces of different religions because I haven't found one that 100% fits me. I use Buddhism, Humanism, (Naturalistic) Pantheism, the Wiccan Rede "As it harms none, do what thou wilt", and I'm now interested in Taoism.

[QuantumPhysics]

Your options are veeeery limited.. no judaism, no islam no sikhism, buddhism and hinduism together?
Could have made it a bit more open..
I'm agnostic.

What is agnostic? I am curious!:D

...Sorry. I can't hold my laughter. Please, tell me more about your encounters with Hades.

Its his/her beliefs don't mock them. We might as well be in the dark ages. Or Apartheid.:mad:

i think its bullshit that people have to fight over religion. Before i start though i must say im raised catholic but will probably change when i grow up because of hate and misunderstanding. This is why im afraid to read the bible i dont want to misunderstand and tell others how god will kill us all lol. But about the qua'ran my grandfather said that in it is basically if you dont believe in allah youre better off dead. Yet we catholics are supposed to be peaceful and loving yet some dont accept other religions or gay/bi people and many others. Hell idk if there is a god but when i die ill accept whoevers up there though they might send me to hell. I dont care what ur religion is though. But all this makes me wonder why im going to a catholic school, then again i want educational stuff, so yeah. ( also i gotta go to this retreat on sunday and i recently found that its not mandatory and so no ones gonna show up and ill be fucked lol.) forreal though everyone should shut the fuck up and accept others beliefs. The end
thank you! This is the truth

- merged multiple posts. -Emerald Dream

[Capto]

What is agnostic? I am curious!:D


Agnosticism operates under the principle of uncertainty. Uncertainty, in a more specific case, whether or not any sort of ultratheological figure may or may not exist.

Agnosticism, is, of course, separate from 'atheism,' which directly denies the existence of a God or gods. I, for example, an am agnostic theist.

[SawyerSauce]

There's only nine atheists :eek:

[Capto]

I have never heard of an extremist athiest!


State atheism. Stalin, Hoxha, and a few others are immediate and obvious choices.

Also, Richard Dawkins for the shits and giggles.

[sqishy]

I'm agnostic because.... check my orange signature line.

I was brought up in a Catholic primary and secondary school, baptized, with communion and confirmation, but it never really meant anything to me. From 2006 onwards I have been attending some Wiccan festivals, just to see what it's like. My future with it is not close and uncertain.

I do like to take some ideas from many different religions though, mix them up into a fusion of ideas. I believe in magic and the like, not as something that breaks the rules of reality, more of how transformation comes from will, i.e. EVERYTHING we succeed in doing when we want to.

Something I really like:
Nothing is true, Everything is permitted
- Hasan-i Sabbah

Quantum Mechanics FTW!

[Melodic]

I'm Christian, but I pretty much don't believe in the bible or going to Church. I think if everyone reads the bible, they'll realize we are pretty much doing a sin at least once a day. I don't believe in Church because all it pretty much is 1) A random person telling you what's right and wrong. 2) It's also a way to just waste people's money. 3) All the churches I went to are filled with judgmental Christian bubble people. I remember going to a youth group trip, and the preacher told us that we should only listen to Christian Music, we should read the bible 24/7, Facebook is a sin. I hated it so much.

[ajith1996]

im an atheist

[dsi411]

Christian:yeah::yeah::yeah::yeah::yeah::yeah::yeah::yeah::yeah::yeah::yeah

[nachtspiegel]

A conclusion I've reached: Most people don't really know why they believe what they claim to believe, nor do they really understand the set of beliefs they claim the large majority of the time, but they do it anyhow.

[Sogeking]

A conclusion I've reached: Most people don't really know why they believe what they claim to believe, nor do they really understand the set of beliefs they claim the large majority of the time, but they do it anyhow.


Because religion really isn't central to their lives. Some people claim to be Christian, as an example, but would be damned to hell by a pastor in a church I long ago stopped attending. Also because some religious beliefs stymies critical thinking, NOT ALL. And also because kids were forced fed their parents beliefs when they were little.

[Coprocephalus]

I think that all organised religions are bullshit especially christianity. You have to live your whole life with denial of pleasures. You can't even be angry on that guy who drove over your dog with his humwee, because anger is a sin. Dogs can't go to heaven anyway. Also... Why doesn't God just send the good people to heaven and bad people to hell? He knows everything yet he wants to test us. That is like stabbing yourself in the eye with a pencil to know if it hurts when the outcome is obvious.

