People who believe in god are broken

[iNow]

The question is why do religious people have strong beliefs in God despite the lack of empirical evidence.

No, as I already clarified for TAR above, this is not the question. If it is the question, I've already shared that I have a robust set of answers to it already, and that's not what we're talking about here in this thread.

 

There can be many other possibilities but as Villain mentioned earlier these are the most likely answers to that question.

 

1. Either our genetic machinery and other environmental factors shape the behaviours of some people to accept something as true with out any positive evidence.

 

2. Or revelations are not delusional and there is evidence for god and that explains the behaviours of such practicing religious people.

And, as others pointed out already to Villain, that is a false dichotomy. Yes, there are certain genetic traits that predispose us to being more susceptible to religion and belief in god(s), and yes our environment plays a big role in how those predispositions manifest. However, there is more to it than that, and it's not the topic of conversation here anyway.

 

Having the ability to have revelations means to have the ability to see one's external mind

WTH does this even mean? Can you first clearly define "external mind?" Can you next show ANY evidence whatsoever that there exists such a thing? It seems like it's a pretty central component of your argument here, so I'm quite sure it will not be difficult at all for you to support it rationally and empirically. Until you do that, however, it will continue to appear to the rest of us that you've merely introduced yet another nonsensical and meaningless term into the discussion in order to evade the central challenge being put to you and/or other believers.

 

So the only way to know whether there is any truth in it is to find out the root cause of such experiences.

I disagree with your logic. Would you equally suggest that the only way to know whether there is any truth in the claim that Thor causes thunderstorms is to find out what mental process make people believe in Thor? No, of course not. The two topics, while related, and not causally linked. One is a discussion about the operation of reality. The other is a discussion about why people accept a myth as true without adequate evidence to support it. Overlapping yes, but not the same.

 

---

Does not prove anything.

A touching story, TAR, but I agree with this final conclusion from you. The human mind is wonderful at finding patterns where none truly exist. We are really quite adept at assigning an emotional valence to otherwise mundane situations, and for attaching meaning where none truly belongs. None of that means the subject of the belief is any less irrational, any less unreasonable, nor any more supported by reality.

 

---

Seek an ye shall find. Knock and the door will be opened. It takes faith to be offered the opportunity to discover evidence, once you have done that the evidence will present itself.

Please name for us even ONE other aspect of life where you are asked to accept the truth of a proposition BEFORE the evidence becomes visible? "I promise you this unicorn will become visible, but all you have to do is first believe in it... find the revelation of unicorns... seek and ye shall find!!"

 

You really should study the human mind to see just how painfully flawed your approach is to this issue. You are, by these statements here, the epitome of a deluded individual. It's just that the subject of this delusion is religion / belief in god(s) and so it gets a free pass from society at large.

 

Try starting with religious text and that will open your understanding to how a god might reveal themselves. How can you find something if you don't know what you are looking for?

Your assumption is fundamentally flawed. For many nonbelievers, including myself, it was the deep study of the texts and teachings themselves that led us to rejection of the childishness which is belief. I dismiss your god for the same reason you dismiss the gods of others. I dismiss your god for the same reasons I dismiss the tooth fairy.

 

You assume that people can only be disbelievers because they have not bothered to study your precious teachings, but you fail to realize that for a great many of them it was precisely their deep study and reflection that led them to make the difficult choice that there likely is not a god or gods. If you said you did not believe in santa claus, would it really help if I told you that "you just have to look harder," or for you to "study the texts more fully?" Would that change your mind at all? Of course not, so why do you think that's a valid argument in response to critics of YOUR position?

 

Further... I do tire of theists who continue to insert this "all you need to do is seek god" or "how can you dismiss something you've never bothered to study" canard into discussions of this nature. You continue to make assumptions about others that you cannot possibly support. You have NO IDEA what others have studied, nor what time they've devoted to the issue prior to arriving at their conclusion. Worse still, your conclusion is completely invalidated when compared against reality.

Edited May 14, 2012 by iNow

[doG]

The question is why do religious people have strong beliefs in God despite the lack of empirical evidence.

For the same reason children have strong beliefs in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. They are taught to think that way while they are still too young to know better. Eventually parents yield to the truth regarding Santa and the Tooth Fairy but continue to steadfastly advocate the existence of god(s).

Edited May 14, 2012 by doG

[immortal]

WTH does this even mean? Can you first clearly define "external mind?" Can you next show ANY evidence whatsoever that there exists such a thing? It seems like it's a pretty central component of your argument here, so I'm quite sure it will not be difficult at all for you to support it rationally and empirically. Until you do that, however, it will continue to appear to the rest of us that you've merely introduced yet another nonsensical and meaningless term into the discussion in order to evade the central challenge being put to you and/or other believers.

 

The premise from few religious scholars is that we are living in some kind of immersive reality, so we are not made aware of that "external mind", I prefixed the term external before "mind" to differentiate the reductionist approach of science to equate mind with brain. This is the main reason why religion and science don't overlap, the existence of such a mind is non-empirical, we don't have to accept such claims from religious scholars to be true but we can certainly investigate them.

