Religion

[Diego]

1)There is, somewhere in the world or maybe not yet on the world, a religion or combination of religions that is perfectly true. Do you agree?

If this also includes a lack of supernatural beliefs, then yes.

Naturally that's included. I consider Atheism a religion, because it constitutes a belief in an afterlife, even if that afterlife happens to be you blinking out of existence.

One would then have to make the distinction between strong and weak atheism, that is, the presence of a belief in the inexistance of a deity, and the simple (and default) lack of a belief in the existance of a deity.

On the other hand, one must note that a-theism only refers to lack (or negation) of belief on a deity. However, in some situations, a spiritual religion that lacks a deity can fit into atheism.

2)Assuming you do, can it be said that the only reason a person would not join that religion is because they fear to give something up. Do you agree with this as well?

No.

Elaborate. Why else would someone not join this religion? When I say 'give something up' I'm not referring to physical objects, but also to lifestyles, beliefs, etc.

This makes the very big assumption that there is anything to gain from joining said religion. In the good ol' days of Odin and Thor, it didn't matter who the candles you lit were for. It was all about whether or not you died in glorious battle. In a similar fashion, any such "true" religion could follow any particular scheme to reward its followers and non-followers alike, or perhaps not reward anyone at all. To conclude that following a hypothetical religion proven to be completely true is very Abrahamic of you.

3)Assuming the above two things are true, it could be said that it's better to give that something up and join the religion. Do you agree?

Again, no.

Naturally, if you don't believe the second principle, the third one is essentially impossible to believe in without contradicting yourself (feel free to correct me).

Well, I hope I got the quotes right.

Indeed. I do believe I explained myself properly on the second point. However, I should also elaborate that even accepting the second point, I must disagree with the third. Without even entering the debate of what "better" means and according to which scale of measure and which set of priorities, it must also be said that it is perfectly plausible for an individual to seek the Abrahamic concept of punishment in the afterlife. I've met more than one individual who, while disbelieving the concept of Christian faith, categorically stated that should such a God exist, they would be more than happy to eternally be damned in Hell rather than act as hypocrites and change their ways to please an arbitrary, unjust tyrant. I'm not (necessarily) agreeing with their characterization of God, but I am saying that it might be better, in a way, for man to stand up against everything and be, at least, a token of the strenght of the spirit of mankind and its personal convictions.

Of course, that was an entirely rebellious, hypothetical, Christianity-(counter)aligned line of thought, but it served the purpose of illustrating the ideology well enough, I hope.

[Antichrist_Online]

As an Ásatrú priest, I have to say Diego that there still is the days of Odin and Thor, since the revival in the late 60s. Dying in battle isn't the only way they can get honour, great acts of cunning or bravery also can earn a place in the Hall of Heros. Also people mistake defeating an opponent with killing them. Defeat is making sure they always remember you were better than them (and ensuring that it continues to be true). Killing them defeats the objective.

[Diego]

That's a pleasant surprise, Antichrist_Online. I've always enjoyed Norse paganism greatly, and am happy to see that it exists in some form to this day. But, regardless, the point stands--in many forms of religion, one does not necessarily have to be an active believer or participant in order to be on the "good side."

[Antichrist_Online]

Indeed, I agree, mearly been a good person, by that religions version is enough in the more tolerant religions, the ones that don't include been of that religion as a factor in going to the good afterlife. But the only people listening to most of the debate here are the choir to use the cliche. They are mearly debating for the benefit of others and for the enjoyment of the debate, not for the converting or changing of others. (My veiw entirely).

[Pie]

Indeed. I love to debait, and I just stopped posting here becaus of peoples blind views.

[Diego]

Debating online is to me largely a way to flex mental muscles and stay on my toes. I do believe, however, that while it is unlikely that someone will concede a discussion and change their ways to your path of enlightenment, it is possible that well-written, heartfelt and intelligent arguments can sway a person over to another side some time after the end of a debate, once things cool down and the individual has had time to meditate on his own.

[Pie]

yep.

It'll never happen.

And I must answer a point brought up before....

They saw jesus after he rised frome thie dead is what i ment. It means the same thing. They saw him die. It is imposibal for him to have lived,becaus crisifying people is a sure way of killing someone, without having hypothermadima.... loss of blood and whater, and a spear through your heart. And the people who killed him were profetionals at there job. If someone lived after being crusified, than the people who were ment to crusify him were put to death themselves.

Surly you cannot doubt that he died, eh? And you cannot doubt that the deciples, and those wemon that saw him rise were myrterd, and thus they saw him as I have explained before?

If you can disprove that jesus lived and died, and that the deciples were myrterd for seeing him, than I will quit. QUIT i say. (quit this debait and maby cristianity, but I doubt that I will, for there are many other reasons that the bible is true.

dang, I got back into the debait. I was SUPPOSED to stay out. dang.