[Jordzy2j]

I'm extremely unique. LaVeyan Satanic Christian (I named myself that, not sure if it's an official thing). I know, weird. It'll take waaaay too long to explain :( Look up LaVeyan Satanism and once you know what it is add Christianity

[Lovelife090994]

I think that all organised religions are bullshit especially christianity. You have to live your whole life with denial of pleasures. You can't even be angry on that guy who drove over your dog with his humwee, because anger is a sin. Dogs can't go to heaven anyway. Also... Why doesn't God just send the good people to heaven and bad people to hell? He knows everything yet he wants to test us. That is like stabbing yourself in the eye with a pencil to know if it hurts when the outcome is obvious.

Who told you half this stuff? I am Christian and I assure you that it is nothing like that!

Does God test us? In a way yes. Your faith is tested as a Christian but God never brings harm, the test is a test that will you trust in God even with hard times and nay sayers.
Remember also, no amount of good can send one to Heaven, that much is true, there is no such thing as writing favors. You cannot harbor anger, anger beguiles the heart which is where God resides and where good resides. A blackened heart only get blacker.
Pleasures are fine until they are sinful and against the commandments.
Now, I get it, not everyone is Christian, but not everyone isn't either.

A conclusion I've reached: Most people don't really know why they believe what they claim to believe, nor do they really understand the set of beliefs they claim the large majority of the time, but they do it anyhow.


It's by faith.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[darthearth]

Who told you half this stuff? I am Christian and I assure you that it is nothing like that!

Does God test us? In a way yes. Your faith is tested as a Christian but God never brings harm, the test is a test that will you trust in God even with hard times and nay sayers.
Remember also, no amount of good can send one to Heaven, that much is true, there is no such thing as writing favors. You cannot harbor anger, anger beguiles the heart which is where God resides and where good resides. A blackened heart only get blacker.
Pleasures are fine until they are sinful and against the commandments.
Now, I get it, not everyone is Christian, but not everyone isn't either.

This is part of the transformation of Christianity that I hope takes place. "Pleasures are fine until they are sinful and against the commandments." With the understanding that the commandments are only "Love God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." I believe all morality should be discerned and reasoned from these two commandments (included sexual morality). I believe that was God's intention in Christ.

I'm extremely unique. LaVeyan Satanic Christian (I named myself that, not sure if it's an official thing). I know, weird. It'll take waaaay too long to explain :( Look up LaVeyan Satanism and once you know what it is add Christianity

I looked up LaVeyan Satanism and still don't understand what you are talking about. A Christ centered life is not a "me" centered life.

[Vlerchan]

This is part of the transformation of Christianity that I hope takes place. "Pleasures are fine until they are sinful and against the commandments." With the understanding that the commandments are only "Love God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." I believe all morality should be discerned and reasoned from these two commandments (included sexual morality). I believe that was God's intention in Christ.
And this is a major problem I hold with religion: when one chooses to abide to a certain set of religious dogma - Christianity; Hinduism; Islam; Judaism; whatever - they're automatically deferring their morality to some supposed higher power. Now, I'll admit that some - such as you - do it to a (much) lesser degree that others[1], but it still stands that when one adopts a religion they're no longer - to some degree or another - continuing to think and make choices for themselves. It gets worse when you adopt my POV, and come to the conclusion that it's not a Supreme Being(s) or God(s) that Theists defer their morality to, but rather an individual - or set thereof - who wrote, whilst what is an undeniably amazing piece of literature which was certainly ahead of its time, a popular book.

I am, anyway, a Gnostic Atheist. Whilst the burden of proof may rest on me to provide evidence of a lack of existence of X God, I find the chances of such existence to be so slim they're negligible, and hence don't identify as Agnostic.

[1]: Though, let me add, I've debated with one highly religious individual and it's is positively scary what he was coming out with, least amongst it I being certainly destined for Hell.

[darthearth]

And this is a major problem I hold with religion: when one chooses to abide to a certain set of religious dogma - Christianity; Hinduism; Islam; Judaism; whatever - they're automatically deferring their morality to some supposed higher power. Now, I'll admit that some - such as you - do it to a (much) lesser degree that others[1], but it still stands that when one adopts a religion they're no longer - to some degree or another - continuing to think and make choices for themselves. It gets worse when you adopt my POV, and come to the conclusion that it's not a Supreme Being(s) or God(s) that Theists defer their morality to, but rather an individual - or set thereof - who wrote, whilst what is an undeniably amazing piece of literature which was certainly ahead of its time, a popular book.

