Obviously you can answer this question in a lot of ways -- you can say "yes" or "no" -- but there are lots of nuances that make the question different from something like "do you believe in leprechauns?" Hopefully you'll all understand the general terms, but I just want to clarify on a few points.

God can be Allah or YHWH or Jesus Christ or whoever. This is like a specific God with specific deeds done throughout history -- a more personal God who saves, chooses prophets, makes convenants, and so on.

Or God might be more abstract, just as a Creator or an Almighty force of good. That is, this God you believe in isn't specific to a religion, although He has qualities like the Gods of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. You might believe this God to have aspects -- YHWH, Allah, Jesus, Ahura Mazda, etc. -- but transcendent of human religion. Perhaps this God chooses to leave us alone, or maybe He still really loves us but wants us to act of our own accord.

Perhaps you might believe in a general sort of Godhead, a sort of metaphysical power. Say, Nirvana, or heaven, or some kind of universal consciousness. Maybe you believe in the idea of "getting unstuck in time" as per Vonnegut.

Spinoza's God is the sort of God that is completely impersonal and beyond us. This is God as the universe unfolding over time, the idea that there is some sort of order and beauty to the universe. There is meaning to the world, but no greater power holding us in its hands.

Atheism and agnosticism are bound to be common responses to this sort of question. I propose a third answer to this: nontheism. It just means that you don't really regard the question of God's existence as really relevant to how you live life -- similar to the question of "do dragons have wings?" or "is there a man at the Motel 6 named Frank?"

Obviously I have left out a number of answers that you might have to the question of God. This is why I haven't decided to make this thread a poll, since people's beliefs are too nuanced to be really categorized.

For the record, I am something of a lapsed Christian. I am inclined to believe that there is a God, but I really like the idea of nontheism, since it carries the implication to me that I should stop worrying about higher powers and be busy being a good person. However, questions of belief, religion, and faith fascinate me too much to let the idea of God go. I have had thought that I might be an atheist or agnostic, and perhaps if I were a completely logical and intellectual person, I would be, but I also believe in the idea of faith and "bridging the gap", so to speak.

I don't believe in a god of any form. In my eyes, when you die, that's you gone forever. We may not be able to comprehend not existing, but that does not mean that it will not happen. I would like to believe as that would make life seem a whole lot better and more purposeful, but belief is not something that you can simply choose to have.

Ironically, though I don't believe that the way anyone acts has any influence on what happens to them after death, I still try to behave in a 'good' way and have quite strong morals. As an aside, I don't believe that anything is inherently good or evil, but that's another topic entirely.

I do not belive in God nor would I be likely to adopt religion if his/her/its existence was proven to me.
I really belive a hypothetical god would have something better to do than trying impose his morals on everyone and have them worship him.

I really find your Idea about nontheism appealing since I think a person should do good because he himself chooses to and not in fear of eternal damnation or because he is promised an afterlife in a paradise.

I think "barely". As a physical rule, neither power nor material comes to existance from nothing. So there must be something beyond physical rules (metaphysical) which created the universe. I think it is called "God" or "Allah" or something else. Also I don't believe (or I don't want to believe) we won't exist forever, there MUST be something after death. So I believe in Allah but I'm not religious. For example, I have been in a mosque only once and that mosque was a historical one, we were tourists in it.

@Decados:
I don't believe in a god of any form. In my eyes, when you die, that's you gone forever. What does lack of a god have to do with the after life? You're talking about two different - albeit related, for many - things.

My answer to Oaz's question is yes. I believe in a variation of Spinoza's God - a God who embodies the spirit of the universe without being a nanomanager in the lives of the people therein. I'm first and foremost a freewiller.

What does lack of a god have to do with the after life? You're talking about two different - albeit related, for many - things.It's different to visualise an afterlife without at least something like Nirvana, if not actually a personal God.

As for the question, yes, I'm Catholic.

"In this world man's fate is determined by some entity or transcedental force, like the hand of God, at least man know he has no power over his own destiny."


I believe that there is some Higher power, entity or transcedental force, that has been called God. It is this so called being that is the root cause of so called miracles, like the marks of the true stigmata, (not some guy stabbing his hands and feet) and statutes crying blood, (the proper ones, only the ones that are proven to be miracles), and things of that nature.

but i dont believe that this being spend seven days making the universe or hald of the **** in the first hald of the bible, unless there is fact to back it up.


but just to clear things up here im no catholic, im a Scottish Presbyterian, which is part of the Protestant church, but im pretty lapsed when it comes to relgion

I have not seen evidence of a God in the Middle Eastern sense (i.e. Christian, Jewish, Muslim type God who created stuff and tells people what to do) therefore I cannot say I believe such a thing exists.

But I don't think the question is completely without merit, so I'm not completely "Nontheistic". And I don't dis-believe such a thing, so I am not strictly athiestic either.

Maybe in the sense that Oaz claims to be a lapsed Christian - maybe this makes me an undiscovered Christian. But don't take that as invitation for all the missionaries to come knocking at my door with their pamphlets to show me the light.

No, I don't think there's a God. Never have, probably never will.

My answer to Oaz's question is yes. I believe in a variation of Spinoza's God - a God who embodies the spirit of the universe without being a nanomanager in the lives of the people therein. I'm first and foremost a freewiller. I have found this to be an attractive interpretation of God. (Mind you, though, I think a lot of interpretations are attractive, but that's just me.) The main issue I take with this is that it's not an especially comforting view. I recall one theologian stating that events like the Holocaust make us rethink the idea of God as "one of us writ large", but Spinoza's God leaves me with little reassurance. The idea that we are free to as we choose -- without divine consequences and intervention -- is exhilirating and liberating and terrifying.

Regarding nontheism -- how about this idea: that you live as if God exists? If he doesn't, then you still assert and try to live up to transcendent values -- e.g. love, forgiveness. If he does, then it's an affirmation of the existence of transcendent values. Even if I can't bring myself to believe in God (some days), I can still believe in human love.

I don't think there is a God, a higher power, or anything that controls destiny. Like Han Solo said:

"Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I've seen a lot of strange stuff. But I've never seen anything to make me believe that there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. There's no mystical energy field that controls MY destiny."

Same as above. There are no gods in any form. Unless, of course, a trio of naked angels suddenly appears to my door and offers a full-night tryst at the backrooms of Heaven. Then I'll become christian, buddha, hindu, muslim, or whatever they ask. :D

What if God *is* the universe and created itself...

12 - 4, now ye get what I ment in my post mayhap?

As for me, yes I believe in Jehova.

[ September 05, 2006, 08:26: Message edited by: Eldular ]

Easy answer: no.

Slightly more involved answer: I'm an apathetic agnostic. According to Wikipedia my creed is "We don't know and we don't care", and that about sums me up.

Duh, well like God can exist for all I care and I hope I've been s goofd amusement while I've been here and hope I've had some good influence on other peeps although that's not much likeluy but if someone's suffered a little less, I mean if I've eased someones sufering then all's good as much as I care...If I've caused more pain than good then I'll be damned even if there'd be no god, It'll al come out even in the end, I hope...

When I hear a song, it causes me to be happy or sad, or any number of nuanced feelings. I know that the song is really just vibrations in air pressure effecting my nervous system via stimulation of my ear drums---but regardless, songs have made me cry. Songs alter a day's trajectory, or provide an understand where confused feelings were once prior.

That is my god: the feelings stimulated within me by the world around me. I don't expect the stars to provide a home after my death, but goddamn they are beautiful on a clear night.

Spinoza's God is the sort of God that is completely impersonal and beyond us. This is God as the universe unfolding over time, the idea that there is some sort of order and beauty to the universe. There is meaning to the world, but no greater power holding us in its hands. Close enough.

I don't believe in one and if there was one I'd have a few things to say to him such as why hasn't he sorted this **** out with people fighting over who the true god is... but that's probably another topic.

To put it bluntly I see no evidence of there ever being a god and it would take some act of divine intervention to make me even believe in a god - however it wouldn't mean I'd worship him.

I see religion to be a source of quite a few of the worlds major problems and if there is a god? He's failed in my eyes.

I do Believe in God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.

And a few rebuttals for discussion...

In my eyes, when you die, that's you gone forever. We may not be able to comprehend not existing,You're right, such a concept is very foreign to me, just as the possibility of No God at all is virtually unthinkable to me.

I really belive a hypothetical god would have something better to do than trying impose his morals on everyone and have them worship him.But what of the concept of God as the father of our spirits? If that is the case, then His concern for our welfare is Highly justified.

I believe in a variation of Spinoza's God - a God who embodies the spirit of the universe without being a nanomanager in the lives of the people therein. I'm first and foremost a freewiller.If I remember correctly, wasn't Spinoza's book titled "The Ethics"? Basically, I read into that as yet another form of councel on how to live our lives. And though the Bible does contain a number of laws and guidelines, we have the choice to abide or refuse them.

maybe this makes me an undiscovered Christian.And ultimately, you have to discover this for yourself. You can hear me or Chev talk about our faith until we get carpal tunnel so bad our hands are amputated and it won't give you your answer...

that you live as if God exists? If he doesn't, then you still assert and try to live up to transcendent values -- e.g. love, forgiveness. If he does, then it's an affirmation of the existence of transcendent values.Ah yes, Pascal's Wager. If we choose to believe, behave as believers then the rewards await, and if we are wrong, the point becomes moot real fast. I fear too many take the reverse of that, and put themselves before others believing there to be no consequence...

I see religion to be a source of quite a few of the worlds major problems and if there is a god? He's failed in my eyes.I see the opposite. I see Pride, Sloth, Lust, Greed, Gluttony, Wrath and Envy as the source of the world's problems.

Did Catholicism cause the crusades? No, it was a Pope who envied the denezens of the Holy Land and sought to abuse his authority to start a series of wars to claim it.

Does the Roman Catholic church spread AIDS? No, it is the lust of those inflicted that leads them to have sex protected or otherwise.

Does Religion contribute to poverty? No, Corporate and government greed creates an economic system that fails to provide for all the people.