 

The way the science thinks is that it can pretty much explain every single phenomena with in empirical observation so there is no need to invoke the existence of an external mind since there is no need and no evidence to accept it but if a phenomena doesn't causually interact with the empirical world then there is no way of testifying it with in the empirical world, so the position that is taken is to look for that external mind knowing that there is nothing in the empirical world to provide us evidence of the existence of such a mind. Or in other words why empirical reality is the only reality out there, there might be other realities which don't causually interact with our world. This the reason why religion and science don't have to contradict with each other, they both are concerned of different worlds.

 

 

I disagree with your logic. Would you equally suggest that the only way to know whether there is any truth in the claim that Thor causes thunderstorms is to find out what mental process make people believe in Thor? No, of course not. The two topics, while related, and not causally linked. One is a discussion about the operation of reality. The other is a discussion about why people accept a myth as true without adequate evidence to support it. Overlapping yes, but not the same.

 

Ofcourse the world we live in is fairly a big place, my assertion is causually linked if Thor or any other god is responsible for our observed reality, i.e the way it is given to us and not the way it exists as it is. In other words religion has more to do with psychology rather than the Big Bang.

 

 

Further... I do tire of theists who continue to insert this "all you need to do is seek god" or "how can you dismiss something you've never bothered to study" canard into discussions of this nature. You continue to make assumptions about others that you cannot possibly support. You have NO IDEA what others have studied, nor what time they've devoted to the issue prior to arriving at their conclusion. Worse still, your conclusion is completely invalidated when compared against reality.

 

Studying scriptures and having faith alone takes you to no where, we have to question ourselves how much time we have spent to know god through revelations and in what way we have tried to achieve it. Religion is more about being practical than having theoretical knowledge. Scriptures alone gives you zero knowledge.

Edited May 14, 2012 by immortal

[Villain]

1. Please name for us even ONE other aspect of life where you are asked to accept the truth of a proposition BEFORE the evidence becomes visible? "I promise you this unicorn will become visible, but all you have to do is first believe in it... find the revelation of unicorns... seek and ye shall find!!"

 

You really should study the human mind to see just how painfully flawed your approach is to this issue. You are, by these statements here, the epitome of a deluded individual. It's just that the subject of this delusion is religion / belief in god(s) and so it gets a free pass from society at large.

 

 

2. Your assumption is fundamentally flawed. For many nonbelievers, including myself, it was the deep study of the texts and teachings themselves that led us to rejection of the childishness which is belief. I dismiss your god for the same reason you dismiss the gods of others. I dismiss your god for the same reasons I dismiss the tooth fairy.

 

You assume that people can only be disbelievers because they have not bothered to study your precious teachings, but you fail to realize that for a great many of them it was precisely their deep study and reflection that led them to make the difficult choice that there likely is not a god or gods. If you said you did not believe in santa claus, would it really help if I told you that "you just have to look harder," or for you to "study the texts more fully?" Would that change your mind at all? Of course not, so why do you think that's a valid argument in response to critics of YOUR position?

 

Further... I do tire of theists who continue to insert this "all you need to do is seek god" or "how can you dismiss something you've never bothered to study" canard into discussions of this nature. You continue to make assumptions about others that you cannot possibly support. You have NO IDEA what others have studied, nor what time they've devoted to the issue prior to arriving at their conclusion. Worse still, your conclusion is completely invalidated when compared against reality.

 

1. I have already dealt with this. It is quite a simple truth. If you don't have the possibility of a god existing then no evidence will ever be possible. Are you of the opinion that I cannot objectively review my subjective nature? Do you think that I am religious because it feels good? Who is the one that cannot separate their emotion from the decision? Your outbursts about genital mutilation and the oppression of homosexuality, the influence of religion on politics etc. etc. These are not logical reasons to decided whether a god exists or not. They are not separating the subjectivity and the objectivity of the religion, no they are placing subjectivity into it. You constantly project emotion onto the decision at hand, but yet I am apparently the subjective, irrational and incapable being when it comes to the objectiveness of a religious decision. I cannot follow your logic in this regard, perhaps I am broken.

 

2. Study unfortunately does not mean understanding, but then this is closely tied into the idea that if a god cannot exist then there will be no evidence of a god. A servant cannot have two masters and the Ego finds it hard to let go of it's own will. The fulfilment of the soul by living as per God's will is more evidence than any honest man or woman will ever need, but it is our nature to want more than we need and therefore reject this fulfilment and replace it with the emptiness of human greed (when have you truly fulfilled yourself?).

 

Edited:spelling

Edited May 14, 2012 by Villain

[iNow]

The premise from few religious scholars is that we are living in some kind of immersive reality, so we are not made aware of that "external mind", I prefixed the term external before "mind" to differentiate the reductionist approach of science to equate mind with brain. This is the main reason why religion and science don't overlap, the existence of such a mind is non-empirical

If it exists, it is empirical. If it is not empirical, it cannot be assumed that it exists. End program.

 

The way the science thinks is that it can pretty much explain every single phenomena with in empirical observation so there is no need to invoke the existence of an external mind since...

We have not yet established a clear definition for "external mind," nor have you demonstrated it exists. Let's not move on to the next point until we close on this one.

