The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by bluegospel You are confident in what we spoke of earlier, and you agree that it's a *truth* that you're confident, and yet you can't prove it to anyone but yourself.

You're comparing completely different things in order to make your opinion look right. A confidence of a person that is about to walk across the room is not an omnipotent power that created universe, listens to prayers, etc.

Originally Posted by bluegospel So because God hasn't revealed himself directly to you, you conclude either there is no God, or else he hates you.

Incorrect, this is not my position. You should read more carefully.

My position is that I do not know whether a god exists, I have not encountered any evidence that would prove that there is a god, I have not encountered any evidence that would prove that there is no god, and judging by life experience I think that if god exists, then it is extremely unlikely that this is a god described in bible, i.e. in my opinion, christian position is most likely incorrect.

Well, I guess, nothing has changed...

Originally Posted by SigTerm I would prefer to see a perfect proof from either theists or atheists. So far both sides only have opinions. Well, maybe discussing existence of god IS meaningless after all.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Yes, but the way of Christ is without error.

And there are 100's possibly 1000's of other religions around the globe that think the same exact way about the faith to which they follow.

That is the problem with religion, you cannot step back and say to yourself "I may be wrong" when the truth is only one of you is right, maybe even possible none of you are right.

EDIT: I would also like to add that faith cannot be confused with truth. If I choose to see a rat as the almighty savior I have been seeking, this is my truth and does not mean you believe in what I do. Faith is a powerful force, at the same time faith represents your truth and cannot be universal truth to all.

Originally Posted by corbintechboy EDIT: I would also like to add that faith cannot be confused with truth. If I choose to see a rat as the almighty savior I have been seeking, this is my truth and does not mean you believe in what I do. Faith is a powerful force, at the same time faith represents your truth and cannot be universal truth to all.

I thought I said it before - people are free to believe in whatever they want. However, if they claim that their belief represent the truth (not "their" truth, but "universal" one), it is another story.

Originally Posted by SigTerm I thought I said it before - people are free to believe in whatever they want. However, if they claim that their belief represent the truth (not "their" truth, but "universal" one), it is another story.

Missed it!

I must admit, I did not read all the pages .

Originally Posted by flamelord But you can find out which sect of which religion is right, by sincerely praying about it, and exercising just enough faith to expect an answer. If you ask God in faith if say, there is a God at all, then he will answer you. But He might not answer right away, and it is unlikely to be spectacular. And the key is that you have to ask with an open mind, and be willing to accept the answer when you receive.

What is your system of interpreting and recognizing the "answers" when you think you have them?

How do you eliminate alternative explanations?

Would this only work if I expect it to work?

And you might want to read another person's counterargument:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../skeprayr.html

Finally, let me know when you've put your money where your mouth is, by praying to a non-Christian god and "exercising enough faith to expect an answer."

Originally Posted by SigTerm I thought I said it before - people are free to believe in whatever they want. However, if they claim that their belief represent the truth (not "their" truth, but "universal" one), it is another story.

As much as this sounds reasonable and would be a good way not to have more death and destruction, I still don't really understand it. I hear lots of people saying things like "I want to believe in this as it gives me a reason to get up each morning, and find it comforting" and such like. Not because it's actually perceived to be true. It seems backwards, they often seem to be admitting they have a whole in their mind / heart / soul (pfft!) and need something to fill it up, like a security blanket, rather than principally believing something and then consequently aligning their life to fit it.

This thread is getting boring.

Originally Posted by bluegospel That's part of a method you use, which is fallible, but for some reason incomprehensible to me, you assume unquestionable authority in it. One last ditch effort: You are confident in what we spoke of earlier, and you agree that it's a *truth* that you're confident, and yet you can't prove it to anyone but yourself. So because God hasn't revealed himself directly to you, you conclude either there is no God, or else he hates you. If this is correct, I challenge you to carefully read the book of Job, 42 short chapters.