These are just some examples, but God, nor religeon itself is to blame for the ills of the world. It is, rather, the things that Christianity preaches against which send this worls spiralling into the potty...

You can hear me or Chev talk about our faith until we get carpal tunnel so bad our hands are amputated and it won't give you your answer...
Correct, because there are a thousand other people telling me different and contradicting things. No offence to you personally, but I have absolutely no good reason to believe you over all the other people.

Ah yes, Pascal's Wager. If we choose to believe, behave as believers then the rewards await, and if we are wrong, the point becomes moot real fast. I fear too many take the reverse of that, and put themselves before others believing there to be no consequence...

To me, living as if there is a God hasn't got anything to do with heaven or hell or rewards in the afterlife. (I am personally not inclined to believe in a hell, or at least an eternal one.) On the contrary really means that whatever divine rewards or higher powers don't affect you way you behave morally, because you want to make things meaningful. You assert meaning onto the world -- which is my mind a senseless place. I believe that a moral system based on compassion and goodness is best for us. I may accept that the universe is a cold, callous place, but that doesn't mean I have to be a cold and callous person. I try to assert and live up to eternal values -- values God may want me to hold.

Really? If I somehow met God face to face, I think might be ecstatic because it would mean one great affirmation of the existence of love and goodness. But I believe I have to get along without God.

These are just some examples, but God, nor religeon itself is to blame for the ills of the world. It is, rather, the things that Christianity preaches against which send this worls spiralling into the potty... Although I think I have a better opinion of religion than most people on SP, it may just be because of the environment in which I live. In any case, I'm convinced that religion is responsible for awful things, but so is (for example) compassion. You can have a desire to help people and stop suffering, like Robespierre, and end up doing monstrous things because your compassion becomes the ultimate goal, the ultimate driving force that makes you justify murder and crime in the name of compassion. I believe in compassion, but I also believe in reason and self-examination.

[ September 05, 2006, 06:29: Message edited by: Oaz ]

Well, since God in any form doesn´t exist, it´s kinda hard to believe in him/her/it or whatever people claim God is.

God believer here. It is a matter of faith, and not a position that can be argued or arrived at logically. I was not here when the world began, I didn't see any one create it.

@HB, you sound like an Agnostic, you neither believe nor disbeleive, you don't think you can know.

Pascal's Wager only works if there is one God/religion/faith, or if all variations of God/religion/faith are mutually compatible. And, uh, that is not the case.

I believe there are as many gods as there are humans existing on this planet. The only one who I follow though is myself.

An all powerful being?

No

No. I believe in the core values that most religions stand by but not all of the divine crap that comes with it. If I havent seen it with my owns eyes or if it is not scientifically proven, it does not exist. E.g the parting of the water, healing powers, heaven and hell, I see this all just as a selling point to either scare people into joining or to get them to believe in what they believe. I know that the creation of the universe is yet to be determined to 100% but the big bang and the theory of evolution seem like much alternatives to me. If all the religions just cut the divine BS out and preached the core beliefs like the ten commandments (unless one of them is related to the divine in which case ditch that one). There is too much emphasis put on religion and that is why we have large scale conflicts over places like jerusalim (sp?) and gaza. Also, in most religions there is a varient of heaven and hell and as we cannot all be followers of every religion, we are obviously doomed to one hell or another.

As a side note I DO actually believe in the Gods. 4 of them in fact: Anthony, Flea, John and Chad :D

I belive in the theory of evolution and the big bang. But still I belive that Darwin didn't kill religion with his theories he merely understod how god thought when he "started" the universe.

However I don't belive that god is a allmigthy creature in our midst. I don't belive in a certain religion. Just that something must have started everything.

Religion however are for the weak that can't belive in the truth. Religion was invented so that the inventors could earn something as earthly as money and power. People are free to belive what they like and somebody should not atempt to controll people using religion.

I am howvere really inrtresred in religion and I ahve read the bible seven times (took that much to understand it). Something that I found out was that the hell don't exsist.

Lucifer was thrown out of heven when he and other angels with him revolted against god. He was forced to walk the earth together with us. These demos, as they are called, were striped of all thier powers and can only take physical shape in the form of another living createure. The only purpose they serve is to try to make us break the ten comandments. So there is no hell, except on earth. The only time demons are linked to fire are in the book of relevations where they burn to death in a lake of sulfur.

edit: typo

[ September 05, 2006, 11:16: Message edited by: Stardust ]

I believe in God, but probably not the same one that right-wing, pro-war, gun-loving racists worship.

Like Argohir, I only visit churches as a tourist.

I think this question is irrelevant.

Whenever it's asked, it diverts our attention from more important issues. It divides and categorizes people and that's never a good thing. For all those who think one way, but are tolerant towards people with different perspectives, there's enough of those who lack tolerance, are quick to anger and condemn other people who don't share their views.

@Rally..for some strange reason I pretty much agree with you, Sis. :)

My answer to Oaz's question is yes. I believe in a variation of Spinoza's God - a God who embodies the spirit of the universe without being a nanomanager in the lives of the people therein. I'm first and foremost a freewillerOne of the favorite questions on SP. Since I just got my Internet connection back I'll have to think about my personal response.

About an hour ago I decided that I fit strong atheism better than weak atheism. There are no gods.

The why of this is very simple (and I'm using the same arguement I used to turn me from agnostic to an atheist). I can positively state that there are no purple ninja monkeys on the dark side of the moon. Do I have evidence to support that there isn't? Nope. Do I need any? Nope. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The same is true for any god. There is no real reason to not just state that 'there is no god' rather than 'I do not believe in god'.

I really don't understand why most people believe in any kind of God. It makes no sense to me at all (and though I can respect beliefs which are 'just faith' without making any claims on reality easier - I think I understand them even less than those who claim to have seen miracles, that there's evidence for creation, etc etc.).

Extreme atheist here, with a facination of religion. Why do I claim there is no such thing as a god or divine being? For me, it goes against all possible logic and evidence to claim such. Anything that is impossible to disprove, IMO, should always be approched with a ten-foot pole. And a sharp one preferably.

At past stages in our history, religions and divine explainations have been needed. They have done a world of good for us in the past - even if they have also caused many negative things. When I speak about the bad religions have caused, I would not probably point to wars such as the crusades, etc, as negative effects of religion. Such things, IMO, would have occured whether or not there was religion division (or religion at all, for that matter). If there wasn't religion to fight over, it would be some other rediculas thing.

The main thing religion has done to this world, looking from a negative side, is (atleast in the past few centuries) its tendency to slow down progress. Mainstream religions, although they do evolve, tend to like to keep things as constant as possible. Looking back there are many many examples that can be pointed to, from the refusal to believe that the earth rotated around the sun to the current refusal of homosexual rights or the restrictions of contraception placed down by some religions. These things do no good for us at all, so in this sense religion is bad.

But then there certainly are (or have been) many benefits to religion. Other than teaching core values, it has been a symbol of hope. False hope, some may claim. But anything that is able to give hope in times of need cannot be false, in a manner of speaking. In the past people have needed to know that, even though their lot in this world may be crap, in the next world things can be different.

Now-a-days though, I believe we, as humans, have out grown religions. It is (and has been for the past half a century) time to move on. The benefits gained from religion are on a downward slope, as (a) we find scientific answers to many (previously) unexplainable questions; and (b) the average global living standards are raised. It's got to a point where less things are gained by religion than the costs. Atleast in my opinion.

[Edit - wow! I really do ramble when I'm tired...]

I am a Christian! Just like Gnarfflinger, I also believe in God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.

@ Gnarfflinger, Ballrock and Chev
It is difficult when we take a stand for what we believe because there are those out there who give all believers a bad name.

As Gnarfflinger stated, it is not God nor the belief in Him which causes the ills of the world. It is men and women who selfishly use this belief for their own gains. If you truely look though you will find that in all aspects of life. How about firefighters who start fires just so they can respond to them and be heroes? How about people who raise money for a school or other great causes and then run off with it? We see the use of religion for personal gain as worse because it offers false hope to people who many times believe thay have nothing else but in truth it is no different. People of weak moral fiber take advantage of others in many ways to in some way increase themselves.

Yes, I find these people embarrasing. No, I am not a war-monger or a racist. I have always been taught that God loves all people no matter their circumstances. The Bible preaches to hate the sin not the sinner. What we DO may be bad but ALL people are loved by God.

I am an atheist so: No, I do not believe he exists.

Well, I'm not really sure what my beliefs are. I'm christian, true, but I'm not sure I'm truly believing in that god.
However, the whole universe seems to have too much meaning to be just coincidence. For example, atoms. It seems truly, incredibly, ubeliviably weird that something that complex would exist by random possibility.
It's quite possible that there is some higher being, or many such beings that created the world. It/they might have not been really even sentient, or possibly not even creatures in the real sense of the world. Or then it was something else entirely, something our minds couldn't understand in the slightest...

So, I don't necessarily believe in god, I just think that there's too much in this universe for it all just to be "luck".

I see Pride, Sloth, Lust, Greed, Gluttony, Wrath and Envy as the source of the world's problems.
The Bible preaches to hate the sin not the sinnerI really want to debate these. But I will refrain.


And i did not mention in my first post that I consider myself an extreme atheist. As in I believe in nothing (in the religious sense). And I agree with Rotku on basically everything he said.

No, I do not believe in this god - and wont make a big deal of it, either. :)

Not really, and if I was it would be more along the lines of Spinoza's God. I like the original concepts of this guy Jesus before the christians changed them, basically that wouldn't it be nice if we got on with one another.

I see Pride, Sloth, Lust, Greed, Gluttony, Wrath and Envy as the source of the world's problemsThat's a cop-out, it's about as valid as a soldier saying "I was following orders" or a killer blaming society. The real cause of the world's problems are humans, they can't get on with one another beyond their own tribal unit of 20-30 people.

The Bible preaches to hate the sin not the sinnerDoes that mean we should punish the sin not the sinner as well?

