Religion… What do you think?

@samuraibuddha: But as I said with that logic people shouldn't be able to make fun of anything. Respect is a subjective thing as well.

I pretty much addressed it all in the above post so I won't repeat myself.

Precisely.

I'm a muslim.

Dun dun DUNNN!!!!!

I already brief explained this as my second existence, meaning I had a prior, superseding consciousness.

What makes you think that there's a way to be much worse off than me, worldly speaking, that is? God answers my financial prayers in the midst of troubles of others the same way He blesses others such as His chosen Jewish people; the same way He allowed the United States to exist relatively undamaged during WWII, while other countries were devastated. Only followers of Jesus can make the arguments that I make; any other examples can be attributed to the randomness that you speak of. If you're someone who's never experienced my experiences, one, you should check yourself, and two, not every scientists experienced the fortunes of Newton or Einstein; since all scientists do not have the same experiences, do you say Newton's and Einstein's fortunes are their own illusions? I'm thankful to be blessed with my status of existence and a follower of Christ, where I reap the promised benefits.

I can know that it was God who revealed Himself to me, because I go to church and read the Bible; others who do this can know that it was God who revealed Himself to them, also. These two places will help followers of Jesus know the difference between God or the author of confusion, Satan; anything inconsistent with the Word is a clear sign that one is being deceived by Satan, while things consistent with the Word is consistent with God.

But Satan knows GOD too... he actually knows GOD better than any Human can know him because he actually lived with GOD in Heaven... so saying that you go to Church and read the Bible is Meaningless. The Bible even says that Satan can turn himself into a Being of Light and since he knows the actual attributes of GOD from physical experience... How can you say that Satan can't trick you into following him ?

Who says Satan has to say something inconsistent with the Word ? Satan already knows the Word so he can use it to his own advantage against Humans. Especially since his nature is that of a trickster anyways. Since no man in modern times has seen GOD ever... you would not be able to discern the difference between Satan as a being of Light using his power to help you in efforts to gain your worship and affection against GOD trying to woo you. Think about that for a minute.

It's like talking to crazy people.

@dccomicsrule2011 said:

Wouldn't a God be an atheist anyway though? Unless the said God happened to also be an extreme narcissist. Are you?

@sundeep said:

@dccomicsrule2011 said:

Wouldn't a God be an atheist anyway though? Unless the said God happened to also be an extreme narcissist. Are you?

The God of the Bible is indeed an extreme narcissist. All the evidence needed is right in the 10 Commandments. If that's not enough then read the Bible.

@king_saturn: By seen do you mean in the litteral sense, or like; heard him or spoke with him?

Visually

In that case.. It'd probably be impossible. I think i remember reading a man in ancient times spoke with God, and requested to get a glimpse of him. God told him he would pass between a a valley and the man was to watch from afar or something. Anyway, They did just that, and the man saw God for a split second and a few adys later, he was found unconcious with his hair white. He was alive however.

Nice story, emphasis on the word story

@lordraiden: I dont think its a story however

Us and atheists? We do get along, just not on Yahoo Answers and the rest of the internet.

So you think it's non-fiction? Why is that?

@mandarinestro: Lmfao.

@lordraiden: Well due to the fact I'm a devout Christian.

Luke 1:37 "For with GOD nothing shall be Impossible"

If we takes these ole words from Yeshua seriously, then why can't GOD make himself visible to Humans ?

@king_saturn: Well, I think it's due to the fact God in his pure form is too holy to be sen by mortals, that's why he's always taken the form of a human whenever appearing in the bible.

Oh man, I'm laughing so hard.

@hylian: omgfr I'm a christian and hat makes me lawl

So it's faith that helps you believe? What if any evidence provided contradicted that faith?

@lordraiden: Faith in what? The story, or God?

I have nothing against spirituality and religious ideologies in theory. Believe in what you want all you want as long as you don't shove it down anyone's throat. And I'm always glad to admit that there are some very interesting aspects to religions and sacred texts.

Religion applied to life as a strict guide to follow though, I generally dislike. And I've had my fair share of experience dealing with a few major religions in this form. All I've seen it do is limit potentially smart human beings and reduce them to what I like to call life noobs. Having to follow a tutorial constantly to get through shit. I just think it's a shame really.