I am, anyway, a Gnostic Atheist. Whilst the burden of proof may rest on me to provide evidence of a lack of existence of X God, I find the chances of such existence to be so slim they're negligible, and hence don't identify as Agnostic.

[1]: Though, let me add, I've debated with one highly religious individual and it's is positively scary what he was coming out with, least amongst it I being certainly destined for Hell.

Science has yet to come up with a decent theory of abiogenisis, can't comprehend the details of basic cell division, can't explain why there is something rather than nothing, can't prove the multiverse (needed to atheistically explain fine tuning), can't explain in any way p-consciousness, hasn't been able to demonstrate non-guided evolution from non-living matter to us and so on and so forth, and your opinion is there is presently "negligible" chance of there being a Creator? That amazes me. :eek:

Your comment about deferred morality neglects that we theists have a personal relationship with God, we don't just mimic what we read thoughtlessly, we are on a walk with a living God.

[Vlerchan]

Science has yet to come up with a decent theory of abiogenisis, can't comprehend the details of basic cell division, can't explain why there is something rather than nothing, can't prove the multiverse (needed to atheistically explain fine tuning), can't explain in any way p-consciousness, hasn't been able to demonstrate non-guided evolution from non-living matter to us and so on and so forth, and your opinion is there is presently "negligible" chance of there being a Creator? That amazes me. :eek:
The simple answer is yes.

The lengthy answer is too complicated to even begin to type up at 3:20 Am in the morning. I'm just going to hope that the bolded portion of your post suffices as an explanation for now - and, even then, I'm confused in how a belief in a creator makes all of those problems disappear; 'God did it', is a lot less satisfactory an answer than: 'we don't know, but we're working on it.'

[darthearth]

The simple answer is yes.

The lengthy answer is too complicated to even begin to type up at 3:20 Am in the morning. I'm just going to hope that the bolded portion of your post suffices as an explanation for now - and, even then, I'm confused in how a belief in a creator makes all of those problems disappear; 'God did it', is a lot less satisfactory an answer than: 'we don't know, but we're working on it.'

Well, don't forget to explain the life reviews and personal commentary from a separate entity of light many people get when they temporarily die, or how they meet family they never knew about before (but confirmed after they "came back"). How do random chemicals floating around happen to organize such complexity and unknowables again (don't forget to show how the life reviews were "selected" for)? And if you say chemicals are the source, explain why you say that instead of the more straightforward conclusion that they have only "enabled" the experience (freeing the spirit in some way from the veil of the body). Thanks!

[Vlerchan]

[...] abiogenisis [...] basic cell division, [...] something rather than nothing [...] p-consciousness [...] non-guided evolution from non-living matter [...]
I've no idea where you're getting this notion that because science is as of yet to prove or disprove certain phenomenon it gives a rational basis for an Intelligent Designer to exist. That, in its simplest form, is a non sequitur; and really - honestly - doesn't help in the slightest in proving your point - which is that there is some rational basis for the existence of God(?). I, in any case; having dropped most sciences by the age of sixteen, I don't even know where to begin in explaining those phenomenon, but the internet is a wide place; I'm sure you'll find experts who give you a much more satisfying answer that 'God did it'. Which brings me to my question: before Einstein published his theory on special relativity, did that make relativity any more to do with God, and any less to do with nature?

Well, don't forget to explain the life reviews and personal commentary from a separate entity of light many people get when they temporarily die, or how they meet family they never knew about before (but confirmed after they "came back").[...]
Some people also claim to have seen ghosts. Hearsay doesn't prove God at any rate.

I've no idea what you're trying to get across in the second part - the section I edited out. I'd appreciate if you dumbed it down a bit.

Your comment about deferred morality neglects that we theists have a personal relationship with God, we don't just mimic what we read thoughtlessly, we are on a walk with a living God.
If you say so.

