Religions

[Andu]

If I'm not out evangelizing and trying to convert others, and I'm minding my own business, then I need not prove anything. If you tell me that my beliefs are wrong, then the burden of proof is on you.

Well, that's somewhat how we all do.

[RedQueen.exe]

I personally think that atheism is a religious persuasion, which in my mind makes atheists that try to advance atheism and condemn people who try to advance religion hypocrites. There's a reason why I don't get involved in, or even read these threads dealing with this issue, because I'm always terribly annoyed. I can't prove my God exists. They can't prove he doesn't. Their arguments are just as baseless as a believer's. Stop the hypocrisy.

That's only true of strong atheism, which I think are in the minority, at least of atheists that have spent some time following and adjusting to argument.

Strong atheism says "there is no god"
Weak atheism says "there is no reason to think that there is a god"

If you follow the principle of parsimony, you should not create additional entities that are not required in order to explain things. I see no reason a god is required to explain anything. The things we used to believe were the result of gods, such as the rise and fall of the sun, were later discovered not to be.

Weak atheism is perfectly compatible with agnosticism. I am both an agnostic and weak atheist. I could think up thousands of variations on gods which all manage to be undetectable, but none of them would be defensible. If someone chooses to not apply science to their religious beliefs, and elects not to defend them, then I have nothing to attack other than their choice of philosophy in choosing what to believe.

The burden of proof is always on the person positing the existence of some unknown force, entity, etc. The idea that atheism is "just another belief" is incorrect, except potentially in the case of "strong" atheism.

I don't go out of my way to argue with religious people, because some people find the implications of non-existence of a god/heaven/etc. depressing. I don't want to take those thoughts away from people if they comfort them, as long as they don't hate their gay son or daughter because they think a god says they should, tell me I'm going to be eternally tormented because their god doesn't like people that express their honest opinion, think that it is okay to implicitly intimidate religious minorities by putting the 10 commandments in courtrooms, think that just because I don't fear eternal torment that that means I'm gong to go out and hurt people, etc. (I really worry about the people that imply the only reason they aren't out raping and pillaging is because they believe they'll burn eternally if they do. Sorry, but most people don't have a natural desire to hurt others)

If you want something "atheistic" that could potentially be compared to religion, secular humanism would probably come closer to filling that bill.

[Henkie]

The 10 commandments aren't exactly a good basis for law.

In fact, the 10 commandments have underpinned western law for centuries, indeed for millenniums, they took a code of morals which say basically, you don't kill, you honer god, you don't steal etc. etc. Now ofcourse anybody will now ask: What's wrong with them? Now, with those 10 there is nothing wrong in particular. But the problem lies in what they don't do.
They don't stop slavery, for instance. There is no mention of it and the people in those days kept slaves! So what a perfect society they have because they abide their 10 'commandments'. What did God forget hmm?
The 10 commandments are the hysterical believings of a group of desert tribes. Those desert tribes have stored up more misery for mankind than any other group of people in the history of the planet. And they are doing it to this very day. Those commandments, even the name: commandments! The Christian Faith bid us be commanded, life is much more exciting than that! It has to do with finding out, not with being told what to do by some awful patriarch. They say life has improved because of them, I say they've suppressed, tyrannized and bullied.

[RedQueen.exe]

The best example of morality from the bible came from Christ's "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (I realize there may be some dispute over the exact translation, there usually is). It is hard for me to think of a single moral principle that could define so much so well as that.

Unfortunately the old testament is full of awful, awful examples. The god of the old testament is a vain tyrant, with little to distinguish him from modern day dictators.

I just had a conversation yesterday that stemmed from the discussions here about heaven and hell. I am surprised no one ever asks how condemning people to hell isn't a punishment on those that may love the person. Imagine a mother that was a good person, is allowed into heaven, but her son has done some awful things and therefore is condemned to hell. How could that heaven truly be the utopia it is claimed to be to her when she knows that her son is suffering unending torment?

But back to your point Henkie, I do find it strange/annoying when people insist that the US was "founded on christian principles", because - since we don't enforce rules about obeying the sabbath or other things unique to christianity, it seems to imply that they think that not murdering, stealing, etc. are uniquely christian principles, lol.

[Henkie]

The best example of morality from the bible came from Christ's "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (I realize there may be some dispute over the exact translation, there usually is). It is hard for me to think of a single moral principle that could define so much so well as that.
...
But back to your point Henkie, I do find it strange/annoying when people insist that the US was "founded on christian principles", because - since we don't enforce rules about obeying the sabbath or other things unique to christianity, it seems to imply that they think that not murdering, stealing, etc. are uniquely christian principles, lol.