 

Or in other words why empirical reality is the only reality out there, there might be other realities which don't causually interact with our world. This the reason why religion and science don't have to contradict with each other, they both are concerned of different worlds.

Except, religion DOES make truth claims that impact this world, and it DOES frequently concern itself with this world. You are arguing from an invalid premise... a false assertion.

 

Studying scriptures and having faith alone takes you to no where, we have to question ourselves how much time we have spent to know god through revelations and in what way we have tried to achieve it. Religion is more about being practical than having theoretical knowledge. Scriptures alone gives you zero knowledge.

Is it not "practical" to require our examination of veracity to be rooted in adequate evidence? What exactly is "practical" about accepting something as true based on faith alone? Based on wish thinking? Based on little more than personal desire?

 

---

1. I have already dealt with this. It is quite a simple truth. If you don't have the possibility of a god existing then no evidence will ever be possible. Are you of the opinion that I cannot objectively review my subjective nature? Do you think that I am religious because it feels good? Who is the one that cannot separate their emotion from the decision? Your outbursts about genital mutilation and the oppression of homosexuality, the influence of religion on politics etc. etc. These are not logical reasons to decided whether a god exists or not. They are not separating the subjectivity and the objectivity of the religion, no they are placing subjectivity into it. You constantly project emotion onto the decision at hand, but yet I am apparently the subjective, irrational and incapable being when it comes to the objectiveness of a religious decision. I cannot follow your logic in this regard, perhaps I am broken.

Will you please address the question I asked and stop evading with off topic comments?

 

Please name for us even ONE other aspect of life where you are asked to accept the truth of a proposition BEFORE the evidence becomes visible? "I promise you this unicorn will become visible, but all you have to do is first believe in it... find the revelation of unicorns... seek and ye shall find!!" You would not do it with unicorns. Why should we do it for YOUR personal version of god(s)?

 

Study unfortunately does not mean understanding...

Irrelevant to my point. You recommend further study to find god. I corrected you that it was precisely that study that caused many of us to dismiss the idea as silly and childish.

[Villain]

 

Will you please address the question I asked and stop evading with off topic comments?

 

Please name for us even ONE other aspect of life where you are asked to accept the truth of a proposition BEFORE the evidence becomes visible? "I promise you this unicorn will become visible, but all you have to do is first believe in it... find the revelation of unicorns... seek and ye shall find!!" You would not do it with unicorns. Why should we do it for YOUR personal version of god(s)?

 

 

Irrelevant to my point. You recommend further study to find god. I corrected you that it was precisely that study that caused many of us to dismiss the idea as silly and childish.

 

You are completely correct there is nothing that asks such a proposition and yet, I, a man who manages to put his pants on every morning, can find an understanding and acceptance of such a proposition and that is exactly why I must be broken (mentally retarded, flawed, incapable of logical thought, incapable of solving puzzles or problems....). If you are under the impression that I am those things then by all means label me broken, but if I am not then what answer can you offer me. Exactly why is it that so many capable people ignore their need for empirical proof, waste their time serving an imaginary being who commands them to let go of their possessions and follow them, something which is completely counter intuitive to the world that we live in. I believe the best explaination so far is that we are broken, not broken in every other aspect of our lives but only in this.

 

 

While we are at it, why is it that the most vocal atheist tend to be ex theist's? It surely isn't because they have known God at some stage in their lives and know exactly what the theist's are talking about. They seem to have a constant need to reconfirm that atheism is not a mistake. You say you understand the human psyche, what might your subconscious mind be trying to tell you? How many atheist were affected by traumatic events before they became atheist's? Do you really think that atheism is the default position of the intellectual mind? I will openly say that it is far more apparent to me to be the default of the emotionally stunted or weak, the kid that throws a tantrum when they don't get what they think they deserve, the proud. When did you choose to be born, when did you choose the skills that you have or the mind that you possess? The world is constantly brainwashing us to be god's onto ourselves and what have we ever done to deserve such accolades? It is quite obvious to those that are not emotionally sucked into this delusion, there is only one source that teaches a truth that man is not of his own doings. The source also does not subscribe to the character of man by possessing the very essence of the empiricism that man clings to.

 

It is the strangest of concept that man present only empiricism as a way of evidence, as if he is of the impression that nothing outside of empiricism exists. Do you believe in mathematics or language or many other form of higher intellect? Do we go about communicating by showing people that you have arms? How do cells evolve along billions of years into beings with fully functioning brains purely by accident? It seems rather obvious that man had to use all of his creativity to produce such a tale in order to not have to accept God, but then again the motivation of the Ego is a powerful thing.

[iNow]

Exactly why is it that so many capable people ignore their need for empirical proof, waste their time serving an imaginary being who commands them to let go of their possessions and follow them, something which is completely counter intuitive to the world that we live in.

It is not some "supernatural" being that is commanding you to do anything. It is your local pastor. It is a book of old fictions. It is your local community who shares the delusion telling you to value "letting go of possessions." You may ascribe those things to some vague concept called god, but it is not beyond nature... It is your culture, your experience, and your indoctrination that cause "so many people to waste their time" doing these things.

