Religion Thread 2.0

[Torch]

-9/11 was only 10 years ago and that's probably the biggest example

9/11 wasn't religious, it was just a big !@#$ you to America. America has made a pretty big mess of Arab countries over the years, this was a terrorist response to that.

Not arguing any of the other points though, especially stem cell research. I'm amazed that doesn't have more support.

Perhaps Osama's intentions were not based on religion, but I think he used religion(holy war against US) to convince the hijackers to throw away their lives.

Well it's unlikely Osama directly contacted any of the hijackers. Regardless, maybe they believed they would be rewarded for their sacrifice as part of their religion, but their motives were probably just getting back at America for screwing them over. Islam is totally misunderstood in the west, it definitely doesn't preach hating those of different faiths and neither do the followers of it.

[Jake]

Islam is totally misunderstood in the west, it definitely doesn't preach hating those of different faiths and neither do the followers of it.

It depends on how anybody wants to interpret it. You can use Islam to justify slavery, oppression, and murder if you so choose. You can also use it to preach love and forgiveness. It's very similar to the bible in those regards.

[Hikarikuen]

Plenty of people who aren't asses are going to hell. It's not don't be a total ass, it's follow and worship me and nothing else or I will torture you forever.

True to some extent. I believe the Catholic teaching is that if people don't believe in God due to "invincible ignorance" they're pretty much safe, whereas if they deliberately rebel against God like the Devil did they're gonna get God-slapped just like he was.

I've been reading this thread so far, and a question was itching in my head at school today: if God exists, and he created man, why did he give man the ability to not believe in Him? Was it because of Jesus's death? I have not read anything of the Bible so I am sorry if the answer was obvious.

This is kind of like what I mentioned above; the Bible says people were created by God to be like God (obviously not to the extent of demigods in many religions, but still pretty powerful) and therefore have free will; unlike God, however, people aren't totally unlimited, nor are they totally perfect. We're still perfectly capable of doing mostly good things, and I think I can say without sounding like some kind of nutcase who thinks he's a god that we're a lot more powerful than we give ourselves (or give God) credit for.

[stick d00d]

I'm not too much into religious beliefs nor am I entirely against any religion, but I've been reading through this topic and I didn't notice anyone bring up reincarnation. So my question is do you believe in it or not, and to what extent?

[T-Rok]

Another thing I'd like to point out. The bible has been translated from hundreds of languages, modified for kings own purposes, etc, etc. While it is believed the New King James edition is the least tampered with, it has still been tampered with for someones own needs.

Plenty of people who aren't asses are going to hell. It's not don't be a total ass, it's follow and worship me and nothing else or I will torture you forever.

True to some extent. I believe the Catholic teaching is that if people don't believe in God due to "invincible ignorance" they're pretty much safe, whereas if they deliberately rebel against God like the Devil did they're gonna get God-slapped just like he was.

The LDS are taught that nearly everyone goes to heaven. Essentially it's pretty much just murderers and people who have willingly gone to learn, learned all that they could, and then still flat out denied the existence of God that end up in eternal darkness. I am willing to explain more details about this is if you would like cause it's different then what you normally hear.

I've been reading this thread so far, and a question was itching in my head at school today: if God exists, and he created man, why did he give man the ability to not believe in Him? Was it because of Jesus's death? I have not read anything of the Bible so I am sorry if the answer was obvious.

This is kind of like what I mentioned above; the Bible says people were created by God to be like God (obviously not to the extent of demigods in many religions, but still pretty powerful) and therefore have free will; unlike God, however, people aren't totally unlimited, nor are they totally perfect. We're still perfectly capable of doing mostly good things, and I think I can say without sounding like some kind of nutcase who thinks he's a god that we're a lot more powerful than we give ourselves (or give God) credit for.

Well for one, if we had not been given the ability to not believe in Him, we would not be able to believe in him. He would be forcing us to believe in him. Such is the path satan wanted to take.