I do believe that a long long time ago when people lacked education religious guidance was a great way to keep people safe from certain dangers and apply basic society rules, but nowadays we've evolved so much that it's just slowing people who take it too seriously down and keeping them from being open minded and actually doing some thinking of their own.

Well sometimes GOD takes forms of other things instead of Humanoid... I mean GOD supposedly took the form of a Burning Bush to speak with Moses... and then you have the incident when GOD descended down from Heaven in a Thick Cloud of Smoke with Loud Noises as Trumpets in Exodus. Supposedly, you could say GOD was in Human Form when he descended down to Earth in Exodus... but usually Humans don't cover a Mountain in Thick Clouds of Smoke and descend down onto Mountains.

Can't you argue exactly the same thing about social and political ideologies? All of that 'these things are CAPITALIST/COMMUNIST, which automatically makes them EVIL' nonsense. Face it- we live in a society. And as such, everyone will always have to follow a tutorial constantly to get through shit. Religious guidance was the first form of education; and if you took religious doctrine out of the equation altogether, then what would law and order look like?

Why should people have equal rights to live- they're not equal in their abilities or worth, and there is no such thing as a 'soul', is there? As such, why shouldn't we kill off weak and poor people to better the lives of the rich and powerful people who actually matter, mitigating population growth to allow for long-term sustainability? Survival of the Fittest- it's evolution, the natural order. And the impoverished people, the disabled people- hell, even the homosexual people, seeing as they'll never contribute to the gene pool anyway- what purpose do they serve, other than to take resources and opportunities away from the healthier breeding population? Adopting a purely atheist mindset, if one were to reject religious teachings, guidance and prejudices entirely, wouldn't this eugenics argument make perfect logical sense?

Along with several others- what's wrong with punching people in the face- our faces (males' faces, anyway) evolved their shape specifically to take blows from others' fists, didn't they? What's wrong with cannibalism? Human flesh is the most abundant meat on earth, and it all goes to waste. Think of how much less of a toll it would take on our environment if we did abandon the religious arguments which we use to reject its consumption. End world hunger! And as for genetic splicing, well, we could use it to do so many things! Boost our immune systems so that no-one ever has to die from diseases again, give ourselves photosynthetic pigments so that no-one ever has to starve to death again, boost our liver functions so that no-one ever has to die of thirst again- the possibilities are limitless, but we choose to reject because our religious adherence to the illogical, scientifically disproven notion that the current human form is somehow exceptional, superior, pure, perfect. Why?

Following these tutorials doesn't make you a 'life noob'; in fact, it's the opposite. Conformity to a tutorial- or, indeed, creating one own 'tutorial' by which to live one's own life, as many people do with religion, choosing to innovate rather than purely conform to every single element of the established religious theology - is a sign of life experience. It indicates progress, not a lack of it. You can't avoid the fact that atheism is still a religious theology, any more than the fact that asexuality is a sexual orientation. But your religious doctrine, more than any other, preaches that everything in religion should be taken seriously; that atheists should be kept from being open-minded about religion, decrying any (other) form of religion as being wrong, primitive, idiotic, stupid, etc etc.

Spiritually, theologically, where is the open-mindedness? How are you able to do any real in-depth thinking of your own, if you immediately reject every religious doctrine (other than your own) solely on account of its existence, choosing to be prejudiced against it from the off? There are plenty of atheistic religions out there as well, but your brand of atheism, the one which we refer to in the Western World as 'Atheism', isn't actually atheistic. A far more accurate term would be 'antitheism'.

WOW talk about paraphrasing and misinterpreting everything.

@dimitridkatsis: Please elaborate. Which instances did you take exception to, as perceived examples of 'paraphrasing' and 'misinterpretation'? And why would you count them as such?

Pretty much from the start, the guy didn't point out how capitalism, communism or political ideologies aren't flawed, from then on you go on preaching about the possibility of becoming less moral without religion to conclude that's not open mindedness. Draw from human history, remember Gallileo? He was open minded for his time, how would the religious state treat him and many other people with radical thoughts? That's right change your mind or die. Now tell me an example of someone hurting other people becausehe thinks there's no God. And furthermore it's round.

@sundeep: Dude, I don't think you understood my post well. I'm not rejecting religions at all, in fact I said quite the opposite in my post. But it seems you only paid attention to the parts you felt like contradicting.

