# god



## rajatworld

hey friends whats your view on god..??


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Hello Rajat.  



Hmm what are my views?

Well I suppose that I think that God is real in some form or another, if for no other reason than I want them to exist. 

Do know what they want? How many there are? and oh so many other points of contention? Not at all. 

I tend to think of religion like a bad illness, one that we can recover from if we educate ourselves, and understand that what is right for someone else may in fact be wrong for me. 

Imho "God" could be called by as many names as there are religions. 

For I have always felt that there are many paths that might be taken in regards to religion. 

Furthermore, the sooner everyone stops trying to cram their belief system down other people throats the better. 

No one will convince me that I am wrong, and I am never going to convince others that I am right. 

Religion is something that is deeply personal, I happen to think that it should stay that way.

It would go a long way in preventing unnecessary conflict.

On a more persoanl Note I was raised Southern Baptist. However I converted to hinduism long ago.


----------



## Xanados

Jehovah? The Christian God? There is more than one. I have a particular dislike for Christians who call their deity "God". No he isn't called "God". He is A God.

Anway... do we really want to start a religion thread? Really?


----------



## Giant

I believe that there is something greater than all of us out there. But I don't try to define what it is, I just accept that I will never understand why/how we came to be.


----------



## sashamerideth

Sashamerideth puts up her hand and says, "Agnostic, but not one of those militant ones. If I post a relevant XKCD do I win?" She directed everyone to http://xkcd.com/900/


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

@Xan, if you actually follow a religion, you won't speak as if your religion is probably wrong. If your religion is monotheistic, and you _believe_ this religion is the truth, you betray yourself by speaking as if other gods exist.



I'm typing this before church, and I've mentioned being Catholic and marrying Catholic before.

That said, @Lotus, good move. I had a Catholic friend who married a Muslim. It was not important to me which of them converted, but I believe that when it comes to religion parents need to pick one or none. To be raised under two conflicting belief systems would make for a confusing childhood.



On religion, I believe a discussion of religion is actually "safer" than one on politics--under one condition: nothing is up for debate.

My experience in Hong Kong was that most people can discuss religion respectfully. I've been to Taoist funerals. My wife was worried about what I would think, but I found it fascinating! (A lot of drumming, kung fu-like poses, and breaking stuff!) My experience discussing religion in the US is much different. Everyone from atheists to unitarians states his belief as fact and any contradiction is evidence of the other guy's ignorance.

If this thread can be more like my Hong Kong experience, we will learn much about each other, and what a vast place this world truly is.

If this is going to be a my-belief-is-better-than-yours discussion, we may as well all leave this forum and run for congress. Then we can get paid for having arguments that never end and solve nothing. (Okay, I made a political joke, but I didn't take sides so I think that was safe.)


----------



## Xanados

Legendary Sidekick said:


> @Xan, if you actually follow a religion, you won't speak as if your religion is probably wrong. If your religion is monotheistic, and you _believe_ this religion is the truth, you betray yourself by speaking as if other gods exist.



I don't follow any religion. I respect the values of Asatru, the Norse Pagan religion, though. I have respect for nature and my ancestry.


----------



## Telcontar

I'm an atheist, raised catholic. Starting doubting the so-called truth of my religion pretty early on, but didn't really acknowledge myself as an atheist til I was 20 or so.

However, I do have thoughts on god/gods, which are best summed up in a quote from Marcus Aurelius (the Roman emperor):

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

I think that regardless of the existence of a deity, religion was obviously crafted by people. I'm still not sure whether I believe most religions were intentionally designed to maintain control over a populace, but there are lots of elements in the most popular ones that make me wonder.


----------



## zizban

I believe in God. I don't get to into arguments or debates about it. I just believe and I am comfortable with that.

I do believe any connection with the infinite is good, whether that comes through religion and prayer or meditation or chanting. It's all good.


----------



## Xanados

Telcontar said:


> I'm an atheist, raised catholic. Starting doubting the so-called truth of my religion pretty early on, but didn't really acknowledge myself as an atheist til I was 20 or so.
> 
> However, I do have thoughts on god/gods, which are best summed up in a quote from Marcus Aurelius (the Roman emperor):
> 
> “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
> 
> I think that regardless of the existence of a deity, religion was obviously crafted by people. I'm still not sure whether I believe most religions were intentionally designed to maintain control over a populace, but there are lots of elements in the most popular ones that make me wonder.