 

"So many capable people" do and believe these things because we are genetically predisposed to assign causes to events even when those causes are unfounded or based solely on speculation... because we have a predisposition to see all life as coming from some previous form of life, and god is the ultimate "first parent"... because we have the ability to rehearse interactions with unseen others, and to practice exchanges with people who are not even there (to better prepare us for when the actual exchange occurs at some point in the future... like a hunt, or a fight, or a negotiation, or a mating proposition, etc.), and god simply becomes the most unseen of those unseen others with whom we mentally rehearse interactions...

 

You have to understand that it was our ancestors that sought explanations for events in this life that tended to reproduce more successfully than those who did not seek explanations... and this increased reproductive success occurred even though some of those explanations they put forth were completely flawed or flat out wrong...

 

"So many capable people" believe and do these things because they were raised in a society where this belief was common, ritualized, embedded in nearly every aspect of social life, and downright expected of all individuals... because it was reinforced through childhood and by authority figures in all arenas... authorities like our parents and other family, important townspeople, friends and neighbors, and tribal elders of all varieties...

 

It seems obvious from the narrowness and close-mindedness of your replies that you seem to forget about the fact that which god you happen to believe in is almost entirely dictated by where on the planet you were born. You believe in YOUR version of god instead of some other version of god almost solely due to the location of your birth... it was by chance alone that you were born in North America instead of Asia or even the Middle East. Had you been born elsewhere, you'd worship allah, or be buddhist, or be taoist, or some aborigine belief system, or any one of the other countless human mythologies that have evolved and been reinforced by local tribal communities via some of the mechanisms I noted above. Just look at the population of believers across the earth and you can quickly validate that it is social customs that lead to the structure of an individuals belief, and not the likelihood that one particular version of all those countless gods actually exists.

 

There are a great many reasons WHY people believe these things, but those things they believe and those actions they've been reinforced to value (like letting go of possessions or following one specific version of deity) are due solely to teachings from fellow humans and ancient anthologies, not some unfounded, unsupportable, undefined, nonsensical god(s).

 

I believe the best explaination so far is that we are broken, not broken in every other aspect of our lives but only in this.

That's roughly what I've been trying to convey throughout this thread. One can be a mostly intelligent, mostly rational, and mostly reasonable human being in nearly every other aspect of their life... but when it comes to belief in god(s), that prioritization of rationality and reason and evidence seems simply to vanish. It is inconsistent, it is a double standard, and it is broken.

 

 

While we are at it, why is it that the most vocal atheist tend to be ex theist's?

I suspect you're just making this up, and there is no evidence or any numbers you have in support of this claim. Is that correct? This is an assumption you've made, and little more?

 

Actually, even if I stipulate that your claim is accurate, it's easily answered simply by considering the numbers involved. I'm sure even you would concede that MOST humans were brought up to be religious, in religious households as part of religious families within mostly religious communities... and this is true whether they are outspoken or silent. Given this, we must recognize up front that, as a whole, the vast majority of atheists very likely used to be theists. Is this a fair position for me to take, or do you think I'm way out in left field here? I personally think that my assumption is credible, and am confident in its veracity, so will carry forward on that assumption.

 

When the great majority of the atheist population themselves used to be theists... when such a large number of them came from backgrounds where they too were believers... then OF COURSE some subset of this population will be more vocal than others. Yet despite this, you are here insinuating that some subset of atheists are vocal because they feel doubt and insecurity in their choice... that they feel the need to have others confirm for them that they have made the right choice when they decided to recognize belief in god(s) for what it is and to reject it... you are insinuating that they are vocal because they feel insecure or anxious about their decision. This is ludicrous on its face, especially since MOST atheists used to themselves be theist... and especially since at least SOME of them will be more vocal than others. It's not that they are more vocal because they used to be theists. It's that they happen to be vocal and also simultaneously are members of a much larger group of nonbelievers... nearly all of whom used to themselves be theists. I should not have to spend so much time explaining such an open and honest and simple point.

 

It surely isn't because they have known God at some stage in their lives and know exactly what the theist's are talking about.

Now you're just making shit up. This is plainly false. You can continue to assert this all you'd like, but it's plainly untrue and trivially easy to demonstrate as such.

 

They seem to have a constant need to reconfirm that atheism is not a mistake.

Or, as shared earlier in the thread, they have grown tired of the negative way that the broken thinking of theists has been encroaching on the rest of our secular society... Of the negative impacts their unfounded beliefs create for the rest of us... Of the way it is eroding our collective well-being.

 

Perhaps some nonbelievers have an almost compulsive need to eradicate as many forms of ignorance from this world as possible before they die, and they recognize that religious belief and unfounded belief in god(s) is one of the most profound sources of ignorance that we face in this modern age.

 

Perhaps some former theists have realized the intense relief and improvement in life that comes with letting go of the endless lies, twisted logic, and mental gymnastics that are all required to maintain the affirmative belief position and they want to share that psychological emancipation with those around them.

 

Villain... There are countless other reasons why a person may be passionate about nonbelief and debate the subject with a focused intensity such as myself, yet you blandly assume that their energy and motivation comes from them thinking their conclusion is a horrible mistake? What a rubbish thing of you to say. What a completely broken argument. You are being both foolish and arrogant, pretentious and ignorant, illogical and condescending by asserting such things so blithely and uncritically.