I'm just saying that I believe certain people would be better off (and would cause less shit) if they were able to see beyond the written rules in religious texts/principles to determine their life choices and the view they have on others. There's a difference between adapting to a society, its gneral codes and its norms to be able to coexist, which is obviously unavoidable considering how advanced we are now, and living your life by the rules of one very specific "guide" and not considering that anything that strays from it might actually also be worth checking out/attempting to understand. I'm not saying all religious people are like this of course. It's just the ones that are that I have a problem with, like I said in my original post.

And yeah you're right, this can also be applied to people very inclined in following a very specific political party or ideology, or any other extreme and very selective views really, but the topic here is religion isn't it? I believe so.

You can't say that they hurt other people because they didn't believe in God (any more than you can say that other historical figures hurt people specifically because they did believe in God, rather than simply being evil people) but there are plenty of atheists who've done pretty evil things, and used their own atheistic ideologies to try and justify their actions. Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were all atheists, and they all ordered open-minded people under their tyrannical rule to 'change their minds or die' in exactly the same manner. The instances I gave were all examples of policies which people could easily condone as being ethical and moralistic in the absence of existing religious moral bias. Why should we frown upon eating human flesh, so long as the humans providing the meat die natural deaths and provide their consent? After the intensive impact which they had on the natural environment which had to support them over the course of their lives, surely it's the least they can do? And why shouldn't we use splicing (or even artificial pigmentation implantations, with the necessary surgical techniques having already been established for decades) to add xanthopterin to our own skin pigments, allowing us to photosynthesize in the same manner as Oriental Hornets? I wasn't actually arguing that any of these policies would be immoral at all- I was arguing that, without any religious biases whatsoever, why shouldn't people perceive them to be moralistic policies, ones which would be an improvement on the status quo for the vast majority of people?. It's ovoid- it isn't round, because it isn't perfectly smooth. There is always an element of rugosity in a constantly shifting and changing landscape.

Alright then. And I agree that most people would be better off if they were to determine their own life choice and views themselves, making their own decisions rather than accepting being brainwashed by the principles and prejudices of their immediate social group. But what I'm saying is that religious texts, principles and theologies change with the times as well, adapting to the changes in society just as political manifestos, principles and theologies change with the times as well. Both rely on popular support for their continued survival; and if certain policies no longer have popular support, then they will be abandoned by the wayside, with only radical extremists continuing to adhere to them with the same fervour. The vast majority don't consider theological wars conducted with the explicit purpose of exterminating opposing theological factions (eg, the Crusades, Jihads, WW2, The Holocaust, the Vietnam War) to be politically or religiously correct any more. Those religions shouldn't be judged by the actions and policies advocated by religious extremists who do, and who continue to restrict freedoms and punish deviants in accordance with millennia-old rules and guidelines, any more than Right Wing politics should be judged by the actions and policies of fanatical anti-semitic Neo-Nazis, or Left Wing Politics should be judged by the actions of homophobe Neo-Stalinists. Don't tar progressive moderates with the same brush as reactionary extremists.

@sundeep people being physically hurt for threatening religious dogma by speaking their mind is a fact. Lenin, Stalin etc. performed their atrocities backing political ideologies, I already said are flawed, while having an agenda of becoming powerful leaders not spreading atheism, some have used the church to achieve their goals. Remeber the time religion ruled the world, the Dark Ages, people died also under tyrrany not being able to fight or even speak against the state and lasted longer than any World War, Lenin, Stalin or any of those guys.

- TAS

But was the motive for enforcing those rules in the Dark Ages truly the religious fervour of those rulers, or merely their own self-interest? Didn't those people also have their own selfish agendas to become powerful rulers and impose their tyrannical rule by force back then as well?

Indeed, still your point is non moral behaviour consuming us, here it is backed by the bible not leaving space for doubt and demanding obedience under an absolute morality. And it is backed by the bible big time by the way, there are more than enough moments discrediting non believers as lesser people and makes clear certain thoughts and ways of life are forbidden and punishable. It's a dogma and by believing it is the only way of living we leave ourselves open to being manipulated and mistreated no?