You speak the truth.
"Religion was obviously crafted by people". Very true. I personally believe that man needed some form of internal validation. There was a documentary on the creation of deities, but I forgot what it was called.

I don't need to need to follow any deity. I don't need salvation. My ancestors, my blood, are the ones I have to thank for bringing me into this world.


----------



## JazzTD

I was raised Agnostic, so to me God may or may not exist. There is no proof that he does exist nor proof that he doesn't. So until I'm shown proof of either existence or non-existence, well, then I'll actually form an opinion on it.

However if God does indeed exist, he must be a pretty cruel person, or not even a person at all. To have the power to create an entire race and be "all mighty", he'd probably be an extraterrestrial, or some kind of sentient plasma cloud, perhaps he's like dark matter, which is everywhere but invisible.

Then again if we are created in God's image and he's cruel then it makes sense for humans to be cruel as well. Although if it were the physical aspects then there's a humanoid alien life form out there somewhere(sci-fi much?).

However, by tracing the paths of evolution through time maybe God was an amoeba or a dinosaur. Or looked that way, if he had their intelligence then well ... maybe humans were an accident.

Basically it's all just speculation on my part. As there is no concrete fact to prove it's one way or the other, right or left, right or wrong, up or down, I'm going to wait to form a concrete opinion on who or what God is or is not.

But whatever people choose to believe is their own right and as long as they don't try and tattoo Jesus across my forehead, I'm good.


----------



## fleamailman

"...I don't believe in god, because I know god, but I don't know what I know, and yet I know it all the same..." ventured the goblin, adding "...look, no one goes around saying that they believe in death, though they know death, but they don't know what they know, and yet they know it all the same, same difference perhaps...", just that the goblin was gnostic, continuing "...so when people replace _knowledge_ with _belief_, it just states that they are fobbing their homework for an excuse not to find out..." adding "...and how organized religion tricks one into following their externals each time, when all along it is just you alone with this infinite internal that touches you now..."







130


----------



## Steerpike

How would one prove non-existence?


----------



## Devor

I don't feel comfortable talking at length about my beliefs here.  I feel sad about that because I love talking about matters of faith with people of another belief system, if they can "get over it" and communicate fairly.  So few of the people I know can really do that.

I will say one thing.  I've almost never heard someone of one belief system accurately describe the beliefs of a system they weren't a part of.  Please, just don't even try, ask questions instead.


----------



## Black Dragon

Yes, I am convinced that God exists.  I've experienced real miracles, so I'm a believer.

I explain my perspective on this here:

Fantasy Writing and the Spiritual Quest

I have great respect for other viewpoints, including those who disagree with me.  This is a deeply personal issue, and it's impossible to convince someone else through reason or arguments.  Largely, this comes down to what you've encountered in life.  

Based on my life experiences, I am convinced that there is far more to this world than what we can see or touch.


----------



## Telcontar

Devor said:


> I've almost never heard someone of one belief system accurately describe the beliefs of a system they weren't a part of.  Please, just don't even try, ask questions instead.



I always ask questions, because I'm not sure it is _possible_ to describe the beliefs of any system, save in one case - a person describing their own beliefs. Back when I was still a catholic I knew that lots and lots of other people who were still a part of 'my' religion believed differently on many things. I have no doubt this is true for all religions, and in fact all people.

Every person, no matter their professed religion, carries a personal religion around with them. The beliefs of it may vary vastly with other people of the same professed religion. There may be some way to get an 'official' version if a religion has a supreme authority (ie, the Pope for catholics) but even then beliefs and attitudes will change as new leaders come along. 

Of course, you were probably referring to a more 'in-general' type of accuracy. There I'd say yeah, the vast majority have little real notion of the beliefs of other religions.


----------



## JazzTD

Steerpike said:


> How would one prove non-existence?



One can't. c: That's the fun part. Although I guess one could argue the proof of non-existence is that we don't have proof of existence, but that's just confusing.

I like to think that the mystery will be solved when I die somewhere along the road, whether I go to heaven or hell or simply cease to exist, there will be an answer. Well, I think so anyway, but for now it's unknowable.


----------



## sashamerideth

Of course the only right answer is I am wrong and everyone else is right. No, wait, that's not right. How is it? 

