The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Tydeus

A Question to the theists here: Why do we have viruses?

*raises hand* Question: Are we allowed to believe in a god and the concept of evolution? You know, that all life on Earth developed from single-celled microbes all the way to humans and cows and trees and Twiddy because it was the will of some higher consciousness? I mean, because I do. Hell, if I were God, that's totally how I would go about making worlds, you know?

Furthermore, is it cool to believe that maybe what we would consider "God" is neither good nor evil, just a neutral, organized force that keeps the entire scope of existance from falling into total entropy? You know, and maybe that this God doesn't value one form of life over another, so it's totally cool that a virus pretty much destroys everything around it in order to grow and reproduce, in a manner similar to, say, humankind.

I don't really get why, in order to believe in a higher being such as God, you have to subscribe to every single tenet of a specific organized religion. Furthermore, I don't understand why the obvious recourse to so many people here is to blame a spiritual idea for the actions of the manmade organization that, more often than not, manipulates that idea to suit their less-than-altruistic goals.

But I digress. To answer your question, Tydeus, I believe there are viruses in existance because they have as much right to exist as we do. Should medical science find a way to eradicate any or all strains of viruses from the face of the planet, then I guess viruskind is SOL. It's conflict, you see, a motivating force. The constant need to sustain one's own survival and the survival of the species promotes growth and advancement. Why, if we didn't have microscopic organisms trying to kill us from within, we'd have no reason to create technology allowing us to look at not only the virulent kinds of microbes, but the countless other forms of microscopic life out there. We learn more, get smarter, pass on the knowledge, develop it into new and wondrous things.

If it weren't for that sort of challenge, we'd be sitting naked in caves banging rocks together or something.

[Nique]

Obviously, this forum has gone a long, long time without disscussing this subject, and almost everyone is coming out of the wood-work with an axe to grind. It's like they just slipped a pack of exploding Mentos into the Diet Coke bottle that is our forum.

We need some kind of moderation in this disscussion. Not a ban-hammer, but someone to lead the disscussion. I'm not volunteering for this 'position', but I'm going to try and break these plethora of disscussions down so that we can get newcomers caught up and no one get's lost.

Essentially, I'm instigating a fresh start. That doesn't mean you shouldn't reply to what's been posted before this, but it's an invitation to revisit your arguments, or start posting on certain aspects of this topic if you haven't already without feeling obligated to reply directly to past postings.

Firstly, I think I'm obligated to get some social grace out of the way;

Originally Posted by The Kneumatic Pnight

And as to what Nique’s talking about, I believe I know...

I've seen that program. It's a good one.

While I am continually baffled by the insistance of using words like 'fine tuned' and 'directed' and even 'created' by a community laregly attempting to disregard such notions, I do understand why it seems preferable for scientists to leave God out of the picture. Practically, it doesn't lead to advancement to chalk the unknown up to the 'mystery of God'. The scientists that are religiously inclined don't seem to have that problem though...

Originally Posted by ZTG

Fine, fine, I can appreciate that you weren't expecting me to try and investigate deeper. I guess I was pointing out why I personally am not convinced by this reasoning. It's how I do things.

It's cool. It's just that there is so much going on in this thread... I think that the sheer volume of posts is going to deter any would-be flaming or trolling ... but it may start weeding out any useful/complete disscussion as well

Originally Posted by Locke

And therefore inadequate to the scientific counterparts, which would be more grounded in reality.

We're agreeing or I'm misunderstanding you.

I appreciate how you're approaching this thread as a discourse. As you said about Bible prophesy before--it will definitely come up, but we'll save it for later rather than muck it up now.

Thanks!

You'll notice a crud de-mucking operation happening right below you! I'm hoping to create a bookmark of sorts with this post

I merely meant in the sense that it shows the disparity between religious ideas and how inconsistent they are not even as a general framework, but from person to person. Another reason why they are so ineffectual.

