"God" and Religion.

• Juno wrote on 2010-05-04 23:00

  Wait... is this on topic?

  
  
  There's not really a topic here, the prompt was "What are your views on religion, and more importantly, "God"?" so just about anything and everything is fair game.
• Moppy wrote on 2010-05-04 23:23
  I believe in God, but I have a distase for him.
  
  O.o
  
  My beliefs are weird to explain but it's something along the lines of God creating our world for his entertainment then ignoring us as he got bored...
  
  So bascially, God is like a toddler with a new toy.
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2010-05-04 23:28

  Quote from Justified;28320:

  
  Oho, a philosophy statement, yummy.
  
  According to Kant, there are things that we cannot know because we cannot perceive them. We have no empirical evidence for them, and we cannot argue "das ding an sich" (If we don't expect something to be true, like the sky being red, then we can't scientifically research it without some kind of bias). Like many philosophers of and before his time, Kant attributes many things and (universal and absolute) truths to Nature/God (most are monist and believe that God and Nature are the same thing, in one way or another).
  
  According to Hegel, truth is subjective. Everything that we humans know is truth, because truth belongs to humans. Saying "we don't know if the sky is blue" is a moot statement because it is blue to us. Truth also is not absolute, as it changes with time and place. The dialectic method in which debate leads to compromise, which leads to advancement is a model Hegel developed to illustrate how "truth" changes over time.
  
  Wait... is this on topic?

  
  
  The article itself is a bit biased. It has underlining assumption that an atheist only believes in rationalism.
  
  An atheist, by definition, lacks the belief in all deities. That is all. It says nothing else about their philosophy or morals.
  
  The atheist can even be irrational or rational. It won't change the fact that person is an atheist if that person lacks the belief in all deities.
  
  Not to mention, it makes the assumption that you need religion for there to be morals, which is completely wrong.
  
  While not all Christians (or insert religious people) try to stab at science whenever they get the chance, the ones in power and voiced their position loud enough do. The quiet ones sitting on the fence supports does absolutely nothing to the argument until something happens to them. Practically everyone in the course of history that is taught in history classes don't want to sit in the fence and accept the world as it is. They all wanted to go out and make the change, whether it is good or bad.
  
  Stalin did it for what he thought was good for USSR. History doesn't seem to show he did it out of any religious or lack of religious motives. A better example would be find someone who is an atheist, and killed someone for the sake of atheism.
  
  Yes, Terror, Bloodshed, and etc. will take place without religion. However, there will be one less reason for them to perform them. The world would be a much better place with one less reason for such stuff.
  
  Truth is not absolute, and it changes? It wasn't the truth in the first place then.
  Also, you excluded color-blind people.
  
  Not to mention, you had to change my statement to make it true.
  In addition, I don't think the sky is blue either.
• Bankai231 wrote on 2010-05-04 23:29

  Quote from kitaek27;27812:

  My idea behind "if god exists" is that he created the laws which we are all bound to.
  
  The laws of physics and chemistry that make up this world. Its perfect, mathematical, and fits in together... locks in.
  
  But he hasn't done anything since. Or perhaps he's doing something else. But definitely not doing anything with the humans of planet earth, only one of the uncountable number of planets out there that hold life.
  
  But believers of God should be quite aware that half the stuff written in any text about religion is a nonsense put in by what people thought at the time. And its because of this that recent science challenges so many things in the bible, and its because of this that the bible contradicts itself so often.
  
  The bible is a fine piece of literature with some excellent suggestions on better living, but not much more. Too many people have died or made their lives less comfortable by trying to follow the exact teachings of the bible.

  
  
  This. Exactly this actually.
• Justified wrote on 2010-05-05 00:55

  Quote from EndlessDreams;28412:

  The article itself is a bit biased. It has underlining assumption that an atheist only believes in rationalism.
  
  An atheist, by definition, lacks the belief in all deities. That is all. It says nothing else about their philosophy or morals.
  
  The atheist can even be irrational or rational. It won't change the fact that person is an atheist if that person lacks the belief in all deities.
  
  Not to mention, it makes the assumption that you need religion for there to be morals, which is completely wrong.

  
  
  It does no such thing. It only argues theism vs science because those are the main conflicting points, atheists often disbelieve in a deity because of their rationalism.
  Why don't you believe in God? Can you give me an answer that does not involve rationalism/science? Because there is no proof, because it is unthinkable, etc, are all rationalist responses - even that video you posted was theism vs science, not theism vs atheism.
  You can't really argue atheism without rationalism. In fact, pretty much all atheist rebuttals to the existence of a god are rationalistic.
  
  

  Stalin did it for what he thought was good for USSR. History doesn't seem to show he did it out of any religious or lack of religious motives. A better example would be find someone who is an atheist, and killed someone for the sake of atheism.
  
  Yes, Terror, Bloodshed, and etc. will take place without religion. However, there will be one less reason for them to perform them. The world would be a much better place with one less reason for such stuff.