Oh, nevermind. I side on the unproven=false side of the fence, but I am willing to accept that I may be wrong.


----------



## Devor

Telcontar said:


> There may be some way to get an 'official' version if a religion has a supreme authority (ie, the Pope for catholics) but even then beliefs and attitudes will change as new leaders come along.



Actually it's little things like that I was referring to as much as the larger things.  Someone with an academic or technical knowledge of Catholicism wouldn't readily describe the Pope as a "supreme authority," at least without many, many qualifications to that statement.  But I see a number of similarly inaccurate or misleading statements about every belief system, even those which on the face of it would sound "simple" enough, like atheism or agnosticism.


----------



## Sheilawisz

I believe in some sort of superior, omnipresent power... and I also believe that the universe is far stranger and far more complex than any human mind could ever imagine or understand =)


----------



## fleamailman

the goblin turned up, and then explained "...in life, there is only this_ journey to self _here, that you can know of for sure, in that, some people will talk about lots of things that make sense attaching still more things they will then ask you to believe in, even as far as to offer you an eternal reward or punishment depending on whether you accept their given line as the truth about your afterlife...", somehow the goblin knew that the next bit was harder but he continued "...so imagine the first of two choices, that you accepted their argument to its full, and did exactly as told to because that reward or punishment that was coming later, now what would that tell you about yourself and how base you are then, simply your actions would be based on self-advantage here, something like taking out a mortgage on heaven perhaps, every good action you did would be some contribution towards that mortgage then, wouldn't it...", so the goblin just offered the second choice by saying "...now imagine the other choice, that all your actions good or bad were based on your own judgment of them, no expectation, nor reward nor punishment here, just you knowing yourself by what you do, well if you can imagine these two choices clearly then, and can still choose the latter of the two, thus defying any notion of god, or the devil and anything else for that matter, saying "*I do not look to reward in my actions, the actions are the reward in themselves*", then for an eternity you could hold you head up high and look your maker in the eye, saying "well, you may not like my choices but at least I was, as honest to them then, as I am to you now"..."







51


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> How would one prove non-existence?



As someone else said, evidence for the non-existence of deities is lack of evidence for the existence of deities. The onus is not on skeptics to disprove an outlandish idea; claims such 'there is a god' should require substantial evidence, or else people could say 'I believe in unicorns, how can you prove they don't exist?'... Well, we can't prove they don't exist, but there isn't any evidence for it. And to offer visions, dreams, or experience of miracles as evidence won't do either. I'm certain that some people think they've seen unicorns before, but it doesn't mean they did.

@BlackDragon: As you said, it's not like reasoning will change anyones opinion... but I'm curious as to what these miracles were? Were they impossible for science to explain? I'm not sure if you're talking about something magical, or something very fortunate (and entirely possible).


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

JazzTD said:


> One can't. c: That's the fun part. Although I guess one could argue the proof of non-existence is that we don't have proof of existence, but that's just confusing.
> 
> I like to think that the mystery will be solved when I die somewhere along the road, whether I go to heaven or hell or simply cease to exist, there will be an answer. Well, I think so anyway, but for now it's unknowable.



The general behavior we undertake in our day-to-day lives is that if a proposition is unsupported by evidence, we provisionally reject it and go on about our lives _as if the proposition is false_. "Provisionally" means that we're open to new evidence that could change our minds.

For example, if someone tells me that the Bermuda Triangle has a higher incidence of mysterious naval/aircraft disappearances than other similar regions around the world, then I will look at the evidence, *see that there is no evidence that supports this claim*, and reject it.

Or, more simply, if someone tells me there's still pizza in the fridge, and I look in the fridge and see no pizza, I'm going to reject the proposition that there is pizza in the fridge and behave as if there is no pizza in the fridge, no matter how insistent that other person is that there's still pizza in there.

Propositions about the existence of deities aren't any different than propositions about the existence of pizza. Someone claims they exist; they try to provide evidence; and it's up to each of us to weigh that evidence and decide if it's convincing enough to provisionally accept that claim. To me, so far, the evidence isn't even close to convincing. Everything in the universe is so far explained best by a simple set of physical laws. The universe _itself_ has no explanation, but that's okay; I'm not planning on creating a universe any time soon, so I don't really need to know where it came from.

