Religion

[Willy]

This is a place for an intellectual and non-hateful debate over all things religious between those with an open mind. If you are not willing to think about any arguments posted here, leave right now. If you are just going to spam religious people and/or atheists with hate comments, leave right now. This should also have nothing to do with religion being bad or good for the world.

 

I personally am atheist, I have found no evidence for any God's existence. The Bible and other holy books have been translated and subjected to change many times (this is an undebatable fact). And science proves any literal interpretations worthless and untrustworthy. 

[Paulsifer]

How would you acquire a belief without some form of a test?

[Fake Crowley]

By being raised that way.

 

If you tested belief, almost everyone would be an atheist.

[Paulsifer]

This is what I'm arguing though.  Being raised an a religion doesn not give you a belief, it gives you a lifestyle.  And I've tested my beliefs and am not an Atheist.  I would argue that if they were truly tested everyone would be a believer.

[Contradiction]

I haven't tested my beliefs because I don't feel a need to. I don't take faith seriously in the least.

 

That being said, don't go into "the majority of people in x scenario believe y and I know it", because there is no such scenario and you have no way of knowing.

[Paulsifer]

Yeah, I'll need more of an explanation.  I'm trying to see how even not feeling a need to test your beliefs would cause any real believing in you.  I'm not trying to antagonize, I'm just trying to understand.  If it is possible, I'd like to know.

 

And I don't know what you're talking about with the X Scenario Y belief, so I won't go there. :)

[Contradiction]

I'm trying to see how even not feeling a need to test your beliefs would cause any real believing in you.  

 

What do you mean, "real believing"? Why do I have to really believe in anything? Why does not really believing in anything make me lazy/stupid, as you insinuated earlier?

 

And I don't know what you're talking about with the X Scenario Y belief, so I won't go there. :)

 

If you tested belief, most people would be theists/atheists/whatever.

[Alex Graboyes]

Copy-pasted from a similar thread that I did on this topic.

KEEP IN MIND: this is in no way an attack on religion and or religious people, meerly my reasons for not being a believer.

Problem number one: Why is believing in god so important to god? Regardless of a persons race, gender, and whatnot what life, in my eyes, boils down to is as follows: Are you a good person or a bad person...Whereas to the religiously faithful, it boils down to: Do you or do you not believe in god. Regardless of good or bad, believing in god and a possibly not-so-sincere apology is the ticket to heaven, regardless of how sadistic or bad someone may be. Why subjegate every single person on the planet to a test that sadistic idiots with the predisposition to faith pass with ease, and good-hearted skeptics have "failed" every single time.

Problem number deux: Manifestation...Tran/or con/ substantiation is such an issue, wether or not the wine is the blood and the bread is the body...if god wanted to quell that quarell that's divided the protestants and catholics and created so much hate...he need only manifest. Why would a god allow hatred over a very fixable issue.

Problem number three: Manifestation part two. WHY DOSN'T A GOD MANIFEST. Nothing else to say here, really. I would instantly be a believer if a god is able to manifest himself to the world. Most will say this is a test of faith, wich I cover in part four.

Problem number four: The test of faith. The religious extremests will say that all life is is a test, and as pointed out in part one, that test is one-sided to begin with. But wait, if I am subjected to the christians test, and the catholics, and the muslims, and the million other religions...why is me being an atheist so bad? A christian denies the gods of the literally THOUSANDS of other religions in the world, so me denying the existance of theirs is now heracy?

Problem numero cinco: HATE. Would a god as brilliant as to create our cosmos really allow bloodshed in his name? “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus

Problem number six: The age of the earth/evolution. I don't deny that I am a skeptic, I don't believe 100% in anything I cannot see, but what I CAN see is that the earth is a heck-of-a-lot more than 2 thousand something years old. And it sure as hell has evidence of evolution.

Problem seven: Hell... Why does a hell exist? A god who created us in his image says it's wrong to torture our fellow man, and yet has a lake of fire and his own torture chamber to burn and kill and mame and did I mention torture the people who disagree with him. And if you want to believe mormonism, then satan himself was the son of elohene and the brother to jesus himself. Why is satan evil? And jesus good? They both had equal opportunity to get heaven, and yet due to the flip of a coin one must live in infamy while the other gets eternal praise and glory? No way, not buying it.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Problem number one: Why is believing in god so important to god? Regardless of a persons race, gender, and whatnot what life, in my eyes, boils down to is as follows: Are you a good person or a bad person...Whereas to the religiously faithful, it boils down to: Do you or do you not believe in god. Regardless of good or bad, believing in god and a possibly not-so-sincere apology is the ticket to heaven, regardless of how sadistic or bad someone may be. Why subjegate every single person on the planet to a test that sadistic idiots with the predisposition to faith pass with ease, and good-hearted skeptics have "failed" every single time.