Tricky Questions for Christians (in no order - other than the order I thought them up in a five minute brainstorming session):
The Creation Myth: Why are we still suffering from the consequences of original sin - that your entire faith is based on - when the events that make of Creation have been proven not to have happened.
Creation Itself: You made the point that something can't come out of nothing - or at least science can't prove it can yet. Where did God come from?
Intelligent Evolution: Why do I still have my appendix?
Omnipresence: If God is everywhere does that mean he is also in Hell? (not so much a tricky question as an amusing one here)
The Afterlife & Luck: In order to achieve ever-lasting-life - and all that jazz - one must accept Christ as their personal saviour. How exactly is this fair on those born outside Christian homes - specifically those born in brutal theocracies - where converting will literally get you hanged - and tribal groups that will most likely never even come into contact with the idea. Is it right that they're basically destined to hell because of where they were born?
Human Suffering: Why does God allow it go on?

Now, answer the questions or don't answer the questions. It's a pointless exercise, anyway. Neither of us - generalising from experience - are going to approach this conversation with open minds, and won't consider the others points longer than it takes to debunk them. It's why I don't like debating religion. I probably won't respond again unless I haven't seen something I've seen before.

[darthearth]

I've no idea where you're getting this notion that because science is as of yet to prove or disprove certain phenomenon it gives a rational basis for an Intelligent Designer to exist. That, in its simplest form, is a non sequitur; and really - honestly - doesn't help in the slightest in proving your point - which is that there is some rational basis for the existence of God(?). I, in any case; having dropped most sciences by the age of sixteen, I don't even know where to begin in explaining those phenomenon, but the internet is a wide place; I'm sure you'll find experts who give you a much more satisfying answer that 'God did it'. Which brings me to my question: before Einstein published his theory on special relativity, did that make relativity any more to do with God, and any less to do with nature?


Some people also claim to have seen ghosts. Hearsay doesn't prove God at any rate.

I've no idea what you're trying to get across in the second part - the section I edited out. I'd appreciate if you dumbed it down a bit.


............
Creation Itself: You made the point that something can't come out of nothing - or at least science can't prove it can yet. Where did God come from?
.....
Human Suffering: Why does God allow it go on?

Now, answer the questions or don't answer the questions. It's a pointless exercise, anyway. Neither of us - generalising from experience - are going to approach this conversation with open minds, and won't consider the others points longer than it takes to debunk them. It's why I don't like debating religion. I probably won't respond again unless I haven't seen something I've seen before.

You are assuming abiogenisis and evolution was an unguided process before we know it was an unguided process. This is common among atheists. I know that we actually don't know whether it was or wasn't actively guided but we pursue science as if it wasn't as is proper, therefore the possibility of direct indication of an intelligent "guider" is still possible. Once science can demonstrate it all can happen without active guidance then the reasonable possibility that it was actively guided becomes unnecessary, but not until then. Atheists seem to love the "non sequitur" claim, but I have never found them to use it appropriately. It is perfectly reasonable to suspect an intelligent designer given the complexity of our bodies, "non sequitur" is supposed to be a conclusion that does not follow from the premise, the premise here is that we have complex bodies that appear to be designed, it is not by any means a "non sequitur" to presume a designer for lack of definitive proof there wasn't.

What basis have you to reject so many people's similar claims of live review at temporary death out of hand like you have? There is no rational basis whatsoever to do this. This is another problem with atheists, unreasonably denying the evidence of spiritual experiences. Even criminal courts accept eye witness testimony, yes it needs to be considered objectively and rationally in light of all evidence, but it is not to be dismissed out of hand like atheists love to do for no good reason other than to preserve their (ignorant imho) non-belief. Everything is supposed to be "selected for" in biological evolution, so how, if the life review were just a biological cause, was it "selected for"? I can't dumb it down any more than that. But I think to say it was "selected for" is just outlandish, all the more reason to take the experiences at face value, that they left their body in spirit and it was a solely spiritual experience.

As far as your questions are concerned, the issue here is theism, not Christianity or the outright denial of evolution. Theism works just fine with unguided evolution. You did make a good point in bringing up where God came from, I have no answer for you except that my highest God is a panentheistic God, existing throughout all that is. Human suffering? I believe the world was created to self-evolve without any (or not much, we don't know yet) divine micromanagement, my God is a substantially Deistic one. I brought up science not being able to explain something instead of nothing to bring attention to the fact science can't answer everything. I feel I have an open mind, I was just questioning your view that the chances of there being a God are "so slim they're negligible", there are too many questions and eye witness testimonies for that.