No, it means we are all worthy of love and forgiveness. You must still accept the consequenses for your actions because you chose to act in a certain way but it does not mean that a particular sin makes you unloveable or unforgivable.

So a serial rapist (which imo is the worst crime that can be committed) gets caught and convicted, and I'm supposed to believe that he's worthy of love and forgiveness because he accepts his crimes?

Well your god can love him if s/he wants and anybody who wants to can, but to me the best thing for the human race would be to show justice to his victims and terminate him.

I once heard about a priest who lived in L.A. with his young son.

One day when his son got home from school he had forgot his key to the front door so he went to a neighbour. He rang his door bell but he (the neighbour) happened to be high on crack so he shot the boy.

Later he addmitet to the crime and got a sentence for it. The boys father was angerd offcourse but just for a while, for around three weeks. The he went to the "neighbour" and told him that he had forgotten him of his deed.

When asked why he did this he replyed:"I did it because if i didn't forget him my life would just consist of hating this man, I had to do it to continue my life".

A wise choice? Perhaps, perhaps not, but few could have done it.

Disbeliever. I do not believe in God, and in truth the concept of a God or creator does not enter my thoughts except when visiting this website.

On an aside, I do quite like the following paradox, although I'm sure there is an easy rebuttal.

"God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?"--Epicurus (from "The Epicurus Reader", translated and edited by Brad Inwood and L.P. Gerson, Hackett Publishing, 1994, p. 97)

@ Stardust
Great example. Yes, it is a wise choice that most could never make. I don't think I could be so forgiving but therein lies one of my own weaknesses.

@ DS
You see, I said God says all are worthy of love and forgiveness because it is possible for that person to change. (We as human beings are not so accepting) No one is the same from birth until death and that person could truely repent and turn from his/her previous behavior. We are still expected to take responsibilty for our actions and pay the consequences.

In Babylon the jews were mixed by the people of king Cyrus, which were followers of the zoroastrianism. In the zoroastrianism there was a strong belief in messias and before the two religions were mixed the judaism didn't have a story of a messias AT ALL!.

Moving towards my point...

How can the jews claim that they are waiting for messias when they borrowed the idea from another religion? Even more important how can they christians claim that messias came to the earth when the entire concept was stolen?

I do not whish to offend anybody, I merely wish to present accurate facts.

@Stardust: You seem to be claiming that only the entity that has a purely original thought can follow it, and that no variation is ever allowed. Who cares where the idea of a messiah came from? Certainly not the people who are waiting for theirs to arrive, nor the people who think they've already found the one they need.

Religions grow and evolve and live by encountering other ideas and incorporating them as necessary. To do otherwise would be a quick path to stagnation and obsolesence. It's been a hallmark throughout almost 6,000 years of peripatetic history that the Jewish spiritual leaders have found ways to embrace new schools of thought, encountered as groups of Jews joined new societies, but do so in such a way as to retain the essential Jewish nature of belief.

@Wiley That's your belief not mine, and very convenient repent, you get parole

"If God exists, he doesn't care."

Kurt Vonnegut, Sirens of Titan

I'm agnostic -- the proverbial fence sitter. I don't know whether or not God exists, although the evidence seem to be against Him/Her in my mind.

I believe in God. I am a Christian. I used to call myself a protestant, but now I believe that everyone who feels like a real @ss because of his sins and that Jesus died for him/her, is part of my church, whether he is a RomCath, a protestant or anybody else. That is the core.

before the two religions were mixed the judaism didn't have a story of a messias AT ALL!.
According to my bible, Isaiah clearly speaks about a messiah and he lived before Israel and Judah were taken away to Babylon.

Goli Ironhead: Well, I'm not really sure what my beliefs are. I'm christian, true, but I'm not sure I'm truly believing in that god.
However, the whole universe seems to have too much meaning to be just coincidence. For example, atoms. It seems truly, incredibly, ubeliviably weird that something that complex would exist by random possibility.
It's quite possible that there is some higher being, or many such beings that created the world. It/they might have not been really even sentient, or possibly not even creatures in the real sense of the world. Or then it was something else entirely, something our minds couldn't understand in the slightest...

So, I don't necessarily believe in god, I just think that there's too much in this universe for it all just to be "luck".Remember that, according the current accepted theories (or atleast my understanding of them) we are living in an infinite universe. Given infinte space (and add to that time as well), even the most highly improbable thing (life, for example) is bound to happen. And happen many times over.

Add to this a set of common rules that govern the universe, such as the laws of physics, and you have a sure recipe for the creation of things such as planets.

I think Terry Pratchett put it best when describing the Discworld, it went something like'a dis!

Since the universe is infinite and has the potential to contain _anything_, it eventually does.

So if you pick a direction and keep going who knows what you could possibly find? Maybe even a god... or gods?

Correct, because there are a thousand other people telling me different and contradicting things. No offence to you personally, but I have absolutely no good reason to believe you over all the other people.I've come to my answer by actually praying about it and trying to live the commandments. It worked for me, maybe it can work for you too.

Pascal's Wager only works if there is one God/religion/faith, or if all variations of God/religion/faith are mutually compatible. And, uh, that is not the case.In this case it is not only wagering your soul on whether God exists, but which Ideal of God is the right one as well. I've made it clear where I've places my bets.

I believe in God, but probably not the same one that right-wing, pro-war, gun-loving racists worship.It's the same God, but some people focus on different parts of these teachings.

Now-a-days though, I believe we, as humans, have out grown religions.You must not be watching the same news cast that I am...

That's a cop-out, it's about as valid as a soldier saying "I was following orders" or a killer blaming society.I don't blame the Muslim world at large for 9/11, I blame Osama Bin Laden for giving the orders and the terrorists themselves for shedding the blood of thousands of innocents. If you call that a cop out, then I ought to support genocide. Sorry, I'm not interested in shedding innocent blood myself.

So a serial rapist (which imo is the worst crime that can be committed) gets caught and convicted, and I'm supposed to believe that he's worthy of love and forgiveness because he accepts his crimes?Repentance implies that he confesses and forsakes his sins, and that he no longer desires to hurt people again. Until he undergoes a true change of heart, you have every right to be wary of this individual. Further, he must submit himself to the laws of the land in regards to his crimes and answer to them for his offences. He's still going to prison...

In the zoroastrianism there was a strong belief in messias and before the two religions were mixed the judaism didn't have a story of a messias AT ALL!.Incorrect. The animal sacrifices performed by the Jews in the Old testament, which go back to the time of Adam and Eve and their ejection from the Garden of Eden, symbolized the promise of a Messiah, who would die for our sins...

Religions grow and evolve and live by encountering other ideas and incorporating them as necessary.I'm not convinced. There are still some things that cannot be compromised for religion to be pure. The Ten Commandments predate Hammurabi's code. Those ten commandments do not change when they meet another religion...

but now I believe that everyone who feels like a real @ss because of his sins and that Jesus died for him/her, is part of my churchBeen there, done that, don't want to repeat the experience, but I recommend repentance to all.

Add to this a set of common rules that govern the universe, such as the laws of physics, and you have a sure recipe for the creation of things such as planets.Couldn't this be designed and put in place by God?

According to my bible, Isaiah clearly speaks about a messiah and he lived before Israel and Judah were taken away to Babylon. Babylon was founded 2300BC and fell 612BC. As far as I know "the" messias didn't live BC. Another intresting fact about the bible is that ir was written. 367 AD. It was ordedrd by the new emperer of rome, Constantin. "He" put it together from diffrent writings that had been written not so long after the death of Jesus, but still after his death.

So the bible could basicly be a instrument to control the feeling and lives of people. I'd like to refeer to book one (genesis) verse 3:1 - 3:2, In which god tells Eve that she must always abey her man and will have to endure geart pain when she are giving birth to her child.

Incorrect. The animal sacrifices performed by the Jews in the Old testament, which go back to the time of Adam and Eve and their ejection from the Garden of Eden, symbolized the promise of a Messiah, who would die for our sins... This is one of the most commmon lies, when the jews got home from babylon (freed by Cyrus) they begun sacreficing lambs to be forgotten by god for thier sins, not before not after. On the mountain of Sion there were a temple on a altar in it they cut the throat of thier finest lamb and let the blood flow out on the altar while asking for forgivness.

Couldn't this be designed and put in place by God?Umm.... yes. It could also be placed by a giant gopher wearing a father christmas hat and a green wig, while singing viking drinking songs. But that's not really the point at all. What I was saying is that, assuming for argument sakes that there was no divine intervention, given infinite space and time, planets and, more importantly, life are highly likely to happen.

Bows down and woships Bluu, the giant father christmas hat and green wig wearing, viking drinking song singing giant gopher, the creator of the universe and master of all time and space.

Although there have been a few excommunications of people arguing if it's a clown wig or a shaggy long hair hippie wig and if the father chrismas hat is the traditonal green and white color or the new Coca-Cola inspired red and white.

purple ninja monkeys on the dark side of the moon the giant father christmas hat and green wig While I'm sure that both of you -- Aikanaro and Rotku -- are not ignorant or evil, I think that saying for sure that you've really arrogated yourselves by saying that there is certainly no God.

Your comparisons are similar to Russell's teapot (Wikipedia it or something), but first of all -- God is less a frivolous being than monkeys or ninjas, since most people think of him as simply an all-powerful, all-good being.

But more than that: just because you haven't got any proof God isn't there doesn't mean he's not there. Yes, in fact, a monkey ninja or a groundhog or a teapot could be drifting somewhere near Jupiter. I can't prove it, but you can't prove me wrong. (It's just that that theory is not as good or useful, as, say, the theory of evolution.)

This is why I believe agnosticism and nontheism to be more logical and scientific beliefs. Regarding monkeys and teapots in space, I don't know if they exist, and I don't particularly care.

I think atheism "bridges the gap" like religion does. Theism nowadays, I think, takes a (Kierkegaardian?) leap of faith that God exists; atheism takes a leap of faith that God couldn't exist at all. But that's just my opinion. Maybe Richard Dawkins or the ghost of Carl Sagan has something to say to me.