 

Because, thats the way it works in the real world. To give you an example, in a court situation, does a murderer get a not guilty verdict even if it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that he murdered someone in cold blood because he helps out orphans every day of the week? No. In the same way, if we are guilty of sin, we have a problem. Being good doesnt somehow magically undo the fact that we've done things wrong. So why does beleivng in God matter. Because in my courtroom analogy, God is the judge, and he is passing judgement on his children, and he doesnt want them to go to the jail/hell etc so what does he do? He goes himself, instead of them. Now if you want to accept his offer, you can, but you don't have to. Accepting his offer is something you have to choose to do. It's not about good works or whatever. The idea you can work youself into heaven is laughable. You can't make youself perfect, which you would need to if you wanted to go to heaven, a perfect place. Sure you can be good hearted, as you said, but perfect? No. God understands that we couldn't be perfect, so he created a circumstance where we wouldnt' need to be.

 

Problem number deux: Manifestation...Tran/or con/ substantiation is such an issue, wether or not the wine is the blood and the bread is the body...if god wanted to quell that quarell that's divided the protestants and catholics and created so much hate...he need only manifest. Why would a god allow hatred over a very fixable issue.

 

I don't think I've ever met a single catholic or protestant that really cared about this issue. If you look at the history of the conflicts between catholics and protestants, you'll see they're far more political than religious. IE people didn't really start fighting over issues like these.

 

Problem number three: Manifestation part two. WHY DOSN'T A GOD MANIFEST. Nothing else to say here, really. I would instantly be a believer if a god is able to manifest himself to the world. Most will say this is a test of faith, wich I cover in part four.

 

He did manifest himself. See, Jesus.

 

Problem number four: The test of faith. The religious extremests will say that all life is is a test, and as pointed out in part one, that test is one-sided to begin with. But wait, if I am subjected to the christians test, and the catholics, and the muslims, and the million other religions...why is me being an atheist so bad? A christian denies the gods of the literally THOUSANDS of other religions in the world, so me denying the existance of theirs is now heracy?

 

It's herasy to Christians, as I'm sure Christians commit herasy to many other religions. That's not so disputed a concern. Being an athiest isn't bad. What is bad is not dealing with your sin in the way you can.

 

Problem numero cinco: HATE. Would a god as brilliant as to create our cosmos really allow bloodshed in his name? “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus

 

God isn't omnipotent. Not in the way the greeks talk about it anyway. Omnipotent in their minds is being able to make nine sided pentagons. God doesn't like the bloodshead in our world in any form, but it happens because if he were to intervine directly, he would be violating our free will. And he wants us to have that. Why? Because he wants us to be able to love. Love each other, and love him. Its impossible to have love without free will.  

Problem number six: The age of the earth/evolution. I don't deny that I am a skeptic, I don't believe 100% in anything I cannot see, but what I CAN see is that the earth is a heck-of-a-lot more than 2 thousand something years old. And it sure as hell has evidence of evolution.

 

Evolution is a mechanism, not an origin explaination. Not all Christians believe what you are talking about, and the Bible does not give an exact definition where it says "earth is X years old". People have tried to work it out, but they would be looking in the wrong place. The Bible is not meant to be a science book. It is meant to be an understanding of our story and God reaching out to us in it.

 

Problem seven: Hell... Why does a hell exist? A god who created us in his image says it's wrong to torture our fellow man, and yet has a lake of fire and his own torture chamber to burn and kill and mame and did I mention torture the people who disagree with him. And if you want to believe mormonism, then satan himself was the son of elohene and the brother to jesus himself. Why is satan evil? And jesus good? They both had equal opportunity to get heaven, and yet due to the flip of a coin one must live in infamy while the other gets eternal praise and glory? No way, not buying it.