[Vlerchan]

Because I don't like leaving after my half-arsed arguments have been torn to shreds - and you did actually put forward a thoughtful and intelligently put together post:
I know that we actually don't know whether it was or wasn't actively guided but we pursue science as if it wasn't as is proper, therefore the possibility of direct indication of an intelligent "guider" is still possible.
What exactly is so 'Intelligent' about the retention of my appendix? Just a thought. I've also admitted - in my first post - that there is a chance that a Intelligent Guider - or God - might exist. However, I find that chance so slim it's negligible. I'm not accepting Negative Proof as a refutation.

Atheists seem to love the "non sequitur" claim, but I have never found them to use it appropriately. It is perfectly reasonable to suspect an intelligent designer given the complexity of our bodies, "non sequitur" is supposed to be a conclusion that does not follow from the premise, the premise here is that we have complex bodies that appear to be designed, it is not by any means a "non sequitur" to presume a designer for lack of definitive proof there wasn't.
It actually is a non sequitur. The name of the fallacy itself is the appeal to ignorance. It's commonly used in a bid to put forward irrational and baseless claims. We can speculate that an Intelligent Designer is guiding the process - which I highly doubt - but we can't use a lack of proof to the contrary - or negative proof - to infer it as you do.

Even criminal courts accept eye witness testimony, yes it needs to be considered objectively and rationally in light of all evidence[...]
Criminal courts accept witness testimony. How many criminal courts make a final decision based solely on this witness testimony alone however? I very much doubt a (serious) criminal case was ever settled on witness testimony alone, though I haven't checked myself.

I died and saw a light / met my loved ones is never going to sound rational to an Atheist. I wouldn't bother trying to frame it as such.

As far as your questions are concerned, the issue here is theism, not Christianity or the outright denial of evolution.
Ah. Ok. I retract my statements that were specifically focused on Christianity in that case.

I feel I have an open mind.
It's not that I don't feel that you've an open mind; I just feel that you - like I - have probably had this exact same debate before - or near enough - and walked away with the same views on the issue. Nothing we put forward is going to change the others mind, I'll say that now.

[darthearth]

It actually is a non sequitur. The name of the fallacy itself is the appeal to ignorance. It's commonly used in a bid to put forward irrational and baseless claims. We can speculate that an Intelligent Designer is guiding the process - which I highly doubt - but we can't use a lack of proof to the contrary - or negative proof - to infer it as you do.


I'll just refer to my previous comment which made things clear.


Criminal courts accept witness testimony. How many criminal courts make a final decision based solely on this witness testimony alone however? I very much doubt a (serious) criminal case was ever settled on witness testimony alone, though I haven't checked myself.

I died and saw a light / met my loved ones is never going to sound rational to an Atheist. I wouldn't bother trying to frame it as such.



I want to know exactly why you think life reviews do not "sound rational". I would love to hear a rational reason without materialism bias. Thanks.

[Vlerchan]

I Googled Life Reviews. Know what they are now: Life-flashing-before-my-eyes type situations and the Golden Tunnel stuff. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I want to know exactly why you think life reviews do not "sound rational". I would love to hear a rational reason without materialism bias. Thanks.
The Living: Life Reviews are brought forward by the subconscious to calm the Review-er and aid them emotionally in what I'm sure is an incredibly traumatic experience.

The quasi-Dead: Life Reviews are simply the brain trying to rationalise the gaps - through the creation of artificial memories - that occurred whilst the consciousness had stopped. It is all imagined, this being drawn on from held superstition in the Review-er. If they'd experienced the Life Review whilst the brain had been 'dead' they wouldn't remember it.

These are simply theories, of course. I could be wrong, and you could be right. However, I prefer attempting to rationalise the experience than purely believing in the anecdotal evidence that you draw your conclusions from. Interestingly, only about 30% of near-deathers actually report these life reviews - which makes me wonder about the rest. Unrelated: You can also create the effect through ketamine usage (http://www.lycaeum.org/leda/docs/9264.shtml?ID=9264) which sounds fun though I wouldn't recommend trying.

[darthearth]

I Googled Life Reviews. Know what they are now: Life-flashing-before-my-eyes type situations and the Golden Tunnel stuff. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The Living: Life Reviews are brought forward by the subconscious to calm the Review-er and aid them emotionally in what I'm sure is an incredibly traumatic experience.

The quasi-Dead: Life Reviews are simply the brain trying to rationalise the gaps - through the creation of artificial memories - that occurred whilst the consciousness had stopped. It is all imagined, this being drawn on from held superstition in the Review-er. If they'd experienced the Life Review whilst the brain had been 'dead' they wouldn't remember it.