  
  
  Read the first paragraph again. Both the Crusades and Stalin did what they thought was best for their cause. The "corruption" (as said by the article) is when somebody does something extreme which does not necessarily reflect the actual cause - be it the betterment of a state or the betterment of a religion.
  If you say "Religion is bad because people do terrible things for religion," then I could say "the USSR is bad because Stalin did terrible things for the USSR."
  If you say "Without religion, we would have less terror and bloodshed and the world would be a better place," then I could say "Without atheism, we would have less terror and bloodshed and the world would be a better place."
  The fact is, the conflict arises only because we have a disagreement between two sides. Obviously, if you take away one side then the conflict is gone. However, blaming one side for the problem gets you nowhere, because the converse is just as true.
  
  

  Truth is not absolute, and it changes? It wasn't the truth in the first place then.
  Also, you excluded color-blind people.
  
  Not to mention, you had to change my statement to make it true.
  In addition, I don't think the sky is blue either.

  
  
  I reworded your statement, but I didn't change it.
  Although "we will never know the real color of the sky," it doesn't matter what the real color is because we can understand it how it appears to us. Is that better?
  Colorblindness is a deficiency and is not a good example. That's like saying we can't tell if there's sound in the world because a deaf person can't hear it (edit -> better example!)
  
  Your definition of truth is different from Hegel's, and matches Kant. Perception of the world are influenced by the mind without our realizing. They may not properly reflect the sensations we receive before we process them, meaning we can't know anything.
  
  Hegel says truth is subjective. Truth flows, it can be entirely true at one point in time, change, and be entirely true and different at another point in time. We can't know for sure that the sky is blue, but it is blue to us and most likely always will be.
  Why bother saying the sky isn't really blue, when we - the only ones who will ever use this information - already perceive it as such? That's a moot argument. Two different schools of thought, both sound pretty valid to me.
• Taran wrote on 2010-05-05 01:03
  Not all things can be prove by science and God cant be proven so i just reject all religions and only accept the fact that there is someone better than me, better than all of us that can be known as "God"
  
  Things Science cant prove: Foreign Accent Syndrome that is "people who have suffered strokes or other injuries adopt a new accent."
• NewbieNub wrote on 2010-05-05 01:04
  Ah, the good old religion debate.
  
  It's simple:
  
  - Man created god to explain the crap they can't explain during that time where science is lacking, or is unable to explain why the sun travels through the sky and stuffs like that.
  - Man is a lazy creature. When miracles happen, they refuse to view them as miracles. Some people can roll dices and land on 6 all of the time, are you going to say that he's blessed by god? Well, at least people from like... 1600 would.
  - God has been man's explanation for anything unexplainable from that day onwards.
  - Same ideas come together to make a single god instead of multiple ones, or many multiple gods and deities.
  - If you don't believe in whatever I've just typed, I'll kill you.
  - srs. Because what I'm typing must be true even though I can't prove it!
  
  
  
  IF there is a god, and like how Christians and whoever weird religions would say, god is equal and loves everyone the same, then why the hell only people who worships him goes to heaven?
  
  See the irony?
  
  
  I would quote from George Carlin:
  
  [video=youtube;MeSSwKffj9o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o[/video]
  
  
  NO CONTEST!
  
  Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky, who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do and if you do any of these ten things he has a special place full of fire, and smoke, and burning, and torture, and anguish where he would send you to live and suffer, and burn, and choke, and scream and cry forever and ever till the end of time.
  
  
  
  But he loves you.
  
  
  
  He loves you, he loves you and he needs MONEY!
• Justified wrote on 2010-05-05 01:39

  Quote from NewbieNub;28461:

  IF there is a god, and like how Christians and whoever weird religions would say, god is equal and loves everyone the same, then why the hell only people who worships him goes to heaven?
  
  See the irony?

  
  
  (Not speaking from a religious viewpoint)
  
  No, I don't see irony. What's ironic about it?
  
  1. God loves everybody.
  2. Those whom he doesn't love (because they break moral rules he has set) do not go to heaven.
  
  Assume Human A loves everybody. He is a very loving person without an ounce of hate in him.
  Assume Human B is the things that God does not approve of. A murderer, a liar, a glutton, whatever.
  Would Human A want to spend all eternity with Human B? I would doubt it. Think along the lines of Ned Flanders and Homer Simpson.
  
  (Again, not a religious standpoint, just pointing out that there's no "irony")
• Chillax wrote on 2010-05-05 02:10
  To quote Les Miserables, "God is the selfhood of the infinite." I feel that religion tries to place a personality on the infinite, which they cannot explain, to make things easier to comprehend.
• Juno wrote on 2010-05-05 03:00
  So basically, people are saying that god is a creation of mankind to explain things that science could not and to be used as leverage to get people to do things they otherwise wouldn't do.
  