Explain to me what you mean by 'inneffectual'. It seems contrary to your opinion that religion has it's strong iron grip on the lives of anyone who belives any form of it to any end? I mean, yes that's not good, but effectiveness has nothing to do with morality, depending on the goal.

And I do understand what you mean about dissonance. But I'm not sure it's really prudent to any disscussion asking whether or not God exisists.

This may be hard to swallow, but try to think of religious differances like differances between scientific theory. Each venure has subscribers to paticular 'doctrines', each member no doubt beliveing that their doctrine/theory is the correct one, with the underlying assumption that, eventually, time will tell there can only be one truth.

This is not a comparision of science and religion as complete systems of learning, but merely in this limited aspect.

It's been around longer, and it's even more deadly because it's shielded in our public debate.

Because of how it is treated in a public forum is really the only point I can aquiesse (spelling) on. If a concept can be applied in both beneficial and harmful ways, then isn't just a tool? Neutral? This argument fails to take into consideration people who pick a religion based on what they honestly belive makes sense, rather than being indoctrinated and then following blindly.

Example; My religious 'authorities' I respect and will follow without question to certain points, but if I was ever told to start taking up arms against non-belivers, I would probably not be a part of that religious organization anymore. There's a bit about following what I know about God and not men that is crucial to me.

About half of the commandments are just rituals. The rest are good starting points, but nothing that anyone with common sense couldn't divine.

I'm not upset, but I do want to point out that statments like this can lend a unfair bias to the disscussion... Using almost prejudicial langauge to discredit religion through it's writings. I mean, do we want to go point-counter point on the Bible's influence on society, historical context, linguistic context... Or do you want to run a subtle smear campaign against it?

I don't think this is something you're conciously doing - So don't think me to be imputing bad motive onto you. I will try to make sure I don't do anything similar. I just don't think it promotes an honest discourse.

And, yes, of course there is room in the disscussion for the (in)validity of religious teachings in the modern world... But let's not bypass that disscussion with assumptions that make our respective arguments look good.

And now, for something really fun!


~~~~~
Now, we've got several issues going. I'm trying to list these in an organized way, but bare with me. (Again, these are just some basic seperations between the overall disscussion... obviously, some of these are going to overlap. I'm not trying to moderate... Just provide an option that I think lends to a possibly more organized disscussion.

1. The Atheist Disscussion: Is beliving in 'God(s)' irrational? What is the logical basis for belife in God? Should religious faith have applied such logic, or is it merely unknowable in the sense of empirical understanding? If so, should it be that way? Are these world-views to be viewed as equally correct?

2. The Science Behind Theist and Atheist Belifes: Is creation mutually exclusive to the scientific view of origins? What specifics of current facts and theories regarding physics and study of the universe, space-time itself, lend to or discredit either viewpoint?

3. Nature of God: We assume, for the purpose of this argument, that God(s) exsist. Philosophical viewpoints on God's allowance of 'evil' in the world. Does God care? Are his standards arbitrary, or should we assume that they reach some purpose beneficial to either us personally or to 'existance' itself? Is God how he portrays himself, or how religion's portray him in regards to omniscience etc?

4. Differance Between Religious Belifes: Are some belifes 'more' correct? Based on what? Do differances between religions matter, or are all leading to the same place? How accurate are 'Holy Books', or even just the Bible? Is critisism of it valid, or merely popular?

5. Nature of Religion: Is religion as a concept, harmful, neutral, or beneficial? Is it moreso (either) than any other system of organized belife like political organizations? Should religions be able to share their message with people publicly? What effects, good and bad, can religion have on society? Is religion a motivator for altruism, or does it bely a lack of sincerity?
~~~~~

Now, one or more of those items brought YOU to this thread. Some people are more interested in being apologists for religion or agnostisism and will lean more on subjects 4 and 5. Others are looking to re-visit belife in a higher power as a valid, logical, conclusion, or to discredit it entirely, respectivly, and will no doubt focus on subjects 1 and 2. Hopefully this 'compression' helps you organize your thoughts.