Actually most athiests are borderline agnostics. If you could PROVE to an athiest that a god exsists they would believe however they believe that with no proof there is no conviction. The argument is simple in that if there is no evidence of something existing then it doesn't.

if there is no evidence of something existing then it doesn't. Hokay, Ive taken that statement out of context but I find that argument illogical. Science is constantly finding new things, new species, new theories. My reaction to the above statement is:

Does that mean the specie didn't exist until it was discovered? Science is not an absolute.

@Nakia

He surely ment that he wouldn't beleve that it exsisted. If I told you that space exsisted but I din't have proff you surely wouldn't belive me, would you?
When a scientist makes a discovery he says: hmm so this bug (for example) exsists not I have proved that it exsists because we din't know that it exsisted before he discoverd it. Why would he sit on a chair and think that it exsisted before that he had seen it?

Do you belive this: You can become inmortal if you travel fast enough, because it will stop the flow of time.

Stardust: You seem to have made the assumption in your arguments that the Bible is wrong (which I actually agree with). You appear to be refering to other sources that are not immediately recognizable to everyone else.

Clearly in Genesis we can read about Abraham's sacrifice and his son asking 'Where is the lamb for the burnt offering?' This is obviously a sacrifice. Abel's sacrifice is also in Genesis -- there is some disagreement as what was sacrificed, but many believe it was the best of the newborn animals he tended.

Genesis is written by Moses after the exodus from Egypt -- this would place animal sacrifice well before the timeframe you mention.

It really depends on which resource you believe -- but you will not get far if you entirely discount the bible as a credible reference.

Also: could you please use the spellchecker or a dictionary?

If you could PROVE to an athiest that a god exsists they would believe however they believe that with no proof there is no convictionI disagree. If you prove the existence of God, then all religions end. Religions are based on faith, and you can't have faith in God if you are absolutely sure he is there. You can believe in him, much as I believe in the Red Sox to win a World Series again. But you can't have faith when there is proof.

So atheists wouldn't have to believe because religions would cease to exist.

Indeed, should some god prove it's existence, then it all would become more like a servant-master thing than faith.

@ Rallymama:

What does lack of a god have to do with the after life? You're talking about two different - albeit related, for many - things.
Because, as you and Chev mentioned, they are generally related. It is very hard to imagine some form of later existance if you have nothing immortal to carry on with and no specific way to go.

Religions tend to teach the existance of both god and an after-life in the same breath: if you follow this god, then you go to this after-life. There would probably be a fair drop in worshippers if there was no later reward for living a good life. After all, is there is no reward or punishment, then why would people not live to get the most pleasure out of life?

I have moved from openminded agnostic to strong athiest who reject the notion of any kind of supreme being. The possible existence of somekind of supreme being may not be on level with purple ninja monkeys at Alpha Centauri but the Biblical/Islamic/Hinduistic god/gods are.

It is nothing but comfort for weak individuals who cannot cope with reality. Kinda like imaginary friends for lonely children or various addictive substances for adult addicts.

I disagree. If you prove the existence of God, then all religions end. Religions are based on faith, and you can't have faith in God if you are absolutely sure he is there. You can believe in him, much as I believe in the Red Sox to win a World Series again. But you can't have faith when there is proof.Then what's with the Bible, the so called Red Sea scrolls, pieces of the true cross, citing historical references as proof that Jesus walked the earth? Etc. etc.

Many religions try to _prove_ their god exists. Also when speaking of gods to a person who is religious you would ask them "Does your god exist?" and they would say "Yes." therefore they are convinced that the god is real. They have had their proof either through conditioning as a child or some major event in their life they foolishly viewed as some form of sign or divine intervention.

Still I can't help but look at it this way. If you prove a god exists... he doesn't. And if you don't prove a god exists... he does? See it's conversations like this that convince me that most religious people are becoming more and more deluded as they make up more and more whacky excuses to justify their demented belief in some spiritual overlord.

Oaz:
I think atheism "bridges the gap" like religion does. Theism nowadays, I think, takes a (Kierkegaardian?) leap of faith that God exists; atheism takes a leap of faith that God couldn't exist at all. But that's just my opinion. Maybe Richard Dawkins or the ghost of Carl Sagan has something to say to me.Stardust and Abomination are completely right there. If someone where to come to me and say here is the reasons they believe a divine being exists and sets down some testable criteria then I would be more inclined. I have never been one to believe anything blindly. Currently, according to most people I have spoken to, there is no way to disprove the existance of a divine being. This makes it completely redundent, IMO, and not worth given a second thought to (if it didn't play such a big part in the world, that is).

Stating that there is no god is not taking a big leap in assumptions, IMO. I'm going to paraphrase the way Douglas Adams here, as I loved the way he explained the point - better than I ever could.
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 and takes me on to my second reason.

I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.Nakia:
if there is no evidence of something existing then it doesn't.Hokay, Ive taken that statement out of context but I find that argument illogical. Science is constantly finding new things, new species, new theories. My reaction to the above statement is:

Does that mean the specie didn't exist until it was discovered? Science is not an absolute.You are both right and wrong there, IMO. You are absolutely right when you say just because no evidence exists does not mean something does not exist. But in the case of a new speices, a new theory, etc - it goes back to what I said before - all these can be disproved. If someone came to be and claimed to have found a giant five legged species of duck, living on a tiny island in the northern pacific, I could search all the islands there to disprove (or support, if they turn out to be right) the persons claim.

Yet on the other hand, if someone came to me and said that they'd found a five legged speices of duck, but told me that if I tried to search for it it would certainly hide from me and be impossible to find, then there is no way of me to disprove this claim so it does not has little grounds.

When it comes to the matter of science (such as speicies, the creation of the universe, the origins of life, what happens after we die, and so on), science is as absolute as we have got. No scientist worth their money would ever claim to know everything. But then nor would a scientist claim that a theory that they had written was impossible to disprove.

Stardust and Abomination are completely right there. If someone where to come to me and say here is the reasons they believe a divine being exists and sets down some testable criteria then I would be more inclined. I have never been one to believe anything blindly. Currently, according to most people I have spoken to, there is no way to disprove the existance of a divine being. This makes it completely redundent, IMO, and not worth given a second thought to (if it didn't play such a big part in the world, that is).
The thing is that I don't believe you can really test for the existence of God like you can test for the existence of dinosaurs or evolution, especially when you are discussing an omnipotent entity.

For example, perhaps -- as someone somewhere must have put forth -- we are not seeing evidence of God because he is hiding that evidence from us. (For whatever reason: he's cruel, he wants to test our faith, etc.) Just because you cannot use God to explain something scientifcally, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. God is, I think, not a theory that you can discard or accept like evolution, because I am inclined to think that God works outside reason.

Getting to this working-outside-reason, yes, I believe in faith. I think that faith goes off where reason stops, and this is why scientists -- logical reasonable types -- often are atheists/agnostics. I don't believe faith can be communicated intelligibly (perhaps it's a fault of language). I think that "blind faith" is a loaded term; faith, in a sense, is blind, because it transcends what you can sense and reason out.

Faith can be terrifying, since you can use it to justify violence and other bad things, but I think the same goes for any idea or emotion: anarchy, vengeance, communism, atheism, and yes, even love and compassion. Faith sometimes scares me, but on the whole atheism and nihilism (I don't think most of you are nihilsts, however), scare me more, because I have found that atheists and nihilists (?) make hard and fast ideas* that seem to forego compassion and understanding.

I believe in compassion and faith, and I also believe in sense and reason. I think we have to balance the two -- recognize the role of compassion and faith in our lives, but also to utilize sense and reason to make sure we don't end up like Robespierres or Grand Inquisitors or Lenins.

* -- an idea like "we would all be better off if we destroyed every church in the country."

an idea like "we would all be better off if we destroyed every church in the country."Pretty close, however I think we would be better off if they never existed. This doesn't mean I think we would be better off if we destroyed them.

As for saying you can't test the existence of gods then how does this faith come about? Through human actions. Humans telling other humans what to believe. The Bible was written by people. People preach in temples. Get em young and brainwash people into thinking something exists up there but you just can't see it or touch it or smell it or hear it, it probably will have nothing to do with you, if you go looking for it then it'll hide from you and if you try and prove it then it won't help you - but it's there, trust me, I KNOW it's there, my local priest told me... as his priest told him etc. etc.

As for athiests foregoing compassion and understanding I'd dare say that athiests and agnostics are the only 'true' compassionate people on the planet. They have no motive for being nice to people bar the fact that it's just the damn right thing to do. They're not going to be rewarded with endless paradise for being kind to others or be punished for not being kind. They do it because it's the right thing to do.

@ DS
Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. If you actually read what I posted then you would see I didn't say
.......repent, you get paroleWhat I said is you get forgiveness but you still must pay the consequences. What those consequences are depend on what you have done. Jesus stated in the Bible that we are still subject to the laws of man. (referring to society, government, etc.... not male or female)

@ Abomination
I don't believe anyone is just kind because they think they will be rewarded if they are or punished if they are not. People care just because they do but those who don't and try to fake will show their true colors eventually. I don't think those people hide it all that well anyway. Again I say this what I think of people and their intensions.

Abomination, I think you have a less than nuanced grasp of theists, atheists, and agnostics. I believe faith comes about through subjective human experience, but it is tempered with theories and ideas and reason. I do not think Christians (for example) are unfit to be leaders because they are all less compassionate than atheists, nor do I think it the other way around. People are not (typically) driven by solely an idea or -ism -- and so you do have cruel atheists (Mao? Stalin?) and cruel Christians (some crusaders, let's say).

Indeed but you said that athiests tend to forego compassion and I was just pointing out that a religious person's compassion can be fure purely selfish reasons and based on fear and not on actually wanting to help the other person.