Two things LDS are taught, one of which you would laugh at me for and one other religions claim heresy for. First, man is limited only by his/her own faith. If he/she truly believes that they can tell a mountain to move and that it will move when they do so, the mountain will move. Second, this one is more of a conundrum and is more just fun to say cause people get so mad. Everyone knows everything has always existed just in different forms of energy. Which means we have always existed, God has always existed. Mind you, in a lesser state of being. Just as we were created in Gods image, he too was created in his own Gods image and so on and so forth for eternity. So everything we do, he once had his own version of. We believe that if you truly live the extent of the gospel to the best of your ability, you will become your own God and be able to create your own world. This ties in to the earlier "more details" I was referring to.

I'm not too much into religious beliefs nor am I entirely against any religion, but I've been reading through this topic and I didn't notice anyone bring up reincarnation. So my question is do you believe in it or not, and to what extent?

LDS belief is that you will be resurrected with a perfected body. Not on earth though. Because God is of flesh and spirit, we too have to be of flesh and spirit. Also, the very last person to be resurrected will be the Holy Ghost because he or she can not be of the flesh until everyone has died due to the task he or she has been given.

I think I have covered everything that piqued my interest. Now then, TOO THE JOB!

[Mystery]

I'm speaking more about a person who believes in God, then when they don't get a personal answer, they stop believing. I mean, its fair - but from a logical standpoint, you're not really disproving his existence. There could be any number of reasons for a Godlike figure to refuse/fail to respond. Once again, because he doesn't fit your personal thoughts, he suddenly doesn't exist. I just find that silly.

You aren't disproving his existence because it's impossible to disprove. Anyone can always go 'you can never find him, you have to believe' or 'nothing can ever sense him' when defending the existence of a god. By the same token, it is also impossible to prove since the concept of him requires so much blind faith and many other situations (again, some hallucinations and delusions on steroids) can explain every possible situation that would arise involving a god(if the laws of physics were to be broken and 'turned on' again, for example.

Anyway, you could apply that situation to literally anything. (The Pink Invisible Unicorn doesn't respond? But you can't assume it doesn't exist! etc.) Thinking about it that way isn't helpful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

I understand that. It is impossible to disprove God's existence entirely - none the less though, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, either.

My point, however, is that there are stronger reasons to have a lack of faith in God. I'm mocking the selfish nature of people who suddenly stop believing because God is no longer the perfect being for them. To me, that isn't logical reasoning.  Though, like I already said, its fine - if you stop believing for reasons as topical as those, then more power to you. I personally just find the reasoning to be more selfish than not.

I have always known about Russell's teapot.

Although absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Ceasing to believe in God because you think he doesn't fit your image of a perfect being? In a different context than what you're talking about, that's not necessarily silly. A perfect being which deliberately caused the 'fall' of mankind and blamed the victim isn't perfect.

But praying once, not getting a response and not believing in God anymore after years of being devout just because of that one prayer is exceedingly stupid from their point of view.

The LDS are taught that nearly everyone goes to heaven. Essentially it's pretty much just murderers and people who have willingly gone to learn, learned all that they could, and then still flat out denied the existence of God that end up in eternal darkness. I am willing to explain more details about this is if you would like cause it's different then what you normally hear.

Would I qualify for eternal darkness if I refused heaven because I felt that if a god exists in this universe, he's a total incompetent douche?

Because that's honestly what I would do, refuse the god and curse him out.

[TANK]

if we were made in gods image we would def get bored and leave everything we created and go on to something else after a few million years. My point is you shouldnt blame god cuz hes just like us, he probly got bored and is working on something OG in another dimension like raptor humans that are hyper intelligent or some shit. Really lets be honest guys we and our lives are boring as hell.

[Scotty]

if we were made in gods image we would def get bored and leave everything we created and go on to something else after a few million years. My point is you shouldnt blame god cuz hes just like us, he probly got bored and is working on something OG in another dimension like raptor humans that are hyper intelligent or some shit. Really lets be honest guys we and our lives are boring as hell.

I got learned today.