So far, this thread has been a great excercise. I ask all posting members to continue to keep to such elevated levels of civility and to literally ignore anything counter-productive to that.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Darth_SS

Where I take issue with that is that a lot of those facilities are ones that say, "Sure, I'll help you. But while you're here, let's teach you about God!" There are far too many centres whose aid invariably comes with them pushing their religion on you. How is it any different than luring children into your van with candy so you can teach them "how to accept their sexuality."

Yes, I just compared religion with pedophilia. I'm very sorry about that, but it was sadly the best comparison I could think of.

First of all, we don't tell them about God unless they ask. They know its a church. If all they want is food and shelter, all they get is food and shelter, and they'll go away with a bit of kindness in there lives.

Second of all, you just compared giving homeless people food and shelter with molesting children. I can't even imagine how you rationalize that in your head.

Originally Posted by krylo

As a molecular biologist, you should know that 'gut feelings' are never good enough. Would you splice the genes of a marmoset with a frog on a 'gut feeling' that it may cure cancer? Or would you actually study it, do research, and find out whether or not there is any evidence that it would? And if it didn't have evidence would you go ahead and do it anyway?

I didn't say gut feelings should be enough. I said logic fails, so therefore gut feelings are all you have. Logic does nothing but lead to no solid conclusion on either side, and can lead towards the conclusion that 'God does exist' as well as 'God doesn't exist' all depending on your starting point.

Originally Posted by krylo

Illegitimate Analogy logical fallacy. Alcohol is nothing like religion.

I beg to differ. Alcohol is a lot like religion. Simply saying my statement is a logical fallacy without showing the err in my logic doesn't make it a fallacy. It makes you not have a response. You said it causes pain so therefore bad. I say nearly everything can cause pain, so therefore you can't say its bad.

However, I could also use water in my analogy... which is a source of life as well as a destroyer of life. So oh well.

And just to point out my earlier statement was right, you're entire reply was very emotionally heavy. How can one practice complete logic with emotions clouding their judgment?

Originally Posted by krylo

However, I can prove not only connection but direct liability for TERRIBLE things.

I can also say that people who do horrible things in the name of religion are a minority. I can also say that many of those people would do horrible things even if they didn't ascribe to a particular religion due to who they are as a person. Many people who aren't religious are also do many of the same horrible things. Here's another logical fallacy on your part... 3rd party exclusion. Religion might be an excuse, but you can't prove that its the reason. If those same people grew up to be non religious, they'd probably do the same bad things they were doing anyway, they just wouldn't have a pathetic justification for it. If religion was the defining factor, all religious people would be psychotic instead of just a minor few. But hey, lets ignore all the violence against homosexuals and racism and crap that exists from non-religious people... clearly religion must be the cause of it all.... even though its in no way a common feature to all violence... your evidence supporting that conjecture is weak at best.

Originally Posted by krylo

It may seem harmless, but in reality it ruins lives just as sure as a bullet. It simply does its work slower and more painfully. People are psychologically scarred both by their religion, and by being of a different religion. I have talked to many people from religious families who have been driven to tears, told that they are hated, and that they are going to hell simply because of their parent's beliefs. I have seen people struggle to keep up with the unnatural and unattainable ideals of the church and FALL APART AT THE SEAMS.

And its sad when that happens. But again its not the standard, and these things happen without religion being present as well. By your thoughts, my life should be miserable. However, I'm quite happy how and with who I am.

Originally Posted by krylo

You KNOW you're right. You are unwilling to accept that you could be wrong, and that might make YOU happier, but it makes life a hell of a lot harder on everyone around you who can't live up to the standards of your religion--either because they hold a different faith or because they are too 'weak of will' to deny their natural urges.