My opinions based on my agnostic/athiest view come from the fact that I WAS a Christian but after 9/11 I realised that so many people must be wrong because what is happening is not right. How could any god that claims to be compassionate and just allow people to continue to kill each other when all he has to do is step in somehow and say "Hey, I'm real. I understand you've been misled in the past but these are the facts. Now can you please stop killing each other? Thank you." Whatever path he wants people to follow simply isn't happening because whoever he is, he's one lazy god. 2000 years have passed, if there was fact it's been mixed with myth, legend and simple lies. If this god is compassionate he would realise that it's time to tell everybody what the true way is because there are so many people who believe their way is the right way and everybody else is wrong.

If god is real he isn't worth worshipping and if he isn't then there isn't anything to worship.

For example, perhaps -- as someone somewhere must have put forth -- we are not seeing evidence of God because he is hiding that evidence from us. (For whatever reason: he's cruel, he wants to test our faith, etc.) Just because you cannot use God to explain something scientifcally, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. God is, I think, not a theory that you can discard or accept like evolution, because I am inclined to think that God works outside reason.This is exactly what makes religion of any kind unreasonable and not suited for me. To me, believing in something outside of reason is (I hesitate to use the word, but none other jump to mind) foolish. What's the reason to do so? I guess many people view it from the opposite side though, and may find it comforting to 'know' that there is some greater entity out there that is outside the realms of reason and logic.

I see so many arguments against the belief of any divine being that I honestly cannot fathom any reason to believe in such. No, prehaps that's not the best way of saying it. I cannot fathom a reason for believing in such unless it is ignorance or willingness to ignore the arguments against it out of the need for comfort or what ever (which there is nothing bad with at all, as long as one keeps an open mind).

Just shooting out a few arguments that we disucssed in a philosophy tutorial the other week.
-> First and most obvious, god created the universe but who created god?
-> Being defined as omnipotent and omniscient, a god should know everything that will happen in the future, including all of it's own actions. Yet following the lines of omnipotent, god should be able to act in a manner different than he predicted. So an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot exist.
-> Is it possible to god to bring into existance a rock which he cannot throw?
-> Then there are the obvious scientific ones, such as the ability to disprove a great global floor, and the idea that the world is only [6000] years old (or what ever the number may be).

The thing I find most facinating about religions is their ability to convince so many people to believe in something with no proof or evidence. With roughly 85% of the worlds population claiming to be religous, it is certainly a force to be thought about.

Faith sometimes scares me, but on the whole atheism and nihilism (I don't think most of you are nihilsts, however), scare me more, because I have found that atheists and nihilists (?) make hard and fast ideas* that seem to forego compassion and understanding.That is a curious statement. Atleast from where I'm looking. It seems similar to me saying that I have found that Christians like to rage wars such as the crusades, and I have found Musliums all support terrorists.

As an atheist, I dislike anyone making hard and fast ideas. IMO, doing so is unreasonable and in itself goes against the reasons for not been religous. I have known two people who think that the country would be better off with all churches destroied. One was an 'extreme atheist' - he use to love arguing with anyone about religion, but I always found his arguments just as illogical as those put foward by the opposing side. The other person was religous. And this is from a country where (from memory) over half the population claimed in the 2001 census to not be religous.

Indeed but you said that athiests tend to forego compassion and I was just pointing out that a religious person's compassion can be fure purely selfish reasons and based on fear and not on actually wanting to help the other person.You needn't take this as a general statement, but this has been the case in my experience. Again, I'm not saying atheists are bad, or that theists are good, but that ideas (like "let's get rid of all churches/scientists/Jehovah's Witnesses/Jews") can forego compassion.

To elaborate: I do not think an atheist president will become the next Hitler or Mao. What I am afraid of is a belief that works solely as a reaction to Christianity. What I am afraid of is an ability for the religious and the atheists to communicate out of intolerance, fear, and hate. Pat Robertson telling me that all atheists will burn in hell disturbs me as much as a scientist telling me that churches should be converted into factories.

And for what it's worth -- I don't think compassion out of fear is compassion at all. Regarding this, I don't know any Christians around me who are nice out of fear. I genuinely believe they are genuinely nice people (and would be even if they stopped believing in God).

Rotku:

I do happen to agree with you -- faith isn't something I feel I can communicate via bulletin board. It's not even something I feel I can proselytize or preach. I do like to discuss it with other people who are willing to consider the idea of faith, but I want to do it on a personal level, not online.

That is a curious statement. Atleast from where I'm looking. It seems similar to me saying that I have found that Christians like to rage wars such as the crusades, and I have found Musliums all support terrorists.An interesting point. I think if I went back in time to the Crusades or went to the Middle East and saw murder/terrorism/bombings justified in the name of Islam, I would be more disturbed by the idea of religion. However, I also believe in the goodness of religion, because religious people (in general) I have met are (I think) good people.

Are atheists and agnostics good? They can be, as much as religious people. Some days I feel more like an atheist than a theist, and some days I feel more like a theist than an atheist. But mainly, it's just the irreligious idea of progress -- that you should make things better by abolishing religion and faith and (yes) superstition in one giant sweep - -that bothers me.

[ September 07, 2006, 07:43: Message edited by: Oaz ]

Is that a commonly held idea? Like I said in my last post, personally I only know of one person who holds such an extreme view. I think religion has many benefits. It brings hope to millions. It's a way of teaching good ethics and morals. There are many things that religion does in this world that are good.

If all the big world leaders, whether it be Bush or the Pope, were to get together tomorrow and decide that religion is wrong and everyone should swear some oath about forsaking all belief of divine entities and become an atheist, I believe it would have terrible bad effects on the world in its current state and would be strongly against it.

Where religion can get bad though, is when it teaches not to question. That is my main gripe about religion. But then I would say the same for atheism. If a person claims that this IS correct and refuses to ever question their beliefs then we have a problem. I also don't like people teaching children one religion. It should be up to them to look into these things after they have developed a proper base of knowledge (but that's another topic for another day, I think ;) ). As long as people are constantly asking themselves 'why?' then I have no problems with religion at all, even if I would never follow any myself (how's that for a contradiction?) and honestly believe that religion is a dying trend.

[Edit]
However, I also believe in the goodness of religion, because religious people (in general) I have met are (I think) good people.Agreed completely here. But I would extend it to people (in general) are good.


Wiley One:
I don't believe anyone is just kind because they think they will be rewarded if they are or punished if they are not. People care just because they do but those who don't and try to fake will show their true colors eventually. I don't think those people hide it all that well anyway. Again I say this what I think of people and their intensions.You'd be surprised. I've known a few people who, upon hearing someone is an atheist, have remarked something along the lines of "why are you such a kind person then?" or "what makes you strive to be good then?". Believe it or not, it's true :)

First of all, I'd like to thank Rotku for the Adams quote. I'm inclined to think along the same lines, and since Oaz - who accused strong atheism of being illogical and unscientific - didn't in any way answer directly back to this issue, I think we might safely say that we have established strong atheism as a logical albeit not compulsory view.

Which brings me to some dissatisfying remarks of Oaz concerning atheists.

* You classify ideas not only as being bad or good but rather as being inherently atheistical or theistical respectively. There is, however, just one idea that merits being called atheistical: the lack of god-belief. Which isn't even really an idea but more the absence of an idea. Now, e.g. burning churches may be classified as having a positive or a negative impact on society, but it hardly is possible to state that this is an atheistical idea - ask your common crusader about razing mosques and you'll understand my point.

* This leads to the false dichotomy of there being good and bad atheists as well as good and bad theists. I think Stalin/Mao and the crusaders were your examples. This is clearly misguiding, since (letting aside political issues and painting a somewhat simple picture - but hey, it was your example, not mine) the crusaders behaved ill-mannered and rude (yay!) because of their beliefs concerning the god/no-god question. I think you will be hard pressed to say the same about Stalin or Mao.

In other words: whereas the belief was a defining factor for a crusader, the absence of belief is no more defining than, say, the color of hair or the size of shoe for Stalin. Atheism is an attribute (and a minor one, if it comes to that) and not a philosophy or ideology. I understand, however, that the painting of atheism as a dogmatic ideology usually serves the purposes of people with religion, because it soothes them ("see, the others are irrational as well!") and gives them a feeling of superiority ("irrational, yes, but at least we're not empty inside, we have hope, have love, etc.").

Finally, I'd like to say that I personally share Russell's view concerning the goodness of religion: it simply is not there at all. I hold this view for the following reason. Please let's have a look at the good/bad issue at first. Speaking of good and bad is rather clouding than clearing up the issue, because some deed may be considered bad in a given society and good in another one. Another deed may be bad in general circumstances (murder) but may be considered good in others (murder of Hitler). Referring your set of good/bad standards to an absolute and higher power is just dodging the issue – which you can easily see when considering the fact that there are many high powers in this world, each coming with slightly (or even vastly) differing moral standards.

Usually it serves us better to speak of minimizing or maximizing negative consequences for society (and I have to thank Cliff Walker and his “Positive Atheism” magazine at this point for the inspiration http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9993.htm), i.e. out of all possible choices we should choose the action that minimizes the overall negative consequences and avoid those that don’t. Now, central to religion is a set of morals and an associated theme of guilt and shame. There’s talk of salvation also, granted, but the predominant idea is that we’re all sinners. I can’t help the feeling that guilt is the most basic and intimate problem that prevents most people from leading happy and content lives – be it guilt directed towards one’s parents, towards your other relations or towards an idea. Religion does not help in minimizing the negative effects of guilt, but rather strives for the maximum impact and pain. Guilt is the basic tool of religion and has the potential to crush the most happy of lives.

A side note: when talking about religion, I refer to the generally acknowledged official religions like Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, whatever. Some Spinozian, pantheistic “weltgeist” one has created in his own mind may be rather helpful in one’s life – but it is in most cases not detailed enough to be debated in depth with others, isn’t it.

Another side note: please do not confuse the good some people have done whilst claiming to do so in the name of religion with what the specific religion really teaches at its core. Mother Theresa may or may not have been a shining example of goodness in this world, it is in any case improper to claim that the teachings of the church will lead eventually to a person like her. A Christian rightly refuses to be reduced to an inquisitor or crusader (as Gnarfflinger doesn’t tire to point out), so what right do we have to reduce him to Mother Theresa?