Ah, good ol' Job. Wherein God shows just how immoral he is. He kills Job's seven sons and three daughters to prove a point and yet Job would have sinned to be angry at him for it. And anyway, Job gets a new family in the end, so apparently that's ok. Out with the old, in with the new as they say.

Originally Posted by flamelord But you can find out which sect of which religion is right, by sincerely praying about it, and exercising just enough faith to expect an answer. If you ask God in faith if say, there is a God at all, then he will answer you. But He might not answer right away, and it is unlikely to be spectacular. And the key is that you have to ask with an open mind, and be willing to accept the answer when you receive...As a final note, science is not as different from religion as you might think.

That would be the opposite of empiricism. As for science, you see, while I may not have done the experiment myself, in principle I could. Anyone could. And each should get the same result. In fact if they don't get the same result, it undermines the scientific hypothesis and can ultimately lead to it being discarded. See the difference?

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H I don't think humans came from apes. They lack far too much data to conclude this. One thing I would like explained is why humans are the only primate to exhibit the mammalian diving reflex. Data is clearly missing.

Aquatic ape theory-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis

It makes far more sense than the 'off the plains of africa' theory, but the anthropologists ignore the theory. Mostly due to 'nih' ('not invented here'), and academics protecting careers, but also because......and this makes me laugh......the theory is seen as "impossible to validate".

Originally Posted by reed9 The poster was referring to the fact that ideas akin to the Christian trinity are common to many pre-christian mythologies and did not originate with the Bible. As with many things, Christianity borrowed from earlier religious ideas.

Actually, I didn't really mean that the triple god connection is common (though it is). What I meant it that there is a massive connection between Egyptian religion and Judeo-christainity. Its not just the triple god, there are lots of other connections as well.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Actually, the Trinity is a Judeo (sic)-Christian doctrine (yes, not lexically) from the Bible, as early as Genesis 1:26, where God said, let "us" make human beings. This language is used everywhere throughout the Bible--I use this example because it's the first instance, about 2 millenia prior to Aria. Again the Trinity is a Judeo-Christian idea, i.e., Biblical (I understand the term itself is not used in the Bible). The Bible doesn't give any inference that the Holy Spirit is a mommy. In fact, as a third person pronoun, he is almost always referred to as "he." Except rarely, the Holy Spirit member is referred to as "it," due to his relative intangibility, but usually "he."

Umm...how can the trinity be a 'Judeo-christian idea' when there are triple gods virtually everywhere? (of course, you can get around that by playing with world history, but thats neither logical or sensible).

You will find references in the bible where god makes comments that are 'female', mostly in Isaiah.

The bible, well, brianL got it 100% correct-

Originally Posted by brianL bluegospel Broaden your mind. Read about other mythologies, other religions, and rid yourself of the idea that the Bible is the word of God. It's the work of men, edited and mistranslated many times over many centuries. A few books to get you started: The Masks Of God (4 volumes) - Joseph Campbell The Gnostic Gospels - Elaine Pagels The White Goddess - Robert Graves

Exactly.

@ bluegospel- Have you considered how the bible came to be? It wasnt because Jesus wrote it. Its the product of the roman empire, of politics and power sturggles.

You dont think its fluke that constantine's little council set the what is, and what is not, christianity?

Originally Posted by cascade9 Aquatic ape theory- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis It makes far more sense than the 'off the plains of africa' theory, but the anthropologists ignore the theory. Mostly due to 'nih' ('not invented here'), and academics protecting careers, but also because......and this makes me laugh......the theory is seen as "impossible to validate".

I agree with you. I also do not believe the out of Africa theory. They make many crude assumptions, none of which are very good, and there are far too many loose ends. Humans surely have a common ancestor, but until it is found, they cannot make these kinds of assumptions and leave so many things unanswered. Maybe they want to do it because of religion. Maybe they're covering up any missing link, probably because their theory must be in accord with Adam and Eve. Basically, science today is just a subset of religion, and it must be in accord or it will be denied. Also see Big Bang, God particle, photon = pure energy (even tho the definition of energy is based upon mass), etc. Maybe one day a new field will arise that will not have to be in accord with religion.