 

Said another way, Villain, you are making a lot of very poor assumptions about an entire population of people who share nothing more in common than their lack of acceptance of your personal version of god. That's it. It's like you're making a generalization about people who decided the tooth fairy isn't real and you should be embarrassed for doing it.

 

In short, you are trivializing a vast swath of highly variable individuals who have validly cast aside your belief as unfounded and for lacking adequate supporting evidence... You have dismissed them as insecure, not confident, scared bed wetting children merely in an attempt to support your very weak arguments and to prop up your copious logical fallacies shared in some vain attempt to support your imaginary friend.

 

This strategy, Villain, whether it's intentional or not, makes you look ignorant and like a man who has consciously chosen not to approach this discussion in good faith. It makes it obvious that instead of directly addressing ANY of the criticisms made of you and other theists like you about the specious nature of your beliefs that you have chosen instead to resort to personal comments, vitriol, inaccurate stereotypes, and falsehoods as if it is some filibuster process allowing you to circumvent and evade the onus of the challenges put to you.

 

I strongly encourage you to step back for a moment and evaluate the assertions you're here putting forth, Villain. They don't hold up to even remedial scrutiny, and I suspect you're better than this.

Edited May 15, 2012 by iNow

[doG]

Do you really think that atheism is the default position of the intellectual mind?

Yes. Then again, I was taught to question everything, to be a skeptic. I was taught that trust needed to be earned. That you shouldn't just trust what you are told without question. That trusting blindly was foolish. Would you have me believe otherwise?

[tar]

Inow,

 

I voted for your 682 because I was schooled by you in the "hijack" thread, and it mirrors closely my thinking, and my attempts to search for the meaning behind language, and to understand my consciousness as an evolved thing, with plenty of "reasons" both nature and nurture wise, for being who I am, and by extension, to understand and explain the consciousnesses around me.

 

Villian does not recognize that we absolutely accept the greater reality around us as responsible for us, more powerful than us, and that we indeed are a subset of it, have come from it, and will return to it. There is no other place to come from, to be in, and to dissolve into when we die.

 

But I do think you were a little hard on Villian. He also has come to this same conclusion, and recognizes our subjective nature, in regards to the greater reality. He just thinks because we apparently do not parse it exactly as he does, that we do not see the situation for what it is. That we and he can hold this "objective" view of ourselves, is probably built into our nature, that is, our ability to concieve of and converse with unseen others, can easily be repurposed to converse with ourselves, about ourselves...to be objective about our own subjectivity.

 

He does not understand, that he is not the only one to come to this conclusion. He thinks his way, is the only true way. Same with us, same with all worldviews, same with all religions...I would guess.

 

But once this conclusion is reached, and we objectively view our subjectivity, and recognize that even our objectivity has to be subject to something...God is found and recognized. Nobody is wrong or broken to associate themselves with this "greater" thing.

 

In comes the scientific method, to put the deamons and gods to rest. Imaginary friends are imaginary, until and unless you can point them out to somebody else. Imagined patterns are just that, until and unless you can show exactly what they are really made of, and caused by. Then they are facts, objects and subjects, we can all use together, to do this existence thing we are doing.

 

Much better way to "worship" our creator, then to try and enforce our own imagined friends and patterns on the world. Especially if they, as in the case of many "GODS", don't actually "fit" reality.

 

And my biggest problem with religious people is the fact that they think "this" is something other than real, that they must negate their humaness somehow to "really" exist. Come on now, really, what sense does that make. What evidence do we have of anything existing, that does not, or did not, actually exist?

 

And how could my dead Mom make frogs appear in my basement? If she could do that, she might as well just write "hello son" on the wall, with ladybugs.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited May 15, 2012 by tar

[immortal]

If it exists, it is empirical. If it is not empirical, it cannot be assumed that it exists. End program.

 

Except, religion DOES make truth claims that impact this world, and it DOES frequently concern itself with this world. You are arguing from an invalid premise... a false assertion.

 

 

The very act of worshiping a god requires one to assume he exists, its not a problem as long as one knows that its not enough to assert something as true and existing, I noticed that evolutionary biologist, Kenneth Miller visiting a church and praying to God, if we can seperate God from making our important decisions in our lives so that it doesn't interfere with the world we live in then its not a problem. However if you do some crazy things which affects society in a great way assuming he exists based on faith alone then its madness.

 

 

Is it not "practical" to require our examination of veracity to be rooted in adequate evidence? What exactly is "practical" about accepting something as true based on faith alone? Based on wish thinking? Based on little more than personal desire?

 

You say that scholars have tried to prove the existence of God for thousands of years and yet they have failed terribly, the fact that many are convinced that he exists is quite contrary to your statement, they're convinced because they have seen and communicated with god, being practical means to follow in the path of such scholars, the path may be a blind path, I might rationalize it with out any evidence but the journey is worth taking since it removes the uncertainty in our minds as to whether god exists or not.

 

I am in support of religious thinking as a whole and I'm not arguing for the existence of my favoured version of god. So the popularity of a certain belief is not is question.