Only skimmed the rest of this thread - but in reply to what Oaz said aimed at me and Rotku above:

There are two phrases which I've run into which I think sum up why I hold my position perfectly;

'Something proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'

'Absence of evidence is evidence for absence.'

So not only do I not need any evidence in order to dismiss these rather outrageous claims, but I also have some for the very same reason that I can dismiss them.

And for those who claim that there is evidence:

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'

Claiming that your prayer works one in five times is not extraordinary evidence, and your claim is very very extraordinary.

Unless you are truely open to the idea of their being purple ninja monkeys on the dark side of the moon if I say that there could be, I don't think that your position is that strong. And if you are open to that possibility ... well ... maybe you should go see a psychiatrist or something. :p

So my point is: you don't need proof of something to say that it does not exist, you just need to have no reason to believe that it does (though if we're talking about the Christian god - there is so much evidence for that one not existing it's ridiculous. It's just one great big contradictory mess).

Personally I think that this video does a good job at summing up some things - and is brilliant besides: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzHlMs2rSIM&mode=related&search (contains lots of swearing, mind you...)

Another side note: please do not confuse the good some people have done whilst claiming to do so in the name of religion with what the specific religion really teaches at its core. Mother Theresa may or may not have been a shining example of goodness in this world, it is in any case improper to claim that the teachings of the church will lead eventually to a person like her. A Christian rightly refuses to be reduced to an inquisitor or crusader (as Gnarfflinger doesn’t tire to point out), so what right do we have to reduce him to Mother Theresa?Mother Theresa is an example of what we, as Christians ought to be. Most of us don't do that well. So Like I ask that you not drag us down by lumping us with Torquemada, it is not right for us to take credit by being lumped in with Mother Theresa. I hope this makes sense...

'Absence of evidence is evidence for absence.'Suppose I use a rope and strangle a neighbour who annoys me. Of course there will be no witnesses to this. Assume that I have ways to dispose of the body that will result in it's complete destruction, as well as the complete destruction of the rope I used to commit the murder. Does this mean that no murder has taken place? By your logic, no. BUt in this example, the crime DID exist.

Abscence of obvious, incontrovertable evidence does not disprove the existence of God. Further, such evidence may be subjective. By this, I mean information I am privy to that others may not be. I have personal experiences in my life which support what is taught in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. While you don't likely have that evidence, you have my witness of that evidence. I propose that as evidence. It doesn't tell the full story, but it does indicate that there is indeed a story to tell.

you don't need proof of something to say that it does not exist,If you have proof of something, then it must exist.

you just need to have no reason to believe that it doesBut that proves nothing either. Just because you have no reason to believe that God does not exist does not mean he does not.

if we're talking about the Christian god - there is so much evidence for that one not existing it's ridiculous. It's just one great big contradictory messAre you suggesting that the evidence against God is a big contradictory mess?

As for the stories of the Christian God, there are such discrepencies in translations of the Bible that there may be some contradictions between the variations of the Bible. I've seen a couple passages where the differences in translation makes a huge difference.

Suppose I use a rope and strangle a neighbour who annoys me. Of course there will be no witnesses to this. Assume that I have ways to dispose of the body that will result in it's complete destruction, as well as the complete destruction of the rope I used to commit the murder. Does this mean that no murder has taken place? By your logic, no. BUt in this example, the crime DID exist.However there will be records of this person no longer turning up to work, friends will have realised that the person was missing and so forth. Fact of the matter is there are records of this persons birth but not of their death so it will be considered a missing person for awhile or maybe some evidence could lead to foul play. We can not be 100% sure if the person was murdered but we can be 100% sure that a person lived there and now for reasons so far unknown they are not there. It's speculation but there would be reasonable grounds to ASSUME a murder. If you have proof of something, then it must exist.Proof that can be verified. There is no way in our current legal system that a person could be convicted on testimony alone. There needs to be physical evidence of a crime taking place. But that proves nothing either. Just because you have no reason to believe that God does not exist does not mean he does not.Just because you have no way of proving there aren't ninja monkeys on the dark side of the moon doesn't mean they aren't there. Aikanaro put it best Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.and claiming there's this all-powerful, all-seeing, all-everything type being that doesn't do 'anything' physical is the most extraordinary claim imaginable.

As for the contradictionary evidence against the Christan god, just read and compare the old testament to the new. God takes a complete 180 from this vengeful, smite the heathens with rains of fire and plagues of frogs and whatever to this whole love thy neighbor even if they don't believe in the god we worship, a crime we would have killed them, their family and even their dog for a few years back. Apparently he's all powerful and all seeing yet he admits he stuffed up, that's why he sent Jesus to fix things (apparently). The contradictions within the Bible are more than those and they're so easy to find.

And as for supporting what is written in the bible and in the book of mormon if I remember correctly part of the foundation of the book of mormon was some gold tablets found in a tree but were later destroyed to test the faithful or something. It's pretty much saying "The fact that there is no poof of this happening IS the proof of this happening." We go by ONE man's claim that he found then subsequently lost/destroyed an item that would prove God's hand in something.

Mother Theresa is an example of what we, as Christians ought to be. Most of us don't do that well. Most? How many Christians are out there? And how many Mother Theresas have you got? Maybe there's a communication problem? The church wants all of you to become like Mother Theresa and somehow the Chrisitans don't get it? No, Gnarfflinger. The church doesn't need and doesn't want you to become Mother Theresas, not on this scale anyway.

By your logic, no. BUt in this example, the crime DID exist. I wonder, are you setting up this faulty example deliberately or was it a mistake? Of course there is evidence. You had a walking, living, breathing, interacting human being before the crime - and none after the crime. This is clearly a perceivable change in the condition of the world. Someone disappeared, something must have happened. It is not easy to jump from there to "he strangled him with a rope", but that's not the point. The point is: there's evidence, plain for everyone to see (and not just on a personal, heresay basis).

To anticipate your next clever move: what if your victim did have virtually no interaction with others, what if he lived totally remote? What if noone knew of his existence? Do we still have evidence? Of course not! Does this in any way strengthen your position? Again: of course not!

If I came to you, claiming that in America, each and every day, hundreds of people were disappearing without a trace - wouldn't you ask why you don't seem to hear anything about it in the news? And if I proceeded with telling you that we can't know about them people disappering because they are living remotely and, well in a way invisibly - wouldn't you take a few steps back and say "Wow, my dear friend, you are one mentelly retarded bastard for sure!"?

See?

But tell me: do you really think that there's no evidence concerning god? You keep talking about personal experience. Other theists take the existence of love or compassion as evidence for a benign higher being. This comes with a variety of problems.

First of all, declaring love and compassion as exclusive for theists is wrong and maybe a lie. Yes, someone who claims that I don't love my wife and my daughter is flat out lying. But many bad things happened to atheists because it was the commonly held view that a godless human is heartless as well and therefore a threat for the community.

The other point is that you universalize your personal experience. That cannot be right, can it? I don't want to take your experience from you, live your life, believe in god, do what you think your moral code dictates you. But why should you declare that your moral standards that are based on your personal experience that no one else ever had nor ever can have should be universally accaptable for all of humankind? Does this really make sense to you?

I don't share your experience, why should I share your beliefs?

Thank you Abomination and Darkthrone :)

you don't need proof of something to say that it does not exist,[quote]

If you have proof of something, then it must exist. Yeah, that's me screwing up my wording to say something I didn't intend. I suspect I was trying to say 'you don't need to disprove something to say that it does not exist.' - the burden of proof lies ont he ones making the absurd-seeming claim, after all.

[quote] you just need to have no reason to believe that it does But that proves nothing either. Just because you have no reason to believe that God does not exist does not mean he does not. That brings us back to the purple ninja monkeys on the dark side of the moon. I have no reason to believe that they exist - and as it is a ridiculous thing, I disbelieve it. The idea of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnisicent, and omnibenevolent being is - to me - just as absurd as ninja monkeys.

if we're talking about the Christian god - there is so much evidence for that one not existing it's ridiculous. It's just one great big contradictory mess Are you suggesting that the evidence against God is a big contradictory mess?

As for the stories of the Christian God, there are such discrepencies in translations of the Bible that there may be some contradictions between the variations of the Bible. I've seen a couple passages where the differences in translation makes a huge difference. Not at all. I am suggesting that your religion is a great big contradictory mess. I don't even care about the minor things like translation troubles - I won't even worry about the rather large contradictions between the Gospels or anything like that (though if you care: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ is a good resource).

Let's just take the Jesus story; Jesus comes, does cool stuff, and gets nailed to a cross in order to die for our sins. What is wrong with this picture?
Well for a start - if God is omni-max, why did he need to have anyone nailed to any crosses in order to forgive sins. What's wrong with going *poof* and voila, sins are forgiven? It seems like a very convoluted, sadistic and pointlessly painful way of forgiving people's sins when you are *God*. It's a contradiction of logic.

But then - the whole concept of an omni-max God is a contradiction of logic anyway. The good old 'could God create a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it' thing. It is an unworkable concept.

(hmm, I don't want to get drawn too deep into this - I have exams next week and so probably won't be doing much posting. So if I don't respond - it doesn't mean that I've given up and converted to Christianity or anything :p )

It's speculation but there would be reasonable grounds to ASSUME a murder.Spare me the double standard. You say that your assumption is reasonable, but mine isn't? Sorry, you don't let me have that, therefore I can't let you have that point either.

Proof that can be verified. There is no way in our current legal system that a person could be convicted on testimony alone. There needs to be physical evidence of a crime taking place.Physical evidence can say whatever the lawyers want it to say. Sure the Bible can say whatever the preacher wants it to say, but we all have a degree of common sense to filter out the BS.

Just because you have no way of proving there aren't ninja monkeys on the dark side of the moon doesn't mean they aren't there. Aikanaro put it bestSomeone called my murder example ridiculous, but nobody called that ridiculous? Is that another double standard?