Originally Posted by acid_kewpie As much as this sounds reasonable and would be a good way not to have more death and destruction, I still don't really understand it. I hear lots of people saying things like "I want to believe in this as it gives me a reason to get up each morning, and find it comforting" and such like. Not because it's actually perceived to be true. It seems backwards, they often seem to be admitting they have a whole in their mind / heart / soul (pfft!) and need something to fill it up, like a security blanket, rather than principally believing something and then consequently aligning their life to fit it.

That is a man made institution.

Not so much about "needing" anything as it is about fitting into something bigger. We all want to belong, some people cannot handle the insecurity of not belonging to something bigger.

Although I do believe in spirit, I don't believe spirit is conscience in the sense of feeling "holes". Spirit is lead through conscience thought and thought alone provokes feelings of spirit needing/wanting something else.

The mind is our worst enemy!

One day soon the world will plunge into the next dark age. Then you will see who / what your enemy is.

The only reason humans have survived this unforgiving planet is because of their advanced brains, and mostly the greatest invention of all time: fire. Really, fire lead to humans having larger brains, and if they had smaller brains they would have died for sure. Humans have no natural weapons, no claws, no talons. They are born far weaker than other animals, and they are far weaker than other animals. Take even a baby gorilla, it could probably lift more weight that the strongest man. The only thing keeping humans alive is their brain. Of course, today, that is not true. Today, people can have no brain at all and do just fine.

Originally Posted by acid_kewpie As much as this sounds reasonable and would be a good way not to have more death and destruction, I still don't really understand it. I hear lots of people saying things like "I want to believe in this as it gives me a reason to get up each morning, and find it comforting" and such like. Not because it's actually perceived to be true.

Well, people need to believe in something. It doesn't have to be religion, though, it could be anything. You can believe that you'll achieve something, etc. It doesn't have to be true and it doesn't have to actually happen. In case of religion you get a ready-to use moral code as a bonus. In short, you need some kind of psychological support - a thing or belief that will provide you comfort and makes you relax when life gets really tough. Without that support, life will be a meaningless chore or even a torture, and you may as well not make it through (depression -> suicide). Religion is simply one way to provide that support.

However, I don't understand folks that have to prove to the world that their religion is right. If you're comfortable with your position, if your belief makes you happier, then there is no reason to prove it to anyone. If you feel a need to prove to the world that your religion is "right", IMO, it could be only because you are not sure and feel insecure about your choice and have doubts. In this situation belief turns into a poison - instead of support/comfort you get extra worries.

Originally Posted by acid_kewpie Not because it's actually perceived to be true.

IMO, it is not important to be "right", but it is more important to be happy and to achieve whatever you want. If your belief makes your life better, then (IMO) it doesn't really matter whether it represents a truth or not, especially because proving your belief to be "correct" may be insanely difficult (although agnostics have it easier - it is hard to disprove "i have not encountered evidence of", or "it may be impossible to verify existence of god" arguments)

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H One day soon the world will plunge into the next dark age. Then you will see who / what your enemy is.

And you have to wonder, will some of these people even be able to survive without cellphones and whatnot? Even though we were born with the ability to survive, I don't believe many have the mentality to survive.

The only reason humans have survived this unforgiving planet is because of their advanced brains, and mostly the greatest invention of all time: fire. Really, fire lead to humans having larger brains, and if they had smaller brains they would have died for sure. Humans have no natural weapons, no claws, no talons. They are born far weaker than other animals, and they are far weaker than other animals. Take even a baby gorilla, it could probably lift more weight that the strongest man. The only thing keeping humans alive is their brain. Of course, today, that is not true. Today, people can have no brain at all and do just fine.

Our "advanced" brains have lead us to war fed by greed and many other things. We as a people are divided by the greed that makes us individuals and one sided. We are no longer the close knit secs that roam the countryside looking for our next meal or whatnot. I do believe that most of us are incapable of grouping in the ways that let our ancestors survive.

I think that madness and religion led people to war. I don't know of a war that was not fought over religion.