Even that sucks, what if I like being punished or being hit by people? Then according to that statement it's okay for me to do so. No one moral code is universal, so no one should try to write down or define what is moral justice and such.

I just find the 10 commandments the bizarre extremist thoughts of a group of desert tribes. Therefor everything that praises the commandments for their universal appliance should take a second look at what is doesn't do. I don't even care about what should uniquely Christian or so

[Chris]

Unfortunately the old testament is full of awful, awful examples. The god of the old testament is a vain tyrant, with little to distinguish him from modern day dictators.

Just to take one story, the Great Flood, what percentage of the human species did God kill? 99.9%? Are there others who are admired for killing a large percentage of the human species?

Then there is the problem of God's inaction in the face of evil. Several years ago, there was a case of two teen friends. One of them walked into a restroom to see his friend sexually assaulting a 7-year-old girl. He said and did nothing to stop his friend. The girl was later found killed in that same restroom. There was universal condemnation of the teen who saw the crime in progress yet did nothing. Presumably, any omniscient God also saw the crime in progress and did nothing. The standard defense of the God who allows evil to happen is that to stop evil would be to destroy free will. However, the teen who did nothing and others in similar situations have responsibilities to act, and we can assume that those actions would not destroy the free will of the criminals they hinder. So why doesn't God stop evil - at least the worst cases of it? If someone could have stopped the Holocaust, knew it, and yet did nothing, we would condemn that person. Was God unable to stop the Holocaust, or unwilling?

[RedQueen.exe]

The best example of morality from the bible came from Christ's "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (I realize there may be some dispute over the exact translation, there usually is). It is hard for me to think of a single moral principle that could define so much so well as that.
...
But back to your point Henkie, I do find it strange/annoying when people insist that the US was "founded on christian principles", because - since we don't enforce rules about obeying the sabbath or other things unique to christianity, it seems to imply that they think that not murdering, stealing, etc. are uniquely christian principles, lol.

Even that sucks, what if I like being punished or being hit by people? Then according to that statement it's okay for me to do so. No one moral code is universal, so no one should try to write down or define what is moral justice and such.

I just find the 10 commandments the bizarre extremist thoughts of a group of desert tribes. Therefor everything that praises the commandments for their universal appliance should take a second look at what is doesn't do. I don't even care about what should uniquely Christian or so

Oh I agree, but as far as simplified general rules go, it's pretty good. One could always say it even covers those cases if you use it to mean that you would want someone to respect your own personal wishes, so even if you like being hit, you want someone to respect the things you <i>don't</i> want done to you... blah blah blah, lol. It leaves a lot open to interpretation, but most simple statements do, which is why our codified law looks so nasty and has the joke of having taken on a language of its own, "legalese".

[RedQueen.exe]

Unfortunately the old testament is full of awful, awful examples. The god of the old testament is a vain tyrant, with little to distinguish him from modern day dictators.

Just to take one story, the Great Flood, what percentage of the human species did God kill? 99.9%? Are there others who are admired for killing a large percentage of the human species?

Then there is the problem of God's inaction in the face of evil. Several years ago, there was a case of two teen friends. One of them walked into a restroom to see his friend sexually assaulting a 7-year-old girl. He said and did nothing to stop his friend. The girl was later found killed in that same restroom. There was universal condemnation of the teen who saw the crime in progress yet did nothing. Presumably, any omniscient God also saw the crime in progress and did nothing. The standard defense of the God who allows evil to happen is that to stop evil would be to destroy free will. However, the teen who did nothing and others in similar situations have responsibilities to act, and we can assume that those actions would not destroy the free will of the criminals they hinder. So why doesn't God stop evil - at least the worst cases of it? If someone could have stopped the Holocaust, knew it, and yet did nothing, we would condemn that person. Was God unable to stop the Holocaust, or unwilling?

What I find so repellent about that is all the young children that are killed in the process. As is the case with many natural disasters attributed to divine punishment, the flood surely killed a number of babies who could not have possibly yet been able to sin. What is the justice there for them?

It bothers me deeply listening to people try to give self-centered rationalizations for the suffering of young children, such as babies born with terrible diseases and disformities that die at a young age. They talk about how the child was there to teach us some kind of lesson and is with their creator now, but what lesson did the child learn from a brief life full of suffering? Even if people learn something from it, how is that fair to the child? Robert Ingersoll took a similar issue with the story of Job:

The story of Job shocks the heart of every good man. In this book there is some poetry, some pathos, and some philosophy, but the story of this drama called Job, is heartless to the last degree. The children of Job are murdered to settle a little wager between God and the Devil. Afterward, Job having remained firm, other children are given in the place of the murdered ones. Nothing, however, is done for the children who were murdered.