[tar]

Immortal,

 

Jewels? Your proof of God really existing is that people who "see it" see it wearing the same jewels?

 

Really now. You don't see a problem with that "proof"?

 

Regards, TAR2

[Moontanman]

I am in support of religious thinking as a whole and I'm not arguing for the existence of my favoured version of god. So the popularity of a certain belief is not is question.

 

 

Exactly what part of religious thinking are in favor of? Dehumanizing everyone who doesn't worship the same god? That is what religion boils down to, "I am superior because I know the true god" I don't get it. And Inow, I agree with what you said, the idea that if you don't believe the way i do it must be because you haven't really really looked into it as much as I have is insulting on a level that is difficult to deal with... I got into a discussion only yesterday about this in the real world, and the person i was discussing it with told me that reason the things in the bible seemed so horrific was because i wasn't looking at them through the holy spirit, if i had the holy spirit they would be understandable, i almost threw up it made me so nauseous...

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

Jewels? Your proof of God really existing is that people who "see it" see it wearing the same jewels?

 

Really now. You don't see a problem with that "proof"?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

First, what we know of God is very little, if you study a religious tradition particularly from religious scholars who have made an indepth study of scriptures and have worked day and night to figure out the meaning behind those statements and who have implemented it in their lives and are good practioners of religion then yes, god should appear the same way across thousands of years of time to different people, people like St. Thomas Aquinas makes arguments that God is immutable and revelations provide support to such claims, religion almost works in the same way as science, I wouldn't call it science because the evidence is not repeatable.

 

To say that the idea of god is just a concept in our brains and God exists as just a concept or patterns in brain is to do injustice to religion, there is more to it than just a mere concept.

 

Exactly what part of religious thinking are in favor of? Dehumanizing everyone who doesn't worship the same god? That is what religion boils down to, "I am superior because I know the true god" I don't get it.

 

 

No, no, I'm not in favor of such type of religious thinking, I think such thinking has more to do with other social and political factors rather than thought processes which are purely based on the metaphysical nature of religion. In fact religion says everyone and every species is equal in the eyes of God becuase God resides in every living thing, that's what it teaches us.

[Villain]

Exactly what part of religious thinking are in favor of? Dehumanizing everyone who doesn't worship the same god? That is what religion boils down to, "I am superior because I know the true god" I don't get it.

 

Obviously you don't get it, but yet you constantly feel 'insulted' when others assume you know nothing of religion, which by your above statement is clearly the case.

 

@iNow and Tar, I will respond when I have a little more time.

[Villain]

@ iNow

 

response to the first section of post #682:

 

I understand that your knowledge of religion might lead you to think these things, but applying a one size fits all attitude to the billions of people that partake in religion is a little naive. I will agree that my experience of life is part of the reason why I believe but that is true to every belief that I hold.

 

I think everyone here is capable of realising that when starting with two different premises, you come to different reasons for the same process.

 

I thought that it seemed obvious that I was not from North America, but apparently picking up on things that aren't literally spelt (yes I have used the word spelt on purpose to distinguish my language from what you might call 'American') out to you is a problem. There is no wonder left in my mind as to why you are no longer religious, a house built on sand is never going to whether a storm. Aside: before you get offended I might highlight your gross generalisation of how religious people all get 'indoctrinated' by some voodoo artist posing as a priest.

second section:

 

It is broken to those that don't understand.

 

third section:

 

Why would I make up an assertion that is clearly speculative, do you think that I think that I will fool you? I will concede that I have know idea how MOST people are raised, I will concede that people often exhibit public persona's and live very different private lives but I will not claim to know how MOST of 7 billion people are brought up. I will however reflect on the thread and come to the same realisation that the most vocal atheists are ex theist's.

 

Fourth section:

 

Not really anything to comment on.

 

Fifth section:

 

Except that a logical person would not invest time in debating belief in the tooth fairy if they were under the impression that such tooth fairy didn't exist. Would you rather I just conclude that you are illogical and move onto someone who is capable of logical thinking? Why do you take such a huge amount of offence if it has no bearing on you? Why not just dismiss my comments?

[Moontanman]

First, what we know of God is very little, if you study a religious tradition particularly from religious scholars who have made an indepth study of scriptures and have worked day and night to figure out the meaning behind those statements and who have implemented it in their lives and are good practioners of religion then yes, god should appear the same way across thousands of years of time to different people, people like St. Thomas Aquinas makes arguments that God is immutable and revelations provide support to such claims, religion almost works in the same way as science, I wouldn't call it science because the evidence is not repeatable.

 

To say that the idea of god is just a concept in our brains and God exists as just a concept or patterns in brain is to do injustice to religion, there is more to it than just a mere concept.

 

If you have evidence it is more than a "mere" concept now would be a good time to show it.

 

 

No, no, I'm not in favor of such type of religious thinking, I think such thinking has more to do with other social and political factors rather than thought processes which are purely based on the metaphysical nature of religion. In fact religion says everyone and every species is equal in the eyes of God becuase God resides in every living thing, that's what it teaches us.

 

 

Who teaches it? What religion teaches that everyone is equal in the eyes of god? No religion I know of, it certainly isn't any of the religions that totally dominate the idea of religion.