[Diego]

It is imposibal for him to have lived,becaus crisifying people is a sure way of killing someone

Crucifixion was an extremely common, non-lethal procedure in those times. People were crucified for a while, then let down. There is even debate as to whether Jesus would have spent enough time on the Cross to die (most individuals were crucified anywhere from hours to a couple of days).

and a spear through your heart.

The Lancea Longini that Gaius Cassius pierced Jesus with went, quite famously, through his side. Read your Gospel of John (Chapter 19, verse 34), Pie.

If someone lived after being crusified, than the people who were ment to crusify him were put to death themselves.

Now you're flat-out making this up. Crucifixions were very rarely ways of executing someone. They were meant to torture, humiliate and then let go. A dangerous cult leader would never be crucified by an intelligent statesman; it would make him a martyr, and fuel his cult. Guess it worked.

Surly you cannot doubt that he died, eh? And you cannot doubt that the deciples, and those wemon that saw him rise were myrterd, and thus they saw him as I have explained before?

Sure I can! I have absolutely no reliable source within his lifetime (or within less than 40 decades of his alledged lifetime) of any such events! I have no secular source of any of this for about 80 years after his alledged death! The Romans, extremely bureocratic and pedantic record-keepers hold absolutely no copy of any record of this Crucifixion, while keeping records of petty theft.

Believing in Jesus out of faith is fantastic. Believing in Jesus because of earthly evidence is not only low and much less valuable, it's downright insane.

[kinvoya]

I doubt that many people here would want you to stop being a Christian, Pie. We do, however, want you to use your brain, get your facts straight (and I mean facts, not guesses) and learn to express your arguments well.

We love you, Pie.

[Pie]

yes I know. *pie feels loved*

I don't articulate things well... Its weird. BUT, my case is SO founded on rock, that you cant win

Anyway, Why don't we all just talk about our religions instead of debaiting a bout them?

[Diego]

Nothing tests the mind and the faith like a good debate and defending your ideals. Keeps you sharp, Pie. We all like our pies sharp.

[west]

Indeed. I love to debait, and I just stopped posting here becaus of peoples blind views.

schwaaa?!

Back to atheism-as-belief, the late great Douglas Adams had this to say:

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn’t belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don’t believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn’t make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don’t know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it’s the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance.

[formerly known as hf]

Who needs Jesus when you can have anal sex?

[DylPickle]

^^

umm.... Jesus

[Pie]

It is imposibal for him to have lived,becaus crisifying people is a sure way of killing someone

Crucifixion was an extremely common, non-lethal procedure in those times. People were crucified for a while, then let down. There is even debate as to whether Jesus would have spent enough time on the Cross to die (most individuals were crucified anywhere from hours to a couple of days).

and a spear through your heart.

The Lancea Longini that Gaius Cassius pierced Jesus with went, quite famously, through his side. Read your Gospel of John (Chapter 19, verse 34), Pie.

If someone lived after being crusified, than the people who were ment to crusify him were put to death themselves.

Now you're flat-out making this up. Crucifixions were very rarely ways of executing someone. They were meant to torture, humiliate and then let go. A dangerous cult leader would never be crucified by an intelligent statesman; it would make him a martyr, and fuel his cult. Guess it worked.

Surly you cannot doubt that he died, eh? And you cannot doubt that the deciples, and those wemon that saw him rise were myrterd, and thus they saw him as I have explained before?

Sure I can! I have absolutely no reliable source within his lifetime (or within less than 40 decades of his alledged lifetime) of any such events! I have no secular source of any of this for about 80 years after his alledged death! The Romans, extremely bureocratic and pedantic record-keepers hold absolutely no copy of any record of this Crucifixion, while keeping records of petty theft.

Believing in Jesus out of faith is fantastic. Believing in Jesus because of earthly evidence is not only low and much less valuable, it's downright insane.

Alright. Why don't you try and read this http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... orner.html

I tried to read it, it was way to long.

maby you could try and read it and get your answers frome there.

bacus All I can say is that in the bible it also said that WATER pourd frome the wounds. And the only way for that to happen is for the heart... to be wreked or somthing. And even if the spear was in his side, a stomak wound IS FATAL untreated with our medical expeariance. At least I'm sure it is. It is fatal.

what proof do you have that crusifying was NOT lethal? now THAT is an asumption. And I will make an asumption to couter it. Why would Pilat ceep jesus alive? why wouldn't he kill him? Is he more dangerous dead or alive? I would think that Pilat would think he was more dangerous alive.

And there is evidence that jesus lived and died. it is here http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html
and there is also an argument about it there.
and also, there is one of this other guy, but I can't find him and I will make you do it.