[Snickie]

I've been trying to avoid posting in this whole conversation, especially since there seems to be nobody (as of late) posting the other side(s) of the argument. Apparently I failed, because now I'm replying.

Unfortunately the old testament is full of awful, awful examples. The god of the old testament is a vain tyrant, with little to distinguish him from modern day dictators.

Just to take one story, the Great Flood, what percentage of the human species did God kill? 99.9%? Are there others who are admired for killing a large percentage of the human species?

Then there is the problem of God's inaction in the face of evil. Several years ago, there was a case of two teen friends. One of them walked into a restroom to see his friend sexually assaulting a 7-year-old girl. He said and did nothing to stop his friend. The girl was later found killed in that same restroom. There was universal condemnation of the teen who saw the crime in progress yet did nothing. Presumably, any omniscient God also saw the crime in progress and did nothing. The standard defense of the God who allows evil to happen is that to stop evil would be to destroy free will. However, the teen who did nothing and others in similar situations have responsibilities to act, and we can assume that those actions would not destroy the free will of the criminals they hinder. So why doesn't God stop evil - at least the worst cases of it? If someone could have stopped the Holocaust, knew it, and yet did nothing, we would condemn that person. Was God unable to stop the Holocaust, or unwilling?

I see a little bit of inconsistency in your argument.

Do you know the context of the whole "Noah's Ark" and "Great Flood" stories? All the people of the earth were behaving immorally (to put it nicely) and had turned away from their God. Thus, he punished them by destroying all of them via the flood, except for Noah and his family because Noah found favor with God.
And yet you say that God isn't doing anything to stop "crime".

If they could speak to us now, then they'd probably say that God certainly didn't find favor in their eyes for killing them, but they would probably admit that they realized (in retrospect) that what they were doing was wrong. The views of "right" and "wrong" vary from person to person; it's an opinion-based issue. With regards to what is defined as "right" and "wrong", the only opinion that matters in the end is God's.

Another point I should make regarding the Christian beliefs: we exist to serve and glorify God, not the other way around. Unfortunately, not every Christian lives this fact, thus indicating that many Christians are hypocrites. But what religion doesn't have hypocrites? Anyway, moving on.

If everytime somebody did something wrong God came in and dealt justice to that person (a.k.a. death), then He'd start gaining a very bad opinion amongst the people. "But, he only stole one fruit! Why'd you have to kill him?" (Parallels to Adam&Eve eating the fruit of the forbidden tree were unintentional; I just used the first example that came to mind.) Actually, there will come a time when that will become the justice system again, for 1000 years, but it won't happen until the Lord returns in his full glory.

There are other sides to the story that you can't argue against until you understand them. Changed lives, for example. Sometimes God will take the 'worst' people, and bring them to their knees in order to get them to understand Him, and when the world sees their change(s), it glorifies God in a much brighter light than if he had just said, "Alright, let's kill all the rapists, the drug abusers, the adulterists, the murderers, the burglars, the liars, the jealous people, and the children who don't obey their parents." For some people it's mental, for others (like my father and my uncle) it's physical. Some people will allow God to change them. Others will harden their hearts and continue to their self-inflicted doom.

Until you understand all sides of the debate, you'll never be able to properly support your own arguments against everybody else's arguments.

As for the mother who lives righteously and is close to God, yet her son chooses to draw away from God.... It's not thought of in Heaven. She'll mourn for him on Earth, but when she gets to Heaven there is no more weeping, hurt, pain, darkness, sickness, shame, etc, but there will be eternal joy and peace and love forever. It's a difficult concept to grasp, really, but that's another conversation. The people who end up in Hell are there because of their own choices and actions.

One thing I'm inferring from your arguments that I could be wrong about based on the fact that you haven't brought Satan into the equation at all is that you understand that evil doesn't come from Satan, but from the human heart. Satan merely aggravates it, the great Tempter.


I'd say more, but my mom is whisking me away to eat.

[Henkie]

I just stick with my old post lol, I've had my say, I despise almost all forms or organized religion.

Religion is fine. Implementing religion is where it always goes wrong...

Do it quietly, be satisfied with your own religion and don't bother others.

It's the only way to keep it on the good side.

[RedQueen.exe]

On second thought, going to give others a chance to respond first. Forum mods can delete this post if they wish.

[Alladinsane]

I wish I could say something.

Its interesting reading at least.

[Chris]

I see a little bit of inconsistency in your argument.