And what makes that any different than you? You could simply walk away and be satisfied with that you're right and I'm wrong, but you won't. And I'm assuming you're talking the general 'you' there, because you clearly don't know me enough to make claims about who I am. When people think they're right, they think they're right. My belief in my being right doesn't change me treating everyone else like a equal human being, because they are. If anything, it makes me do it more so because I'm not insecure with who or what I am.

Originally Posted by krylo

Accurate/Ambiguous: Just for STARTERS, there's how many different translations of the bible? Only one of them can be correct. Oh and how about that crazy hebrew language? Here's a fun fact, there's no word in hebrew for eternal or eternity. The word used to describe either eternity in heaven OR hell, actually means 'a time'. Let's take it a bit further, the hebrew word for hell is Gehenna. Gehenna is a small valley north of mesopotamia, where the jewish people threw their garbage to burn. They also threw the bodies of their criminals there, and, as that human fat is a complex carbon chain, it burns slow and never goes out. Thus you spend a time in the ever burning fires of the valley of gehenna if you were a sinner. This is a LITERAL phrase in the old testament. Not spiritual.

Morally correct:
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

The amusing part is you just did my own rebuttal for me. Yes, many parts of the Bible are ambiguous or lost in translation. So then how can you quote me parts of the Bible, all Old Testament (which is Jewish really, Chrisitianity is more on the New Testament. Love your neighbor and all that stuff) to justify questionable morality? Christian morals are based on the second half, which you apparently didn't read. And a lot of those "lost in translation" parts are treated as such by the ones who bother study these things.

You hard nose on religion a lot... but nothing done by the less desirable religious individuals is anything more than done by anybody else. I COULD judge all Americans based on the more prominent ones in the media, but that wouldn't be very fair to the rest of you, would it? Same deal.

[Mesden]

(which is Jewish really, Chrisitianity is more on the New Testament. Love your neighbor and all that stuff)

Now that, that's just crap.

You can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible you follow, when Christianity is following The Bible, not just the new testament.

Otherwise Christianity has no ten commandments.

If you're going to follow the bible, fine. Don't just pick the parts you like, since this is all the word of God.

Hell, the Bible itself is one of the biggest reasons I can't believe this 'god' is all loving in any sense.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Mesden

Now that, that's just crap.

You can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible you follow, when Christianity is following The Bible, not just the new testament.

Otherwise Christianity has no ten commandments.

If you're going to follow the bible, fine. Don't just pick the parts you like, since this is all the word of God.

Hell, the Bible itself is one of the biggest reasons I can't believe this 'god' is all loving in any sense.

Except for the fact that Christianity is following Christ, and the teachings of Christ are the New Testament. The Old Testament wasn't written by Christians, it was written by Jewish people. Jesus himself said that this was the new covenant. The old covenant, new covenant. When someone writes a will, and then writes a second will, the second will is considered to be the correct one. Same thing here. Many of the rules from the Old Testament apply, but only as were reaffirmed in the New Testament.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Except for the fact that Christianity is following Christ, and the teachings of Christ are the New Testament. The Old Testament wasn't written by Christians, it was written by Jewish people. Jesus himself said that this was the new covenant. The old covenant, new covenant. When someone writes a will, and then writes a second will, the second will is considered to be the correct one. Same thing here. Many of the rules from the Old Testament apply, but only as were reaffirmed in the New Testament.

Because god's word the first time was a mistake? Or what? Excuse me, but I really don't think it works like that, when you're the ultimate source of wisdom, knowledge, and righteousness, that you need to amend your horrible ethical commands.

[Gascmark de Leone]

I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth
and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of His Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.
He suffered and was buried.
And the third day He rose again
according to the Scriptures
and ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of the Father.
And He will come again with glory to judge
both the living and the dead,
whose kingdom will have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord and giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshiped and glorified,
who spoke by the prophets.