These are simply theories, of course. I could be wrong, and you could be right. However, I prefer attempting to rationalise the experience than purely believing in the anecdotal evidence that you draw your conclusions from. Interestingly, only about 30% of near-deathers actually report these life reviews - which makes me wonder about the rest. Unrelated: You can also create the effect through ketamine usage (http://www.lycaeum.org/leda/docs/9264.shtml?ID=9264) which sounds fun though I wouldn't recommend trying.


To me it makes more sense that the chemicals allow the spirit to disengage the body enough for something as complex like a life review to take place, I'm not talking about "life flashing before your eyes", I'm talking about the lengthy discussion between a person and a being of light giving a complete life review start to finish. When I first began considering this stuff the "brain dead so why memories?" question that you pointed out was one of the first things I thought of. However, I supposed and still do think that if a light being can give such a lengthy and detailed life review, this being can somehow allow the memory of it either to be implanted in the physical brain or allow the spirit to access the information from some other storage area outside of the brain.

One thing I don't see any justification for is calling these possibilities irrational. They are perfectly reasonable possibilities if one is not laden with preconceived materialism bias.

[comicgeeknerd101]

I am by definition a Christian, but I do not like religion.

I believe Jesus came to abolish the materialism and ceremonies of the Jewish faith (reform it...sort of). God or salvation cannot be achieved through religion or obligations, but simply, a relationship with Jesus Christ.

I am doubtful of the stories of Adam and Eve, and Noah`s Ark, but I think if you believe a part of the bible, you have to believe it all.

God did not declare wars, or bring superstition and intolerance, people did. They were using Christianity as an excuse to commit these actions.
(For example, the purpose of the crusades was for power and wealth to the pope and the European kingdoms)

I apologize if I am not making myself clear...feel free to ask questions or argue with me, I do not get offended often.

[darthearth]

I am doubtful of the stories of Adam and Eve, and Noah`s Ark, but I think if you believe a part of the bible, you have to believe it all.



Do you feel like you have to believe in Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark? Does it make you not believe stuff like evolution? They just seem like stories to me, I think people can believe in Jesus and not have to believe in those stories. What makes you feel like you have to "believe it all"? Otherwise I agree with you pretty much.

[comicgeeknerd101]

I believe if one believes all of the Bible, it will strengthen their faith and avoid doubt. (For example, if Jonah was`nt swallowed by a whale, then what are the chances that Jesus died on the cross?)

Its similar to a doctor. Even though everything he tells you may not be true, you go with it because it may be the key to saving your life.

So therefore, I believe that I have to believe the stories of Adam and Eve and Noah`s Ark. Even though they may just be stories, it will not truly effect me in the long run.

I am doubtful of the theory (yes, theory) of evolution. But if proven true, I will accept it as a fact. The Bible does not disprove or approve of evolution.

[Coprocephalus]

God does not bring harm? Who destroyed the Sodom and Gomorrah? Im pretty sure it was god who destroyed those cities and also... chunk of burning sulfur landing on your head is hell of a harm.

I think you wanted to say that god does not bring harm right now.... probably...

[Vlerchan]

One thing I don't see any justification for is calling these possibilities irrational. They are perfectly reasonable possibilities if one is not laden with preconceived materialism bias.
It's a possibility, I'll admit to that. But it's certainly not a likely or even reasonable one. Your argument suffers some rather major faults, such as:

It's based on Anecdotal Evidence (AE): It's built up entirely on anecdotal - i.e., word-of-mouth - evidence. You can't pass off anecdotal evidence as proof. You especially can't pass it off as proof when only 30% of individuals who 'died' actually reported any sort of Life Review - from basic to complex - when surveyed.

It involves Special Pleading: The most glaring example of this concerns ones inability to retain memories without a functioning brain. Your explanation - "[...]allow the memory of it either to be implanted in the physical brain or allow the spirit to access the information from some other storage area outside of the brain." - is simply unfounded - and has no rational or logical basis at that - given the dearth of evidence supporting the claim that it's possible for a brain to retain - or access - memories that it was not alive to experience. It'd be like dying, and still functioning as an active member of society.

Another Appeal to Ignorance: I'll admit that any argument concerning the unknown is going to suffer from this fallacy to some degree. However, your argument seems to be entirely based on the fact that since we don't have an explanation - only theories - that all theories are equally reasonable - see: the Balance Fallacy for an expansion on what I mean here.