[Cactuscat222]

I'm speaking more about a person who believes in God, then when they don't get a personal answer, they stop believing. I mean, its fair - but from a logical standpoint, you're not really disproving his existence. There could be any number of reasons for a Godlike figure to refuse/fail to respond. Once again, because he doesn't fit your personal thoughts, he suddenly doesn't exist. I just find that silly.

You aren't disproving his existence because it's impossible to disprove. Anyone can always go 'you can never find him, you have to believe' or 'nothing can ever sense him' when defending the existence of a god. By the same token, it is also impossible to prove since the concept of him requires so much blind faith and many other situations (again, some hallucinations and delusions on steroids) can explain every possible situation that would arise involving a god(if the laws of physics were to be broken and 'turned on' again, for example.

Anyway, you could apply that situation to literally anything. (The Pink Invisible Unicorn doesn't respond? But you can't assume it doesn't exist! etc.) Thinking about it that way isn't helpful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

I understand that. It is impossible to disprove God's existence entirely - none the less though, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, either.

My point, however, is that there are stronger reasons to have a lack of faith in God. I'm mocking the selfish nature of people who suddenly stop believing because God is no longer the perfect being for them. To me, that isn't logical reasoning.  Though, like I already said, its fine - if you stop believing for reasons as topical as those, then more power to you. I personally just find the reasoning to be more selfish than not.

I have always known about Russell's teapot.

Although absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Ceasing to believe in God because you think he doesn't fit your image of a perfect being? In a different context than what you're talking about, that's not necessarily silly. A perfect being which deliberately caused the 'fall' of mankind and blamed the victim isn't perfect.

But praying once, not getting a response and not believing in God anymore after years of being devout just because of that one prayer is exceedingly stupid from their point of view.

I just linked that because what you said reminded me of that - I wasn't trying to insinuate you didn't know/understand it.

None the less, I still find it silly. I assume when we say a person "stops believing in God", we can also extrapolate that they would then not believe in his existence. If you decide you don't want to believe in God, because he is evil, or isn't 'perfect' for you, or any other personal, superficial reason, then I'd argue you are being intellectually arrogant. In all technicallity, you can believe in God, but disagree with his method and teachings.

I mean, just because something is evil or wrong, doesn't invalidate its existence. So yet again, there is my point - to refuse to believe in a god (ie, disagree with his existence) because he does not fit your personal bill on what a god should be, just isn't logical. There are stronger, more rational reasons to doubt the existence of such a being.

"A perfect being which deliberately caused the 'fall' of mankind and blamed the victim isn't perfect." How do you know though? The definition of perfect is so hard to define... on a local level, it is different for every person. In the grand scheme of things, how can claim to know what perfection is? You're operating under our human sense of perfection - but I'd argue, isn't it possible for there to be some cosmic, omnipotent version of perfection? Something we don't know, or that we can't/don't understand?

[Mystery]

if we were made in gods image we would def get bored and leave everything we created and go on to something else after a few million years. My point is you shouldnt blame god cuz hes just like us, he probly got bored and is working on something OG in another dimension like raptor humans that are hyper intelligent or some shit. Really lets be honest guys we and our lives are boring as hell.

I would blame God because it's his fault for not fixing the problems here. Really, if he keeps it up, some ultranatural being will find him and wreck his shit.

I just linked that because what you said reminded me of that - I wasn't trying to insinuate you didn't know/understand it.

None the less, I still find it silly. I assume when we say a person "stops believing in God", we can also extrapolate that they would then not believe in his existence. If you decide you don't want to believe in God, because he is evil, or isn't 'perfect' for you, or any other personal, superficial reason, then I'd argue you are being intellectually arrogant. In all technicallity, you can believe in God, but disagree with his method and teachings.

I mean, just because something is evil or wrong, doesn't invalidate its existence. So yet again, there is my point - to refuse to believe in a god (ie, disagree with his existence) because he does not fit your personal bill on what a god should be, just isn't logical. There are stronger, more rational reasons to doubt the existence of such a being.