 

Obviously you don't get it, but yet you constantly feel 'insulted' when others assume you know nothing of religion, which by your above statement is clearly the case.

 

You are one insulting human being, like most if not all believers you pretend to have knowledge you do not and can not have. You tell others you have this knowledge and insult those who question you. you do you best to intimidate anyone who don't "believe" your knowledge and make them feel like they are stupid for not believing your line of horse feathers.

 

You have not made and argument to support god or religion, all you have is your assertions that you just "know" and the insinuation that anyone who doesn't know is somehow too lazy to have really really looked into religion. All you have are claims and assertions of reveled truths when in fact all you have is belief, belief with no evidence what so ever. That is broken and I don't give a bucket of horse feathers what country you are from...

Edited May 15, 2012 by Moontanman

[immortal]

If you have evidence it is more than a "mere" concept now would be a good time to show it.

 

The evidence is in the literature of religious scholars but such evidences are anecdotal, such evidences may not be sufficient enough to conclude that god exists for sure but its enough to show that religion deserves much respect as a tool for finding out the truth and our origins.

 

Who teaches it? What religion teaches that everyone is equal in the eyes of god? No religion I know of, it certainly isn't any of the religions that totally dominate the idea of religion.

 

Unfortuantely such religions are dead and are not being practiced by anyone of them, perhaps only by minority of people around the world. I for one is not arguing for the mainstream religions of the world, you know more than me about the childish nature of such beliefs and why our study of religion forced us to reject it.

[iNow]

I understand that your knowledge of religion might lead you to think these things, but applying a one size fits all attitude to the billions of people that partake in religion is a little naive.

It is not naive, though, to accurately comment that all of them lack adequate evidence in support of their extraordinary belief. That is quite valid, and is the only "one size fits all" position for which I've argued here.

 

I thought that it seemed obvious that I was not from North America

My apologies for the inaccuracy, but it is ultimately irrelevant to the central point I was making there. What you believe is almost entirely based on where you happen to be born, and not based on any evidence or confirmation of one version of god. That was my primary point there. The fact that you were not born in the US is extraneous to that.

 

There is no wonder left in my mind as to why you are no longer religious, a house built on sand is never going to whether a storm.

I think I've been pretty clear on why I'm no longer religious. I spent years devoting honest study and analysis to these questions, and valued my intellectual integrity and consistency too much to rationalize away all of the plethora problems and holes with religion.

 

Aside: before you get offended I might highlight your gross generalisation of how religious people all get 'indoctrinated' by some voodoo artist posing as a priest.

Perhaps you missed my point. Humans are social creatures. The vast majority of what we learn comes from those around us, primarily through authority figures and tribal elders. Religion, too. That's not a "gross generalization," that is a simple and well-established fact.

 

I will however reflect on the thread and come to the same realisation that the most vocal atheists are ex theist's.

Didn't we already cover this? Of course the "most vocal" are "ex theists." Nearly all current atheists are "ex theists," so your suggestion that they are vocal because they miss their belief is nonsense on its face.

 

Fourth section:

 

Not really anything to comment on.

As I mentioned, you do not seem to be approaching this discussion in good faith. Thank you for confirming that so clearly here.

 

Except that a logical person would not invest time in debating belief in the tooth fairy if they were under the impression that such tooth fairy didn't exist.

They would, actually, if such a significant portion of the worlds population believed in the tooth fairy and that belief resulted in real world outcomes that impact us all. I can tell you are failing to grasp the root of my comments, and you continue talking past the core points. Perhaps we just agree to disagree and move on, as this exchange with you has been probably more frustrating to both of us than enlightening.

 

Why do you take such a huge amount of offence if it has no bearing on you? Why not just dismiss my comments?

This, too, has already been answered and clarified on at least three separate occasions in this very thread. You are free to review it again if reading comprehension is an area with which you sometimes struggle.

[A Tripolation]

I'm not sure that's the proper question. The question is, if you're not using any evidence whatsoever about the object of your belief, then why one god instead of the countless others? Isn't it broken to believe something for no reason?

 

Many of us do believe for a reason. Else we would not believe.

 

 

And since the evidence is equally insufficient for all of the other human myths, why yours? It's baseless, and that's why not.

 

Jesus almost certainly existed and preached compassion and love. Zeus was never observed or recorded. The Abrahamic religions tend to have more historicity than the others.

[iNow]

<deleted>

Edited May 15, 2012 by iNow

[Moontanman]

Many of us do believe for a reason. Else we would not believe.

 

 

 

 

Jesus almost certainly existed and preached compassion and love. Zeus was never observed or recorded. The Abrahamic religions tend to have more historicity than the others.

 

 

I can point you to someone who knows much more about this than me but the evidence for a real Jesus is totally hearsay, nothing written by anyone else in that time frame mentions Jesus as real, all of the writings were written after his life not during.

 

(edit) While it is true that all the writings of Jesus were written after his life, it is also true that no one other than his followers wrote anything about him what so ever.... It has been suggested that at the time there were many small Jewish cults that claimed to be led by men who claimed to be Jesus and the people who wrote about him combined stories of these cults into a coherent whole that matched what was claimed about the prophecy in the old testament. In a strange way i don't think this negates the idea of Jesus or the things attributed to him, just the supernatural aspects of it.