And I believe in one holy Christian and apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins,
and I look for the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

That about summarizes what I believe about God and religion.

Oh, and as for the Ten Commandments and Christianity. I know it's a big thing in a lot of churches these days to say that we don't have to worry about them, because Jesus died for us. I refer to these churches as "Jump for Jesus!" churches. My opinion is this: if we didn't have the commandments to show our sins, we wouldn't need a savior.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Mesden

Because god's word the first time was a mistake? Or what? Excuse me, but I really don't think it works like that, when you're the ultimate source of wisdom, knowledge, and righteousness, that you need to amend your horrible ethical commands.

You know what? I don't understand everything. I can't explain everything. I wish I could. I do see your point, and I accept that as a problem with Christianity. But a few hiccups in something doesn't invalidate that something, especially when human influence tends to make hiccups in most things.

So for this, I'll use an argument similar to what I've heard from many atheists. We don't know what the world was like back then when the Old Testament was written, only from what we read. But we do know that the world was very harsh, and that many nations (much like today, ironically) would have liked to see Israel destroyed. Sometimes harsh rules are in place in order to protect people from harsher consequences. Those rules put in place way back in 3000 B.C. enabled Judaism (God's chosen people) to survive more trials and near destructions, so I can't dismiss them as being invalid for that era. Also, for a more theological argument, at that point in time there had been no retribution for sin (Christ dying on the cross), therefore the system was different, and harsher.

However, the world has changed. Don't you think God would be capable of being flexible enough to recognized the dynamic world he created wouldn't always be able to fall under the same set of rules? Christ died. Retribution was accomplished. That changed the rules, whether you like it or not. It doesn't mean the Old Testament wasn't valid for the time it was written, but so much has changed since then much of it is not applicable for today. God gave humanity a standard to live by. It failed and grew in a different direction. Therefore, God loved us enough to give us another way to live within the direction we chose. Why is that so hard to accept?

Chrisitianity is not complicated. Humans suck. Every single one of us screw up sometimes. Yet we're worth a lot... we're invaluable. Therefore, to give us a way not to screw ourselves over, God died for us, so that we could go to heaven. And what do you do to get to heaven? Accept it. How complicated is that? Then people ask "Well if I don't accept it, why should I go to hell?". I ask, "Why wouldn't you just accept it? Why is it so hard?". And when getting into heaven is so ridiculously easy, people still blame God/religion for everything bad. Well guess what? It's not God or religion... its people that cause bad things, and there's only people to blame.

Krylo said religion was an ideology that caused wars, therefore it was a bad ideology. Democracy, freedom, independance, equality, antiterrorism, animal rights, and environmentalism has also caused wars and violence for the sake of an ideology, yet most of us would consider them good ideologies. The fact that people abuse it and use it for selfish purposes doesn't make it bad... it makes us human.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. Personally I think it was a mistake for it to be opened, since everybody on this forum tends to be one extreme or the other (and to be honest I like most of you and I'd rather not have a big huge division over one thing). Happy debating, but I doubt you'll come up with anything that nobody else has said dozens of times over the centuries.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

You know what? I don't understand everything. I can't explain everything. I wish I could. I do see your point, and I accept that as a problem with Christianity. But a few hiccups in something doesn't invalidate that something, especially when human influence tends to make hiccups in most things.

A few hiccups? When those few hiccups are the exact opposite reason that I came out of a religious self-crisis as an agnostic, then I believe it's more than just some 'hiccups' and more along the lines of serious problems regarding the idol.

So for this, I'll use an argument similar to what I've heard from many atheists. We don't know what the world was like back then when the Old Testament was written, only from what we read. But we do know that the world was very harsh, and that many nations (much like today, ironically) would have liked to see Israel destroyed. Sometimes harsh rules are in place in order to protect people from harsher consequences. Those rules put in place way back in 3000 B.C. enabled Judaism (God's chosen people) to survive more trials and near destructions, so I can't dismiss them as being invalid for that era. Also, for a more theological argument, at that point in time there had been no retribution for sin (Christ dying on the cross), therefore the system was different, and harsher.