I'm not laden with 'materialism bias', I'm simply analysing your argument from a rational - and, I'd add, decidedly sceptical - perspective. In short: it simply doesn't add up, like most theories concerning spirituality and the occult.

God does not bring harm? Who destroyed the Sodom and Gomorrah? Im pretty sure it was god who destroyed those cities and also...I am doubtful of the stories of Adam and Eve, and Noah`s Ark, but I think if you believe a part of the bible, you have to believe it all.
Most of the Old Testament - particularly Genesis and Exodus - are metaphorical and entirely open to interpretation. It'd be wrong to take the stories at face value.

[darthearth]

It's a possibility, I'll admit to that. But it's certainly not a likely or even reasonable one. Your argument suffers some rather major faults, such as:

It's based on Anecdotal Evidence (AE): It's built up entirely on anecdotal - i.e., word-of-mouth - evidence. You can't pass off anecdotal evidence as proof. You especially can't pass it off as proof when only 30% of individuals who 'died' actually reported any sort of Life Review - from basic to complex - when surveyed.

It involves Special Pleading: The most glaring example of this concerns ones inability to retain memories without a functioning brain. Your explanation - "[...]allow the memory of it either to be implanted in the physical brain or allow the spirit to access the information from some other storage area outside of the brain." - is simply unfounded - and has no rational or logical basis at that - given the dearth of evidence supporting the claim that it's possible for a brain to retain - or access - memories that it was not alive to experience. It'd be like dying, and still functioning as an active member of society.

Another Appeal to Ignorance: I'll admit that any argument concerning the unknown is going to suffer from this fallacy to some degree. However, your argument seems to be entirely based on the fact that since we don't have an explanation - only theories - that all theories are equally reasonable - see: the Balance Fallacy for an expansion on what I mean here.

I'm not laden with 'materialism bias', I'm simply analysing your argument from a rational - and, I'd add, decidedly sceptical - perspective. In short: it simply doesn't add up, like most theories concerning spirituality and the occult.


I never used the word "proof", this is your invention. But in short I don't believe it is lost on anyone (accept perhaps other materialists) reading our discussion how pitiful the atheist is in clinging to so-called "fallacies" in the hopes of avoiding what's clearly obvious (gee, aren't those random chemicals floating around so magnificently intelligent to organize such complex and personal interaction, WOW!). I'll just let what we have said here stand on its own. You demonstrated the ridiculousness quite well.

Everyone, read our entire discussion, objectively decide for yourselves.

[Vlerchan]

I never used the word "proof", this is your invention.
Your claims need proof - or some degree backing, anyway - or otherwise it's simply baseless speculation. I apologise if I was wrong in framing your 'points' as proof.

But in short I don't believe it is lost on anyone (accept perhaps other materialists) reading our discussion how pitiful the atheist is in clinging to so-called "fallacies" in the hopes of avoiding what's clearly obvious [...]
Logical Fallacies are used as reference points to outline deviations - or complete breaks in your case - from logical or rational thought in ones argument. The Atheist is using them to do just that.

It's also certainly not obvious.

I'll just let what we have said here stand on its own. You demonstrated the ridiculousness quite well.
K. I suppose.

EDIT1: I've no idea what you're on about with chemicals. I looked into Life Reviews, and I saw nothing relating to chemical formations. My point about Brain Activity stands regardless, though.
EDIT2: Unless you're trying to claim that the Loved One we speak to - or whatever - is some complex array of chemicals, or something (Proof?). This is taking place in our imaginations so I don't see the relevance of the individuals formation, in that case - and it certainly wouldn't make any of my points less relevant. It'd probably be best to link me to a page explaining exactly what you mean. I could - it's unlikely, though - be interpreting you wrong.

[saea97]

Everyone, read our entire discussion, objectively decide for yourselves.

I have read the entire discussion and objectively decided that your repeated assertations and appeals to ignorance constitute no effective argument whatsoever.

[darthearth]

Logical Fallacies are used as reference points to outline deviations - or complete breaks in your case - from logical or rational thought in ones argument. The Atheist is using them to do just that.

It's also certainly not obvious.


I have read the entire discussion and objectively decided that your repeated assertations and appeals to ignorance constitute no effective argument whatsoever.

Can't see the forest for the trees.

[Vlerchan]

Can't see the forest for the trees.
You have me entirely convinced ...