"A perfect being which deliberately caused the 'fall' of mankind and blamed the victim isn't perfect." How do you know though? The definition of perfect is so hard to define... on a local level, it is different for every person. In the grand scheme of things, how can claim to know what perfection is? You're operating under our human sense of perfection - but I'd argue, isn't it possible for there to be some cosmic, omnipotent version of perfection? Something we don't know, or that we can't/don't understand?

My apologies for seemingly getting defensive.

I only talked about that because of the fact we are told by those who believe in that God that it is a certain way. They are the only reason any notion of that particular god exists in our universe. If some serious flaws in their 'reasoning'/scripture are revealed that cast their god in a very bad light, it would be reasonable to question their claims of that particular God with those qualities existing. If a god exists, but without those qualities, they were wrong anyway and those of us who are critical thinkers couldn't possibly have ever known a god existed.

That's a perfectly good point.

The definition of perfect isn't hard to define at all, it's just impossible to become, unless you can somehow defy logic at will. In fact, my example of God becoming imperfect was under the assumption he WAS perfect before he did what he did.
   

Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

This is in every way.

Ever committing ONE act of inflicting pain to others makes you imperfect.

Even if he's not perfect, he still goes against his own supposed 'good, kind and holy' nature, and he's still a massacring, psychopathic god who shouldn't be in the place of power that he is.

[Cactuscat222]

if we were made in gods image we would def get bored and leave everything we created and go on to something else after a few million years. My point is you shouldnt blame god cuz hes just like us, he probly got bored and is working on something OG in another dimension like raptor humans that are hyper intelligent or some shit. Really lets be honest guys we and our lives are boring as hell.

I would blame God because it's his fault for not fixing the problems here. Really, if he keeps it up, some ultranatural being will find him and wreck his shit.

I just linked that because what you said reminded me of that - I wasn't trying to insinuate you didn't know/understand it.

None the less, I still find it silly. I assume when we say a person "stops believing in God", we can also extrapolate that they would then not believe in his existence. If you decide you don't want to believe in God, because he is evil, or isn't 'perfect' for you, or any other personal, superficial reason, then I'd argue you are being intellectually arrogant. In all technicallity, you can believe in God, but disagree with his method and teachings.

I mean, just because something is evil or wrong, doesn't invalidate its existence. So yet again, there is my point - to refuse to believe in a god (ie, disagree with his existence) because he does not fit your personal bill on what a god should be, just isn't logical. There are stronger, more rational reasons to doubt the existence of such a being.

"A perfect being which deliberately caused the 'fall' of mankind and blamed the victim isn't perfect." How do you know though? The definition of perfect is so hard to define... on a local level, it is different for every person. In the grand scheme of things, how can claim to know what perfection is? You're operating under our human sense of perfection - but I'd argue, isn't it possible for there to be some cosmic, omnipotent version of perfection? Something we don't know, or that we can't/don't understand?

My apologies for seemingly getting defensive.

I only talked about that because of the fact we are told by those who believe in that God that it is a certain way. They are the only reason any notion of that particular god exists in our universe. If some serious flaws in their 'reasoning'/scripture are revealed that cast their god in a very bad light, it would be reasonable to question their claims of that particular God with those qualities existing. If a god exists, but without those qualities, they were wrong anyway and those of us who are critical thinkers couldn't possibly have ever known a god existed.

That's a perfectly good point.

The definition of perfect isn't hard to define at all, it's just impossible to become, unless you can somehow defy logic at will. In fact, my example of God becoming imperfect was under the assumption he WAS perfect before he did what he did.
   

Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

This is in every way.

Ever committing ONE act of inflicting pain to others makes you imperfect.

Even if he's not perfect, he still goes against his own supposed 'good, kind and holy' nature, and he's still a massacring, psychopathic god who shouldn't be in the place of power that he is.

Yeah, that's where my little deal falls apart - Bible/Top Religious folk say God is 'A', but you discover he is really 'B', now you have cause to question what/who and whether God really is. That is fair.