The main problem with us humans is that we're all *subject to cognitive biases*. Not all of us suffer from all of them, and a given human doesn't always suffer from a given bias on every subject, or even to the same degree all the time. Bob might be more rational about politics on Tuesday than he was on Monday, for some reason.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

Benjamin Clayborne put it way better than I did, so erm.. what he said.


----------



## fleamailman

("...he's saying that people who see ghosts do see those ghost then, whereas people who don't see those ghosts don't see them then, and that trying to prove the existence of those ghost to those who don't see them is as futile as trying to prove that those ghosts are not seen to those who see them, that's all I guess..." mentioned the goblin, adding "...so now, do ghost exist, perhaps the answer is that ghost exists only to those who know them, and are believed in or disbelieved in by those who don't know then...", at which point the goblin was thinking about his own existence on the internet now, saying "...odd, that we don't exist here either now, we're merely projected personas made up from typed words on one's screen, so can I have a slice of that pizza now, who cares if it exists as long as it's edible...")


----------



## Devor

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> To me, so far, the evidence isn't even close to convincing. Everything in the universe is so far explained best by a simple set of physical laws.



I want to ask you something, and you don't have to answer, and I won't question your answer unless invited to, and that goes for anyone who wants to jump in.  But when you boil down the human experience, the only real observable evidence, in my opinion, is your own sense of self.  Even your senses can lie to you; if that's all we had to rely upon, we really could be locked in some kind of matrix, being fed false information by a sensitive computer (or worse).  But we have a consciousness which we know from experience can seem to choose even to conflict with our own inner instincts.  How do you reconcile your own sense of self with your larger belief system?

To be clear, I'm not making an argument of any kind, only asking a question.  I do not mean to suggest in any way that there's a particular way that the question should be answered.  I just find that it's a challenging and interesting question to ask at times.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Devor said:


> I want to ask you something, and you don't have to answer, and I won't question your answer unless invited to, and that goes for anyone who wants to jump in.



Bring it on.  You needn't worry about upsetting me.



> But when you boil down the human experience, the only real observable evidence, in my opinion, is your own sense of self.  Even your senses can lie to you; if that's all we had to rely upon, we really could be locked in some kind of matrix, being fed false information by a sensitive computer (or worse).  But we have a consciousness which we know from experience can seem to choose even to conflict with our own inner instincts.  How do you reconcile your own sense of self with your larger belief system?
> 
> To be clear, I'm not making an argument of any kind, only asking a question.  I do not mean to suggest in any way that there's a particular way that the question should be answered.  I just find that it's a challenging and interesting question to ask at times.



This is solipsism, in a nutshell: How can anyone know that anything exists except their own mind? And it's a perfectly reasonable question. Yes, it's entirely possible that I'm hallucinating all of this.

The simple answer is that solipsism, even if the only thing that can be objectively categorized as true, conflicts with what we _want_. What we want (most of us) is to make sense of the world, to live life, actualize our potential, yadda yadda. If you accept solipsism, then there is no reason for you to ever do anything. And yet you will want to do things, and so you have to either force yourself to do nothing (and die of thirst in a few days), or ignore solipsism and engage in the apparently-real external world.

For all practical purposes, the world _appears_ to exist, and is objectively real, and obeys laws, and things happen... I could choose to ignore all that and believe that only my mind exists, but why would I want to? You could argue "Well, you're just ignoring reality/logic," but if my mind is the only thing that exists, then _I can do whatever the hell I want_. Who's going to argue with me, when I'm the only person here?

So either solipsism is correct, and only my mind exists, and therefore I can do whatever I want (namely, pretend the external world is objectively real); or solipsism is wrong, the external world is objectively real, and I'll continue going about my day the way I always have been. In practice, I end up being much happier and more fulfilled when I ignore solipsism.


----------



## The Blue Lotus

LOL Sidekick, 

I would never change for someone else. 

I started a course in theology after my first marriage blew up. 

Left alone with my son I had questions, lots of them. Having spent 8 years doing my bit as worker/wife/daughter/friend etc. I found that not only did I no longer believe a single word of what my religious leader had to say, but I no longer felt I had a clue. 


Mind you the reasons are as complex as I am, but in a nut shell I went to our church for help in dealing with all the crap in my life at what was already a hard time. The Answer I got was if I had been a better Worker/wife/daughter/sister/mother/friend etc than the problems would not have come up in the first place. 