Do you know the context of the whole "Noah's Ark" and "Great Flood" stories? All the people of the earth were behaving immorally (to put it nicely) and had turned away from their God. Thus, he punished them by destroying all of them via the flood, except for Noah and his family because Noah found favor with God.
And yet you say that God isn't doing anything to stop "crime".

I am consistent. If those victims of genocide had committed crimes, God did not prevent those crimes from happening, despite having the power to do so.

If everytime somebody did something wrong God came in and dealt justice to that person (a.k.a. death), then He'd start gaining a very bad opinion amongst the people. "But, he only stole one fruit! Why'd you have to kill him?" (Parallels to Adam&Eve eating the fruit of the forbidden tree were unintentional; I just used the first example that came to mind.) Actually, there will come a time when that will become the justice system again, for 1000 years, but it won't happen until the Lord returns in his full glory.

Why not prevent the crime in the first place? Did allowing the Holocaust help God's reputation?

The people who end up in Hell are there because of their own choices and actions.

Are they not the products of God? Are they defective? Why should God punish people whose natures are exactly as he made them or allowed them to become? How does torture fix anything?

One thing I'm inferring from your arguments that I could be wrong about based on the fact that you haven't brought Satan into the equation at all is that you understand that evil doesn't come from Satan, but from the human heart. Satan merely aggravates it, the great Tempter.

Who created Satan? Is God not infinitely more powerful than Satan? Also, in the story of Job, God seems to have a cordial relationship with Satan. They have a little wager and watch as Job and those he loves suffer.

If Satan is the Great Deceiver, isn't it possible that he wrote the Bible? Maybe there is no God, only Satan toying with you. Once you posit an evil being of great power capable of misleading humans, how can you be sure of anything, including what religion tells you about God?

[gejyspa]

So does the soul always "long to be with its creator", even if a person doesn't belive in a creator , or just in the afterlife? Would that imply that the all people/creature subconsciously "longs to be with its creator"?

Also, thread necro so religion-rants can be redirected here. And I used citations marks to distinguish what I borrowed.

Since this was directed to me, the traditional Jewish belief is "yes". But of course, that's a tricky answer. E.g., if my soul feels this way, why doesn't my mind feel it? The Jewish POV is that while the soul is some sort of basically perfect and eternal essence, it is temporally bound to an imperfect body that has its own needs and wants that often mask and overpower the desires of the soul, and so there is always a basic fight between one's good inclinations and one's evil inclinations.

[gejyspa]

The 10 commandments aren't exactly a good basis for law.

In fact, the 10 commandments have underpinned western law for centuries, indeed for millenniums, they took a code of morals which say basically, you don't kill, you honer god, you don't steal etc. etc. Now ofcourse anybody will now ask: What's wrong with them? Now, with those 10 there is nothing wrong in particular. But the problem lies in what they don't do.
They don't stop slavery, for instance. There is no mention of it and the people in those days kept slaves! So what a perfect society they have because they abide their 10 'commandments'. What did God forget hmm?
The 10 commandments are the hysterical believings of a group of desert tribes. Those desert tribes have stored up more misery for mankind than any other group of people in the history of the planet. And they are doing it to this very day. Those commandments, even the name: commandments! The Christian Faith bid us be commanded, life is much more exciting than that! It has to do with finding out, not with being told what to do by some awful patriarch. They say life has improved because of them, I say they've suppressed, tyrannized and bullied.

It's true, they did have slaves. But let's not color our view of slaves by the way slavery was expressed in Egypt, Greece or pre-US Civil Law. Let's look at what Judaism and the Bible says about slaves:
1) Slaves were to go free in the seventh year, and with payment for his service (Deut 15:13-14)
2) They may voluntarily give up this right, but must be released in the jubilee year (Lev 25:39-40)
3) Physical injury of a slave frees him immediately (Ex. 21:26-27)
4) Runaway slaves are not to be returned (Deut. 23:15-16)
5) Killing a slave has the same punishment as killing a free person -- execution (Ex. 21:20)
6) Slaves must rest on Shabbat the same as free men (Deut. 5:14)
7) You must provide your slave with food and a bed at least as good as your own (and if there was only one bed, the slave got it) (Talmud tractate Gittin and Kiddushin 22a)
The slave must not be forced to perform demeaning, degrading, or disgusting tasks, nor even just "busy work" (dervied from Lev. 25:43)
9) Slaves in priestly households could even eat the holy food, something that no free non-priest could do (Lev. 22:10-11)

So as you can see, slavery (which mostly existed as an institution to which a poor man might sell himself as a slave in order to survive, or a thief might be sentenced by the court to be a slave of his victim, if he hadn't the means to make restitution), while not a perfect institution in the eyes of modern sensibilities, was not like that practiced by other nations.