However, the world has changed. Don't you think God would be capable of being flexible enough to recognized the dynamic world he created wouldn't always be able to fall under the same set of rules? Christ died. Retribution was accomplished. That changed the rules, whether you like it or not. It doesn't mean the Old Testament wasn't valid for the time it was written, but so much has changed since then much of it is not applicable for today. God gave humanity a standard to live by. It failed and grew in a different direction. Therefore, God loved us enough to give us another way to live within the direction we chose. Why is that so hard to accept?

Chrisitianity is not complicated. Humans suck. Every single one of us screw up sometimes. Yet we're worth a lot... we're invaluable. Therefore, to give us a way not to screw ourselves over, God died for us, so that we could go to heaven. And what do you do to get to heaven? Accept it. How complicated is that? Then people ask "Well if I don't accept it, why should I go to hell?". I ask, "Why wouldn't you just accept it? Why is it so hard?". And when getting into heaven is so ridiculously easy, people still blame God/religion for everything bad. Well guess what? It's not God or religion... its people that cause bad things, and there's only people to blame.

Why is it hard to accept?

That's not the point -- why should we accept it? If it sounds so wrong to us, so abhorrently discontent and mismatching, why should we place our energy into something that just isn't right to us?

It's not so hard -- no, choosing entirely how my life shall be lived based on this, this whole organization is hard when I see it my way.

Krylo said religion was an ideology that caused wars, therefore it was a bad ideology. Democracy, freedom, independance, equality, antiterrorism, animal rights, and environmentalism has also caused wars and violence for the sake of an ideology, yet most of us would consider them good ideologies. The fact that people abuse it and use it for selfish purposes doesn't make it bad... it makes us human.

Like anything, it can be good and it can be bad. Religion is how the person interprets it, but the analogy you pulled can be used right back against you, I'd just have list some organization that most people consider bad, but have done good things.

You can't really distinguish when it's the institution's fault and when it's the person's fault. I am quite certain that in the days of the Old Testament, girls were sold into slavery and children were stoned to death for disobedience. That was a problem with the Religion.

It's just not that simple, like you said it was. It can't be, unless you just opt to not think about it. Personally -- I put a lot of thought into a massive pivot of my life.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. Personally I think it was a mistake for it to be opened, since everybody on this forum tends to be one extreme or the other (and to be honest I like most of you and I'd rather not have a big huge division over one thing). Happy debating, but I doubt you'll come up with anything that nobody else has said dozens of times over the centuries.

That's fine, but you were arguing with me. I'm fairly certain the Deistic Agnostic is as far from extreme as possible.

[42PETUNIAS]

Originally Posted by I Like Swordchucks

And what do you do to get to heaven? Accept it. How complicated is that? Then people ask "Well if I don't accept it, why should I go to hell?". I ask, "Why wouldn't you just accept it? Why is it so hard?". And when getting into heaven is so ridiculously easy, people still blame God/religion for everything bad.

See, for you, a person growing up in a (probably) Christian family, in a (again, probably) Christian community, thats an easy choice to make, and the two real sides are christianity vs agnosticism/atheism. But thats not how it works in reality. In the real world, there are tons and tons of religons, each wanting people to follow them. Furthermore, not everyone gets a choice between each and every religon. If christianity is right, then most of hell isn't evil people who refused to accept christ, or who god refused to forgive. It's simply people on other parts of the world, who never had the option of converting and accepting christ. Is that easy for most of the world? Imagine growing up in a very strongly Islamic family, your father is a religious leader and everything. Suddenly, a preist comes up to you out of the blue one day, and tells you that all you need to do to get eternal bliss, is accept Jesus as your saviour. According to you its an easy choice. Put yourself in that position and ask yourself, is it?