Cleisthenes' original manifesto for democracy had a fair few similar flaws as well though, didn't it? Following absolutist dogma is idiotic, of course. But the vast majority of those who follow religions, having made the choice to follow those religions themselves, aren't absolutist or dogmatic.

Well now, how is this choice being made exactly. No one gave you a version of how the world was created since infancy and you searched and came to your own conclusions? Most people are taught religion in schools. I do find it as fascinating as history but to being taught a moral code from a very early age with the assumption that if you make mistakes eternal suffering will follow is not exactly something you chose.

Isn't that exactly what those scientists did? No-one knows anything at birth. And the majority of people don't conduct their own scientific test to verify the scientific theories which they're taught about in schools. They simply accept it on the basis of faith.

If you don't believe in any form of life after death, then any suffering until the end of this life is effectively 'eternal suffering'. And evryone in our society is taught that if you make mistakes deviating from the moral code- drugs abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, murder, etc- then you will suffer the repercussions of your 'crimes', most likely for the entire remainder of your life- effectively, for your own personal eternity. We may be taught that all of these things are wrong from a very early age, with threats of 'eternal suffering' in the form of life-term jail sentences or execution used to warn us not to commit these acts. Even so, we do still make the choice not to (or to) commit these crimes, do we not?

Really now, religious texts and principles have evolved? You sure about that? Because last time I checked they really don't, and that's precisely the main cause of extremism and most religious issues. Some principles are outdated or much too vague now, and religions still rely mostly on texts that are centuries old. So they do not adapt to changes in society like you claim they do.

As you say it is true that most people do take those principles with a grain of salt now, and this just brings us back to the starting point: I have nothing against these people and their view on religion.

But the texts and principles themselves have not changed.

I don't see where this debate is going on your side because you pretty much keep repeating that religions are fine except for extremists and that's exactly what I was saying in my first post.

"Don't tar progressive moderates with the same brush as reactionary extremists." You're blaming me for something I never ever wrote or even insinuated so this is totally sterile and pointless.

Taking the scientific approach- searching and coming to their own conclusions. And scientific results wouldn't require faith- in a magical world without any margins for error whatsoever, where any individual can test every single scientific theory perfectly themselves, without any doubt whatsoever about the test results, their own reasoning processes or their own sensory perception. They can't, and they don't. Therefore, some element of faith is involved.

And if you're no longer around to see it, if you die, then 'eternity' becomes irrelevant. If you suffer until the moment you die, then you essentially suffer until the end of your own perception of time- your personal perception of 'eternity'. I'm arguing that all of the examples which I provided can actually be explained just as easily even to people without any religious beliefs whatsoever, but that those irreligious people will still have to make a conscious choice whether or not to follow all these laws and doctrines dogmatically. Even for those who believe in a vengeful God (not myself, but several others), extolling retribution for peoples' 'sins', a clear analogy can be drawn with the punishments which are handed to people as punishment for their 'crimes' in any civilized society. A member of a religious community chooses whether or not to 'sin', just the same as a member of a social community chooses whether or not to engage in 'crime'. Religion doesn't commit crimes, any more than Society or Politics does. People do commit crimes in their name though, as they do with any theological doctrine.

That's what happens when you spend too much time talking about religion in the internet and taking everyone's arguments too seriously.

Yeah I said before religious and political crimes are both facts, science isn't faith, it never stops to challenge itself or disprove it even. You see followers of the "we use only 10% of our brains" theory waging war on the rest of the scientific community? What is sin any way or crime for that matter? They're both man made definitions of actions, you can commit an act that is technically a crime or a sin and your actions may be logical because if you didn't harm would come to you or any number of reasons, working for our own benefit is natural. There is not only suffering in life there are good times too why are you talking about suffering so much? A member of a religious community thinks that if sins are regretted before dying he wins afterlife status, or if punishing the non believers etc. Now THAT'S wicked.

A member of a religious community may well be brainwashed into thinking that. Which specific one did you have in mind? And BTW, I wasn't the one placing the emphasis on eternal suffering. Why are you hating on religion and God so much? Don't you have the good times in life to be grateful for as well?

@sundeep according to christianity regret leads to fogiveness of sins. Yes you are emphasizing eternal suffering then just jumped to the conclusion I hate something that I don't believe exists. Yeah I've had good times, I'm grateful to those who were responsible and myself.