 

Hell is not a place for those who disagree with God. Hell is a place for those who disobey God. Much in the same way jail is a place for those who disobey the state. It is apropriate, when you consider the importance of who God is and the importance of what he represents etc.

[Fake Crowley]

1. I'd rather oblivion. Why do I have to go to heaven or hell when I die?

 

2. Fair enough, although historically this /was/ an issue.

 

3. Um...that was kind of two thousand years ago. And Jesus is dead. What I think they mean is, why doesn't He manifest Himself on, say, a yearly basis? Or even every hundred years?

 

4. Why is it herasy? I don't fully understand.

 

5. It's possible to love without free will. His Angels love Him, don't they?

 

6. Fair enough, I suppose.

 

7. That's not fair. By that logic, everybody who disobeys even one of his commandments--which, I feel like mentioning, we haven't clearly defined--will go to Hell if he doesn't accept Jesus. It's impossible to fully obey all of His commandments, and making such a strange and pointless loophole serves no purpose.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

1. I'd rather oblivion. Why do I have to go to heaven or hell when I die?

 

Because the soul does not die.  

 

2. Fair enough, although historically this /was/ an issue.

 

An issue, but not the main one. Suggesting the catholics and protestants fought wars over that is like suggesting that a married couple who got divorced did so because they had differnt music taste. Yes they did have differnt music taste, and did have the occaisonal disagreement in the car over what to play perhaps, but that was far from the reason they got divorced.

 

3. Um...that was kind of two thousand years ago. And Jesus is dead. What I think they mean is, why doesn't He manifest Himself on, say, a yearly basis? Or even every hundred years?

 

Because you have to make the choice. He didn't come here to convince people of who he was. He came to save them. He's done that, and has given us enough for people to believe in him, clearly. Anything more and people would be lacking in the ability to choose, since he is clearly the son of God.  

 

4. Why is it herasy? I don't fully understand.

 

To be a heratic, you simply have to disbelieve what the main body of the religion believes. So, I don't believe what the majority of Muslims believe, so I'm a heretic to them. The word is more commonly used of someone who claims to be a believer in X religion, but believes differntly to most other people.

 

5. It's possible to love without free will. His Angels love Him, don't they?

 

And they have free will, as is proven by the fact that one of them chose to rebel (see lucifer).

 

7. That's not fair. By that logic, everybody who disobeys even one of his commandments--which, I feel like mentioning, we haven't clearly defined--will go to Hell if he doesn't accept Jesus. It's impossible to fully obey all of His commandments, and making such a strange and pointless loophole serves no purpose.

 

I'd say the Bible is pretty clear. There are some points of it that people don't like, but thats not the same as being unclear. Furthermore, no one thinks seriously that they are perfect, and since your not getting into heaven without Jesus unless your perfect, that's pretty much everyone and they know it.

 

Its impossible for us now, because we're fallen. But it was possible for Jesus, and so he did it for us. Thus if we accept his offer, he steps into our place and takes on our punishment for us.

[Eystein,]

No 1: So what's the catch? Say you accept his offer and you eventually die without having improved much? Why should you enter heaven?

 

He did manifest himself. See, Jesus.

Yeah, 2000 years prematurily. He could at least have waited until the information age. While at it, he could maybe cleanse the atmosphere, and give us some tips on chemistry.

 

Hell is not a place for those who disagree with God. Hell is a place for those who disobey God. Much in the same way jail is a place for those who disobey the state. It is apropriate, when you consider the importance of who God is and the importance of what he represents etc.

 

So he want us to have free will for about 60 years or so, but there he draws the line. Wouldn't it be more merciful to end our miserable existance. Why is hell necessary?

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

 

Yeah, 2000 years prematurily. He could at least have waited until the information age. While at it, he could maybe cleanse the atmosphere, and give us some tips on chemistry.

 

And make human beings entirley irresponsable to their actions?

 

The reason he came when he did was to make it maximumly impactful, while still allowing for choice.

 

So he want us to have free will for about 60 years or so, but there he draws the line. Wouldn't it be more merciful to end our miserable existance. Why is hell necessary?

 

We're still going to have free will in hell, but judement will have been passed. Hell is more merciful than no existance. The point about hell is that its what people choose. It's about a rejection of God that those people make, and thus they get the consequence of their rejection. They want an existance without God, they get one. That's what hell is. Reality in the absence of God or anything good.