As for the contradictionary evidence against the Christan god, just read and compare the old testament to the new. God takes a complete 180 from this vengeful, smite the heathens with rains of fire and plagues of frogs and whatever to this whole love thy neighbor even if they don't believe in the god we worship, a crime we would have killed them, their family and even their dog for a few years back.And just how many power hungry nations tried to exterminate or enslave the Lord's people? When groups tried to erradicate these religious teachings, the Lord had to resort to more direct means to protect the righteous. Now, the sins that our detractors indulge in are more destructive, so our detractors will destroty themselves. Another thing to consider is that the people in the Old Testament were less socially developed, so they needed more rigid laws with stricter enforcement. With the New Testament The people were deemed ready for the higher teachings (the why to do as the Lord commands, not just do it or be stoned), hence the more difficult teachings in the New testament.

Apparently he's all powerful and all seeing yet he admits he stuffed up, that's why he sent Jesus to fix things (apparently). The contradictions within the Bible are more than those and they're so easy to find.God is bound by his own laws as well. Though he delights in mercy, he also is bound by justice. Man was given freedom to choose to do as they please, but the consequences are linked to them. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ, that mercy can be extended while justice is satisfied.

We go by ONE man's claim that he found then subsequently lost/destroyed an item that would prove God's hand in something.A total of 12 witnesses actually. You haven't had too many facts straight so far, why should I have expected any different...

Most? How many Christians are out there? And how many Mother Theresas have you got? Maybe there's a communication problem? The church wants all of you to become like Mother Theresa and somehow the Chrisitans don't get it? No, Gnarfflinger. The church doesn't need and doesn't want you to become Mother Theresas, not on this scale anyway.The truth is that Mother Theresa is so rare because what she did is much harder than it sounds. She was able to successfully overcome pride, greed etc to live a life that is a shining exemple to all.

I wonder, are you setting up this faulty example deliberately or was it a mistake?I thought it was better then the purple Ninja monkeys...

do you really think that there's no evidence concerning god?No, I believe that there is evidence, but it comes personally, not publicly. That's what I'm being slagged for.

The other point is that you universalize your personal experience.By sharing my personal experiences, I hope to enter them as testimony, and ask those of you who wish to test them to examine them. If you insist on discounting them, that's your choice. It does not relieve me of my obligation to share these experiences.

What's wrong with going *poof* and voila, sins are forgiven?If God could simply set aside his own rules when he desired but expect us to follow them, then it would be hypocritical. As mentioned, God was bound by the law of justice meaning that he could not straight up forgive our sins. By living a sinless live and dying in a painful manner, Jesus Christ made mercy possible, therefore the sins of the faithful can be forgiven.

the whole concept of an omni-max God is a contradiction of logic anyway. The good old 'could God create a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it' thing.Man's logic is finite, and thus limited. Omnipotence is not something we can readily comprehend at this time.

If jesus made mercy possible...how come that samaritan showed mercy earlier?

And if jesus died for our sins, how come we are sinning even more now adays than back then?

How come blood spilled from jesus wound some time after he was dead? The blood stops pumping when people dies so his blood shouldn`t spill out.

Spare me the double standard. You say that your assumption is reasonable, but mine isn't? Sorry, you don't let me have that, therefore I can't let you have that point either.The claim that there is something that so far has been expressed as impossible to prove since by its very nature it's not supposed to be proven because if it was proven it wouldn't be what it is... now THAT isn't reasonable. Saying that to assume a possible murder because there WAS a person and now that person can't be found however IS reasonable. Why?Because there is at least some physical evidence of a person exsisting, photos, possible video footage from the local 7-11, people who claim to have seen the person before, know the person and can prove they knew the person. Physical evidence can say whatever the lawyers want it to say. Sure the Bible can say whatever the preacher wants it to say, but we all have a degree of common sense to filter out the BS.Actually, lawyers don't decide on what the physical evidence says, the police do and we can all filter out the BS there also. However signs of struggle (knocked over house plants, broken windows, scuff marks on the carpet, torn curtains, damage to walls etc.) can't be simply ignored by any reasonable person and can be agreed by pretty much anyone that something violent happened.

As for the purple ninja monkeys... it IS rediculous, that's the POINT. The fact is you can not DISPROVE they aren't there and it's a very very bold claim to make without hard evidence. The reason why we're talking about them is because we draw parallels between gods and ninja monkeys via the argument that you can't disprove something doesn't exist then it must exist.

As for the transition between old and new testaments, sounds totally bogus. One day stone them, the next day forgive them. Less socially developed my arse, God simply changed overnight in his governing of them - he realised he screwed up if anything, something an all-seeing, all-powerful being would never do. Simply put, if he was all powerful he wouldn't have needed to do any of this, he would have seen it coming and planned accordingly with no chance for error since he is, as everyone seems to claim, perfect. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ, that mercy can be extended while justice is satisfied.I don't see how God killing his son to cleanse the sins of others is any kind of justice when before justice, according to God, was whoever sins pays for it, not somebody else. Again a complete 180 turnaround in his policies, talk about leaving your subjects confused and bewildered. A total of 12 witnesses actually. You haven't had too many facts straight so far, why should I have expected any different...One man, twelve men, who cares. The point is he destroyed the evidence because it was "supposed" to happen or something bogus like that. More like "I'm making something up because I'm delusional and this is just my cop-out from having to come up with any hard facts. Hey, you 11 guys over there! Want to start a religion? I'll pay you a shiny dollar!" No, I believe that there is evidence, but it comes personally, not publicly. That's what I'm being slagged for.A claim made without proof can be dismissed without proof. Your personal claim of God talking to you in your sleep or whatever can't be proven by you or anyone else. I claim to have a harem full of beautiful naked women in my basement and you can't prove me wrong. You should believe me. Don't slag me and call me a lier. I'm not delusional.

There is no other way to compare without making extraordinary claims as examples to how religion sounds to those who have not had these experiences. God doesn't talk to athiests or agnostics, that's not our fault. If he is so just and caring why would he talk to one person and not another? You go to heaven, I don't because he couldn't be bothered to talk to me? Yeah, that's just, that's fair, that's somebody worth worshipping.

One question to who ever is willing to answer it.

If person A lead a perfectly good life. He was always friendly to people, gave pleanty to charity, helped out in different community services, never broke any laws and lived to a good moral standard. Yet he knew there was no god. Let's say it turned out he was wrong. When he died would he be sentenced to hell, for not believing (and refusing to do so), disipte the good life he lead? Or would he be granted a place in heaven, dispite not believing in god?

Oooh ooooh! Let me answer that one:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mk/16.html#16

Jesus speaks for himself; Person A would go to Hell.

So the answer is a definate maybe?

Under Redform Judaism, Rotku's Person A would be granted a place in heaven. What really matters to Jews is how every person acts and works to make LIFE better for everyone. If you look closesly, you'll notice that any sort of afterlife is omitted from the Torah. Descriptions of Jewish heaven come from folklore.

The closed-mindedness of Christianity in this regard is a big part of the reason I left the fold.

If jesus made mercy possible...how come that samaritan showed mercy earlier?Jesus made it possible for God to show mercy without violating the law of Justice. The Samaritan was merely a good example of how we ought to behave.

And if jesus died for our sins, how come we are sinning even more now adays than back then?Two words: Free will. We all make our own decisions and choose our own actions, be they right or wrong. Further, Satan is continuing to tempt the people towards sin, and has had 6000 years of experience since the departure from the Garden of Eden.

How come blood spilled from jesus wound some time after he was dead? The blood stops pumping when people dies so his blood shouldn`t spill out.Wouldn't the blood drain out of the dead body if he hung for another 24 to 36 hours after he died?

The fact is you can not DISPROVE they aren't there and it's a very very bold claim to make without hard evidence. The reason why we're talking about them is because we draw parallels between gods and ninja monkeys via the argument that you can't disprove something doesn't exist then it must exist.Okey I'll accept this parallel if AND ONLY IF, you can priovide me someone who has actually seen or had some other experience with these Purple Ninja Monkeys. Otherwise, I will just write this off as a weak arguement...

Less socially developed my arsePermit me an analogy. I promise it will be better than my last attempt at one. You have a child learning mathematics. You hand them an advanced calulus text book. They won't be able to make sense of it. They learn math line upon line, precept upon precept. First they learn to recognize numbers and hiow to count. Then to add and subtract. From there multiplication and division. Order of Operations, Exponents, Algebra all need to be learned before they can learn Calculus. The same goes for Trigonomitry, probability and other higher end mathematical operations. Likewise, with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Frist they need to learn obedience anf faith before they can learn charity, love and forgiveness.

I don't see how God killing his son to cleanse the sins of others is any kind of justice when before justice, according to God, was whoever sins pays for it, not somebody else.Jesus Christ willfully submitted himself to this so that He may forgive the sins of those who will believe in him.

One man, twelve men, who cares. The point is he destroyed the evidence because it was "supposed" to happen or something bogus like that. More like "I'm making something up because I'm delusional and this is just my cop-out from having to come up with any hard facts. Hey, you 11 guys over there! Want to start a religion? I'll pay you a shiny dollar!"The Mormons did not prosper until several decades after the founding of the church. Joseph Smith was murdered by an angry mob in Illinois. I do not believe that he was particularly wealthy. Further, if there was no truth behind what was done, then how come there are over 12 million (or is it 13 million now?) members worldwide?

I claim to have a harem full of beautiful naked women in my basement and you can't prove me wrong. You should believe me.Okay, but I reserve the right to call you a lucky bastard :p

You are right, I have no proof, but I am not the only one claiming these things. Every devout Christian has had some personal experience that convinces them that what they are doing is right.

God doesn't talk to athiests or agnostics, that's not our fault.He does, but you either don't recognize it or refuse to believe it. Under His direction, the Bible was left as a book of history and a book of instructions, as well as a means to share His wisdom.

You go to heaven, I don't because he couldn't be bothered to talk to me? Yeah, that's just, that's fair, that's somebody worth worshipping.To return to the presence of the Father, there are ordinances you have to go through and you have to live worthy of that priviledge. If you live worthy, you will better recognize when the Lord speaks to you. At the last day, any failure to qualify to return to the Father will ultimately fall on your own head, and you will have a perfect knowledge of this.