 

I will be the first to admit that the teachings of Jesus were several steps above the horrific psychopathic monster god was portrayed as in the old testament.

 

As for the rest, some of the bible is set in a historically accurate era but so is the stories of Zeus, Thor, Krishna and the rest. the Gods themselves were fiction but the times they were set in were not. The Bible is the same way.

 

The evidence is in the literature of religious scholars but such evidences are anecdotal, such evidences may not be sufficient enough to conclude that god exists for sure but its enough to show that religion deserves much respect as a tool for finding out the truth and our origins.

 

As we have discussed before and you have admitted, you have no evidence, and the assertion that religion can be used to find out the truth of our origins flies in the face of reality, please show us how religion can show us the truth of our origins. If you cannot back that up immortal, honesty demands you retract that statement.

 

Unfortunately such religions are dead and are not being practiced by anyone of them, perhaps only by minority of people around the world. I for one is not arguing for the mainstream religions of the world, you know more than me about the childish nature of such beliefs and why our study of religion forced us to reject it.

 

The idea that those religions are dead would seem to be an indication the god or gods they represent never existed. i will admit that is my take on it and I am open to any evidence that contradicts that.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Moontanman

[immortal]

I can point you to someone who knows much more about this than me but the evidence for a real Jesus is totally hearsay, nothing written by anyone else in that time frame mentions Jesus as real, all of the writings were written after his life not during.

 

(edit) While it is true that all the writings of Jesus were written after his life, it is also true that no one other than his followers wrote anything about him what so ever.... It has been suggested that at the time there were many small Jewish cults that claimed to be led by men who claimed to be Jesus and the people who wrote about him combined stories of these cults into a coherent whole that matched what was claimed about the prophecy in the old testament. In a strange way i don't think this negates the idea of Jesus or the things attributed to him, just the supernatural aspects of it.

 

I will be the first to admit that the teachings of Jesus were several steps above the horrific psychopathic monster god was portrayed as in the old testament.

 

As for the rest, some of the bible is set in a historically accurate era but so is the stories of Zeus, Thor, Krishna and the rest. the Gods themselves were fiction but the times they were set in were not. The Bible is the same way.

 

 

 

 

Religious and Bible scholars agree that Jesus existed, that's what I've heard after seeing this video.

 

I have to agree with the bible scholar there Bible has more to say about the supernatural realm than about the history of earth.

 

As we have discussed before and you have admitted, you have no evidence, and the assertion that religion can be used to find out the truth of our origins flies in the face of reality, please show us how religion can show us the truth of our origins. If you cannot back that up immortal, honesty demands you retract that statement.

 

 

The worldview given by religion is very much different from the worldview given by science, that doesn't mean they have to contradict with each other, I'm quite open to both the worldviews or any other worldview which gives answer to our big question, where do we come from with adequate evidence and the worldview of religion is in contention for that.

 

 

The idea that those religions are dead would seem to be an indication the god or gods they represent never existed. i will admit that is my take on it and I am open to any evidence that contradicts that.

 

Perhaps it could be also an indication of our ignorance of such gods not that they never existed.

Edited May 15, 2012 by immortal

[Moontanman]

 

 

Religious and Bible scholars agree that Jesus existed, that's what I've heard after seeing this video.

 

After watching all but the very last of this video, i am currently watching it, I have to say i can show just as many scholars that say the exact oppisite in fact i would say they ones here that support the bible are indeed so steeped in religion they cannot possibly be neutral on this. in fact these biblical scholars make the claim that morals only come from the bible which is demonstrably wrong...

 

I have to agree with the bible scholar there Bible has more to say about the supernatural realm than about the history of earth.

 

That i can agree with.

 

The worldview given by religion is very much different from the worldview given by science, that doesn't mean they have to contradict with each other, I'm quite open to both the worldviews or any other worldview which gives answer to our big question, where do we come from with adequate evidence and the worldview of religion is in contention for that.

 

The world view of the bible in relation to where we came from is wrong, it's demonstrably wrong, these so called biblical scholars say so much that is so wrong and I don't mean point of view wrong but demonstrably wrong it's very sad that such learned people can fool themselves so easily...

 

 

Perhaps it could be also an indication of our ignorance of such gods not that they never existed.

 

This is true, but why would a real god allow it's self to be forgotten?

[Villain]

Perhaps we just agree to disagree and move on, as this exchange with you has been probably more frustrating to both of us than enlightening.

 

I was thinking the exact same thing a few hours after my previous post.

 

We are clearly arguing from different perspectives and therefore cannot come to a conclusion. If you have made an emotion free choice on religion then I respect that decision and wish you all the best.

[immortal]

 

This is true, but why would a real god allow it's self to be forgotten?

 

Many have looked into this problem from ancient times, why there is so much suffering in this world, surely if we knew god and had knowledge about him then we could've eradicated all the suffering in the world no matter how good or how evil the world would get. It is the problem of suffering and honestly speaking I don't know the answer to your question.