  In other words, it's impossible to both be a scientist and believe in god and all of your pastors are just in it for the money? No, that's called a generalization. The counter argument is that some people are just really screwed up in the head and actually believe what others have only lied about.
  
  So in saying that anyone who believes in god is either a liar or mentally impaired. Great, I'm thinking this'll bud into a wonderful discussion.
  
  ---
  
  What I'm asking for is just a little respect. Don't go making blanket statements saying that I'm copping out here or covering up there. If you want to know why I believe just ask. If you want to have this thread under the premise of hearing and understanding each others opinions it would help if you didn't fill in the blanks with mildly offensive generalizations.
  
  Especially don't talk about this one person in this one place at this one time that said this and did that and it gave you a nasty feeling in your tummy. Chances are I lose more sleep over it than you do and I don't even know the guy. Every time someone mentions the crusades I want to kill a poodle. Whenever Westboro Baptist is brought up I search google for any sites selling tactical nukes. And each instance of someone trying to pass those off as typical Christian thoughts I wish hitmen weren't so bloody hard to contact.
  
  It's no secret that plenty of people have used religion as a platform for power. That doesn't mean that it's purpose is such. It's true that plenty of people have used religion to try to justify their absurd views. Closer inspection usually reveals they're full of it.
  
  It always amuses me when someone says the bible is totally inaccurate because they heard this guy say it on the internet and therefore it must be true. If you want to dance that dance I'm up for it, don't think you can just spew it out without anyone challenging the claim. I'm guessing most people who say it can't name any specific instances though they'll probably just google for something that's been dismissed ages ago. If you can do better than that don't hide it...but don't just say things like they're fact if you're not willing to substantiate it.
  
  Well I'll be damned, is that a Christian complaining about people claiming things without being able to prove it? Ain't that ironic. Well I've got news for you and it's probably not the good kind. We're a lot smarter than you give us credit for and we're tired of being treated like idiots. We're pretty good at the whole respecting you thing and it's high time you demonstrated your prowess in the area. If that's how you feel that's fine, but don't imply that's the only possibility.
  
  
  
  No, I'm not mad. Yes, I did have watery spaghetti for dinner. Yes, Simon Cowell is the only judge I trust. No, it's not ok if you disagree with that.
• Rime wrote on 2010-05-05 03:56
  Since no one else has done it, I'd like to take a utilitarian approach to this topic. In a utilitarian sense, the belief in a "God" or "Gods" is generally a good thing. Though I myself am secretly atheist (lol closet atheist), Christianity has contributed significantly to the happiness of my family members. It's given them peace of mind when someone has passed away, and when times are rough, the belief that "God rewards those who help themselves" has kept them from giving up on many occasions (seriously, my family members are that devout). Who am I to openly deny them that?
  
  Various studies agree that those who have accepted a religion are generally more happy than those who don't. This came straight out of my psychology textbook, but I can probably find some sources that agree
• Criticalxhit wrote on 2010-05-05 04:27

  Quote from Justified;28473:

  (Not speaking from a religious viewpoint)
  
  No, I don't see irony. What's ironic about it?
  
  1. God loves everybody.
  2. Those whom he doesn't love (because they break moral rules he has set) do not go to heaven.
  
  Assume Human A loves everybody. He is a very loving person without an ounce of hate in him.
  Assume Human B is the things that God does not approve of. A murderer, a liar, a glutton, whatever.
  Would Human A want to spend all eternity with Human B? I would doubt it. Think along the lines of Ned Flanders and Homer Simpson.
  
  (Again, not a religious standpoint, just pointing out that there's no "irony")

  
  
  Just to correct you there, God loves everybody unconditionally, even if they're atheist. It's those that don't accept him that don't go to heaven. On a technical note, "he" should be capitalized :P
  
  @Juno: exactly. If they'd read that article that Justified posted, a lot of those assumptions wouldn't have been made. And it's from a neutral point of view, so it's not a hidden Bible teaching or anything
• Justified wrote on 2010-05-05 05:12

  Quote from Criticalxhit;28599:

  Just to correct you there, God loves everybody unconditionally, even if they're atheist. It's those that don't accept him that don't go to heaven. On a technical note, "he" should be capitalized :P

  
  
  :!!:
  I should really reread what I write, that's not at all what I was thinking.
  
  The point was that, like Ned Flanders, you can love somebody but not want to be around them. Therefore, it is not "ironic" that not everybody goes to heaven.
• Kazuni wrote on 2010-05-05 05:26
  Bah. What kills me over the most with religion is the good/evil, heaven/hell.
  
  The whole system of heaven/hell, to me, isn't fair.
  
  Life isn't fair I know I know, but if people were worshiping and loving someone even though they couldn't see him, you'd think the system would be a little more equal.
• emomutt wrote on 2010-05-05 05:28
  christian > athiest > catholic > satanist > Julianism
  long story short about julianism is people started worshiping me and i ended up being forced to make my own church