If person A lead a perfectly good life. He was always friendly to people, gave pleanty to charity, helped out in different community services, never broke any laws and lived to a good moral standard. Yet he knew there was no god. Let's say it turned out he was wrong. When he died would he be sentenced to hell, for not believing (and refusing to do so), disipte the good life he lead? Or would he be granted a place in heaven, dispite not believing in god?At death, he would find himelf in a spirit world, where the souls of the dead await resurrection, following the return of Jesus Christ. There, those who have received the necessary ordinances during their life go to those who have not and teach them the truth so that they may still convert and be saved. It is only through faith in Jesus Christ that our sins may be forgiven, but I believe that Hell itself is reserved for the most evil or the most adamant of those that will not believe. I would conjecture that his eternal fate will be a world similar to this one or slightly better.

I still come back to the fact that it is impossible to know who to believe because you're all saying different things! By ANY stretch of logic, most people must be WRONG about how religion works! No matter who is right, the majority will be wrong! So can you possibly know who has guessed correctly? It's a complete lottery. What a nightmare.

HB, that same sentiment crossed my mind long ago. I've come to believe that spirituality is how people reconcile themselves to the unknown and/or the infinite, and religion is what happens when people who share the same basic spirituality worship together.

Unfortunately, fundamental human nature makes people want to feel superior to their fellows, and that turned something that could and should have been a beneficial thing into something ugly.

Hmm, write a major religion on each side of a 20 sided dice. Roll said dice and follow the religion that you rolled. Who knows, you might roll a natural 20 and get into heaven or roll a 19 or lower and fail your spirit save.

Two words: Free will. We all make our own decisions and choose our own actions, be they right or wrong. Further, Satan is continuing to tempt the people towards sin, and has had 6000 years of experience since the departure from the Garden of Eden.Well, it is good to see you don't stick by the predetermination doctrine. But do we really make our own decisions and choose our own actions? Aren't these all caused by chemical reactions in our brain, which the only control we have over is by other chemical reactions? Free will is far from a given, so probably shouldn't be used to argue another case - infact, as far as I'm aware, most philosophers will argue against it. But then they'd probably argue against religion as well, so I guess their opinions don't mean anything ;)

Wouldn't the blood drain out of the dead body if he hung for another 24 to 36 hours after he died?I'm no medical expert here, but I would imagin that as the veins started break, the blood would seep out (espcially with gravity helping), but would probably remain in the body - atleast for a fairly long time. The skin is thick and fairly hard, I don't think it will have rotted enough away for the blood to train out so soon.

But I could very well be completely wrong about that.

Okey I'll accept this parallel if AND ONLY IF, you can priovide me someone who has actually seen or had some other experience with these Purple Ninja Monkeys. Otherwise, I will just write this off as a weak arguement...Do a google search for Purple Ninja Monkey and let me know what you find. I see movies on YouTube about ninja monkeys and someone who says that their occupation is trying to take over the world with a legion of puprle ninja monkeys. There's even an online t-shirt store run by purple monkeys!

You are right, I have no proof, but I am not the only one claiming these things. Every devout Christian has had some personal experience that convinces them that what they are doing is right.I find this line of argument very curious. It leads to the question : would they have related these experience to the Christian God if there was another dominate religion? What if Purple Monkeys were the common belief around - prehaps then people would be "hearing" purple monkeys talking to them instead of a god.

I would ask how you know that it is the Christian god talking to you, instead of some other god, but I fear I know what the answer will be to this already.

Couldn't I argue along the same lines that we have been visited by aliens? I can find you many cases where people claim to have been visited by aliens / seen UFOs / etc. Does this make the line of argument valid? What about Big Foot? Or the Lock ness Monster? Infact, for the Lock ness monster, check this (http://www.nessie.co.uk/) website - there's even video evidence! Much more than has ever been supplied about a god.

[Edit] Just found a list of Yeti sightings, going back to 1832. Impressive, aye? It must exist http://www.occultopedia.com/y/yeti.htm

He does, but you either don't recognize it or refuse to believe it. Under His direction, the Bible was left as a book of history and a book of instructions, as well as a means to share His wisdom.Ashame he wasn't foresighted enough to provide some personal translators with it. Or prehaps some solid proof. Think how much blood shed would have been prevented. :p


And thanks Rally for the answers. Seems very reasonable and like you've given this a lot of thought. *tips his hat*

But then they'd probably argue against religion as well, so I guess their opinions don't mean anythingHey, I'm not saying that I'd be a philosophist, or a philosopher either, but I'm arguing against religion! :skeptic:

And I can't help but opining that philosophers who argue against religion have opinions on that matter that are extremely relevant! Anyone wanting to know anything about religion and religious thinking should seriously analyze religion as a concept... :nono:

Iku-Turso, I didn't mean any offence. That line was meant to be in jest (hence the ;) at the end and the fact that I'm arguing against it as well).

I still come back to the fact that it is impossible to know who to believe because you're all saying different things! I'm reminded of the story of the six vlind guys and the elephant. Each one had limited understanding because they could only discern a part of it (as in how much they could feel). Each examined a different part and thought it was something different. Basically it translated as this:

Tusk=Spear
Ear=Fan
Leg=tree
Trunk=snake
Body=wall
tail=rope

It is the same creature, diffetent understanding of the thing. Competing religions each know there is a God, but have different understandings of it based upon differing teachings.

I've come to believe that spirituality is how people reconcile themselves to the unknown and/or the infinite, and religion is what happens when people who share the same basic spirituality worship together.Could "people sharing the same basic spirituality" be supporting testimonials of their spiritual experiences? Could enough such witnesses be evidence that there really is something behind it?

Unfortunately, fundamental human nature makes people want to feel superior to their fellows, and that turned something that could and should have been a beneficial thing into something ugly.That's pride for you. It seems great when things are going well for you, but it makes the fall that much harder to live with when you get knocked down a peg.

Hmm, write a major religion on each side of a 20 sided dice. Roll said dice and follow the religion that you rolled. Who knows, you might roll a natural 20 and get into heaven or roll a 19 or lower and fail your spirit save.LMAO. In some ways, it is a crap shoot, but once the decision is made, go balls to the wall in this service and you have your best shot at making the afterlife all it can be. I'd say that true and total damnation will actually be quite rare in the final judgement...

But do we really make our own decisions and choose our own actions? Aren't these all caused by chemical reactions in our brainChemical reactions in the brain may influence the choices you make, but they are still choices. I say this also from personal experience. In my younger, more rebellious days, I drank and used marijuana. The alteration of brain chemistry did impact my decisions, but all I did was still my own decision (mind you of lower quality...).

Do a google search for Purple Ninja Monkey and let me know what you find. I see movies on YouTube about ninja monkeys and someone who says that their occupation is trying to take over the world with a legion of puprle ninja monkeys. There's even an online t-shirt store run by purple monkeys!But are they trying to pass these purple ninja monkeys off as real things that live on the dark side of the moon or are they openly acknowledged as fiction? God is not considered to be fictional by those who believe.

would they have related these experience to the Christian God if there was another dominate religion?It is logical that those of other religions have similar experiences, but as I know little about their faith, I do not consider myself able to properly comment.

I would ask how you know that it is the Christian god talking to you, instead of some other god, but I fear I know what the answer will be to this already.This is where faith comes in. I have to have faith that it is the Holy Ghost and not some demon/delusion. It takes a considerable degree of faith to obey despite other alternatives that may be seen as desirable. It takes faith to remain morally pure instead of having sex. It takes faith to decline alcohol or weed. If you did not have faith then you would see no reason to decline sex, booze or drugs (other things being equal. This doesn't take into account whether she has a boyfriend or if you're driving that night).

Couldn't I argue along the same lines that we have been visited by aliens? I can find you many cases where people claim to have been visited by aliens / seen UFOs / etc. Does this make the line of argument valid? What about Big Foot? Or the Lock ness Monster? Infact, for the Lock ness monster, check this website - there's even video evidence! Much more than has ever been supplied about a god.I would not oppose investigating these claims. I have seen where they've looked more closely at this video evidence and shown it to be false. It was deliberately blurred, but when cleaned up it was revealed to be a hoax. Lack of evidence trumps debunked evidence...

Ashame he wasn't foresighted enough to provide some personal translators with it.Actually it is provided, but it must be prayerfully sought and you must humbly accept the answer given and not seek to pridefully exploit it for your own gain.

Think how much blood shed would have been prevented.Even those who claim to be faithful can still screw up. They can allow their pride/wrath/envy/gluttony/greed to overrule their judgement and start a war. When this happens, they could even twist the words of the almighty to call the people to rally behind their selfish cause.

Anyone wanting to know anything about religion and religious thinking should seriously analyze religion as a conceptAs a concept, it has its good points and its bad points. The Good, it provides a means of socializing a common morality within the populace and can bring comfort to a troubles spirit. The bad, it relies on faith which grants some degree of power, which can corrupt those ill suited to wield it, and the abuse of that trust can have devastating consequences. The Ugly, The higher up that abuse occurs, innocent lives can be ended or ruined, leading to a contempt ot even hatred of what ought to be a good thing. This is not to be a condemntion of religion, but rather a call to those who would hold this power to use it righteously...

It is the same creature, diffetent understanding of the thing. Competing religions each know there is a God, but have different understandings of it based upon differing teachings.
Nice analogy, but if the guy holding the tail says that everyone must praise the rope and that anyone who says anything bad about the rope will be hung from a gallows, and the tusk guy says the same thing but the other way around, then one of them must be wrong.

I get your concept, but that does not take away from the fact that many religions (and non-religions) are blatantly contradictary in what they proclaim so there is no chance of them all being correct.

That's pride for you. It seems great when things are going well for you, but it makes the fall that much harder to live with when you get knocked down a peg.Uh, Gnarff... you do realize, don't you, that I'm saying that all you fundamentalists who claim to have the only pathway to heaven are the one who are guilty of being too proud