As for perfection.... "Ever committing ONE act of inflicting pain to others makes you imperfect" <- Again, that is just our definition. How come inflicting pain can't be part of perfection?

Our sense of right and wrong is purely a social construct. Well, I don't know if I can say that with certainty - some argue its an innate sense that we are born with, others argue it is just a social construct, and some say it comes from God or whatever else...

So that's where I'm going with this, I suppose. If there is a God, and he is as maniacal as he seems right now, couldn't it be possible he is still perfect in a sense greater than our own perceived definition?

[Mystery]

Yeah, that's where my little deal falls apart - Bible/Top Religious folk say God is 'A', but you discover he is really 'B', now you have cause to question what/who and whether God really is. That is fair.

As for perfection.... "Ever committing ONE act of inflicting pain to others makes you imperfect" <- Again, that is just our definition. How come inflicting pain can't be part of perfection?

Our sense of right and wrong is purely a social construct. Well, I don't know if I can say that with certainty - some argue its an innate sense that we are born with, others argue it is just a social construct, and some say it comes from God or whatever else...

So that's where I'm going with this, I suppose. If there is a God, and he is as maniacal as he seems right now, couldn't it be possible he is still perfect in a sense greater than our own perceived definition?

It's not an innate sense or anything, it's really just good intentions(empathy and being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes) combined with common sense which has applied to all sentient beings extremely well so far. Morals are developed from scratch.

If I get what you're saying, you could also apply that to anything. Twist our definition of something, call it 'the supernatural definition' of that thing, and voila. It's easy. So yes, it would be possible then

Though, if he is perfect in a divine way, I'd say our definition of perfect is infinitesimally better than the divine one.

And even if he's perfect, he's still a being which is horrible, wretched, and evil, shouldn't be in the position he is and one that isn't worthy of worship.

[Jake]

None the less, I still find it silly. I assume when we say a person "stops believing in God", we can also extrapolate that they would then not believe in his existence. If you decide you don't want to believe in God, because he is evil, or isn't 'perfect' for you, or any other personal, superficial reason, then I'd argue you are being intellectually arrogant. In all technicallity, you can believe in God, but disagree with his method and teachings.
I mean, just because something is evil or wrong, doesn't invalidate its existence. So yet again, there is my point - to refuse to believe in a god (ie, disagree with his existence) because he does not fit your personal bill on what a god should be, just isn't logical. There are stronger, more rational reasons to doubt the existence of such a being.

If someone wants me to believe in a God that tortures kids for fun, it wouldn't lead me to believe "Hey, this God isn't perfect, he's actually evil!", instead I'd argue that the likelihood of that God even existing are pretty small. I don't deny that God could be literally anything we imagine, but his chances of being similar to what any specific person on earth thinks he actually is, is pretty low.

If somebody says "God is evil", or "God is all loving", it's safe to say that those are total assumptions, therefore the likelihood that they are true is fairly low. Now, there are logical deductions that we can make about God partly based on how we define him. For example, God is omnipotent. If he's not omnipotent, then he's not what I would call a God. And then from there we can make a list of traits he probably doesn't have by being all powerful. For example, an omnipotent being is not weak, they don't crave ice cream, they don't have human emotion, etc. So when people tell me that a God exists in the sky that strikes people down in anger, or experiences a wide range of emotion just like humans who have something called a brain and brain chemistry, it causes me to logically doubt the likelihoods of their version of Gods existence.

[Cactuscat222]

None the less, I still find it silly. I assume when we say a person "stops believing in God", we can also extrapolate that they would then not believe in his existence. If you decide you don't want to believe in God, because he is evil, or isn't 'perfect' for you, or any other personal, superficial reason, then I'd argue you are being intellectually arrogant. In all technicallity, you can believe in God, but disagree with his method and teachings.
I mean, just because something is evil or wrong, doesn't invalidate its existence. So yet again, there is my point - to refuse to believe in a god (ie, disagree with his existence) because he does not fit your personal bill on what a god should be, just isn't logical. There are stronger, more rational reasons to doubt the existence of such a being.

If someone wants me to believe in a God that tortures kids for fun, it wouldn't lead me to believe "Hey, this God isn't perfect, he's actually evil!", instead I'd argue that the likelihood of that God even existing are pretty small. I don't deny that God could be literally anything we imagine, but his chances of being similar to what any specific person on earth thinks he actually is, is pretty low.

If somebody says "God is evil", or "God is all loving", it's safe to say that those are total assumptions, therefore the likelihood that they are true is fairly low. Now, there are logical deductions that we can make about God partly based on how we define him. For example, God is omnipotent. If he's not omnipotent, then he's not what I would call a God. And then from there we can make a list of traits he probably doesn't have by being all powerful. For example, an omnipotent being is not weak, they don't crave ice cream, they don't have human emotion, etc. So when people tell me that a God exists in the sky that strikes people down in anger, or experiences a wide range of emotion just like humans who have something called a brain and brain chemistry, it causes me to logically doubt the likelihoods of their version of Gods existence.

Forgive me, I think I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure I'm making the connection between what you are saying and what I said. Are you disagreeing with my proposed assumption? If I'm being really stupid for not understanding, sorry. >.<

[Jake]

None the less, I still find it silly. I assume when we say a person "stops believing in God", we can also extrapolate that they would then not believe in his existence. If you decide you don't want to believe in God, because he is evil, or isn't 'perfect' for you, or any other personal, superficial reason, then I'd argue you are being intellectually arrogant. In all technicallity, you can believe in God, but disagree with his method and teachings.
I mean, just because something is evil or wrong, doesn't invalidate its existence. So yet again, there is my point - to refuse to believe in a god (ie, disagree with his existence) because he does not fit your personal bill on what a god should be, just isn't logical. There are stronger, more rational reasons to doubt the existence of such a being.

If someone wants me to believe in a God that tortures kids for fun, it wouldn't lead me to believe "Hey, this God isn't perfect, he's actually evil!", instead I'd argue that the likelihood of that God even existing are pretty small. I don't deny that God could be literally anything we imagine, but his chances of being similar to what any specific person on earth thinks he actually is, is pretty low.

If somebody says "God is evil", or "God is all loving", it's safe to say that those are total assumptions, therefore the likelihood that they are true is fairly low. Now, there are logical deductions that we can make about God partly based on how we define him. For example, God is omnipotent. If he's not omnipotent, then he's not what I would call a God. And then from there we can make a list of traits he probably doesn't have by being all powerful. For example, an omnipotent being is not weak, they don't crave ice cream, they don't have human emotion, etc. So when people tell me that a God exists in the sky that strikes people down in anger, or experiences a wide range of emotion just like humans who have something called a brain and brain chemistry, it causes me to logically doubt the likelihoods of their version of Gods existence.

Forgive me, I think I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure I'm making the connection between what you are saying and what I said. Are you disagreeing with my proposed assumption? If I'm being really stupid for not understanding, sorry. >.<

You talk about people lacking belief in God because he's evil, or for other reasons, and say it's intellectually dishonest. I would argue that one can logically doubt the likelihood of someones specific version of God existing, based on what traits that person gives him. Everyone on this planet has a different perception of who God is, whether he can have different emotions, whether he likes gay people, etc. The chances that that persons specific version of God exists is extremely low. If somebody told me God hates babies, I would doubt the version of that Gods existence for two reasons. One, there is an infinite amount of different versions of Gods out there, so the chances of that specific version being correct are pretty low. Two, I don't believe an omnipotent being can hate.

After reading Mystery's post, I'm basically just mimicking what he already said. I'll post it here, because he explained it pretty well.

I only talked about that because of the fact we are told by those who believe in that God that it is a certain way. They are the only reason any notion of that particular god exists in our universe. If some serious flaws in their 'reasoning'/scripture are revealed that cast their god in a very bad light, it would be reasonable to question their claims of that particular God with those qualities existing. If a god exists, but without those qualities, they were wrong anyway and those of us who are critical thinkers couldn't possibly have ever known a god existed.