Sure, perhaps that comforts some people, but it enraged me, to the point where I swore off that church forever. 

However, I found another one in our small town... But, I no longer had faith in myself, or the God I had clung to in times of need. 



I won't bore everyone with the details, suffice it to say that I had a conversation with a teacher in college whom said something along the lines of "If you don't believe in something, at least believe in yourself." 



Having lost faith in everything including myself. These words were exactly what I needed to hear. 



I signed up for a comparative religion class to find out exactly what I did believe in-- deep down.



3 years later I walked away with a certificate of course work completion, and a new found point of view. 

I started researching religions of all types, deeper than the overview of dogma that the course was comprised of, the more I learned about my chosen religion the more I realized it echoed everything I had always though way deep down in bottom of my heart. 



I remember the first time I went to temple. It brought tears to my eyes. Not a clue why. 

Just one of those things, the Pandit walked up handed me a tissue and said that "Anyone moved by just entering the building indeed had found their way home." 



About 3 yrs later I met my husband. He is Hindu by birth, but does not practice in any way. Which is fine by me, everyone is different. 



So what is right for me, is not going to be right for Sue down the street. However people who profess a religious stance but don't understand their religion, or preach one thing and turn around and do exactly the opposite irritate me endlessly. 



I feel blessed to have found the answers I was looking for. 

But even I will admit that I do not adhere to some teachings because to me they make little sense. 



Religion when we strip away everything else is a message of Hope, Love, and Peace. 

Sadly, we humans have added, changed, and spun all sorts of extras to the original message, leaving the masses blind, hopelessly confused, and willing to fight with one another over something we do not fully understand. 



At best Us humans contemplating God is very much like Chipmunks doing quantum physics. >.> 



We are never going to know for sure, at least until we die. 

I died twice, and I still know nothing... so even that is not a given IMHO. 



What I do know for sure is that Energy which is what we all are, can not be created or destroyed, we live on in some way even if there is no heaven. 



Where does our energy go? Does it leak into the ground to be used by plants? Thus continuing the cycle of life?

Perhaps. 

I'd like to think so. I don't think we get born and reborn over and over like some people do. At least not in the same way. Being reborn as a flower is rather a nice thought. Flowers feed bees who have more baby bees, which get eaten by birds, birds are eaten by cats, cats by dogs, dogs, by Coyotes, etc etc. 

That to me is reincarnation. I suppose it is possible I am wrong, but I’m ok with that too. Because I can't understand a "God" who would be angry that I at least made an honest attempt at understanding. 



The people who claim Hell waits for others who do not hold these same beliefs baffle me. If God is all loving, it stands to reason S/He/they could care less what name we call them by.


Edit: As a little girl, I used to think we were all puppets in some sick demented child's play. 
Death was when he got tired of toying with us and stuffed us in a shoe box and stored us under his bed. *Silly I know*


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

The Blue Lotus said:


> The Answer I got was if I had been a better Worker/wife/daughter/sister/mother/friend etc than the problems would not have come up in the first place.


I don't know anyone who finds blaming the victim helpful. You were right to be enraged by this, and to distance yourself from those who said that.



The Blue Lotus said:


> Religion when we strip away everything else is a message of Hope, Love, and Peace.


True. My stance on respecting other religions is _if your religious practices don't involve human sacrifice, we're good._

Like you, I don't believe that God would punish people for picking the wrong religion. We have so many to choose from and no way of proving that any is 100% correct.



@Black Dragon, _@Cosmo,_
I've also experienced a miracle or three. The most deeply personal was a near-death experience which involved a selfless prayer during what could have been my final moment on Earth. It's a long story, so I'll spare everyone... but it's one of those things where _nothing happened that was scientifically impossible,_ but I can't call the experience anything less than miraculous. It's not as close as a living person can get to "proof* of the divine," but it's as close as I've ever gotten.

*(I mean proof for myself, not proof for others.)


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

@Legendary Sidekick: A miracle is something that can not be explained by natural or scientific means, and so is attributed to a magical or spiritual force of some kind. Your definition of 'miraculous' is actually the definition of 'very fortunate', which as you acknowledged, is entirely possible without divine intervention. I'm really not sure why anyone could possibly take that as evidence of a higher power.


----------



## fleamailman

("...so what if god did or didn't exist then, and how would that change any of you decisions now, I mean do you really need some heavenly reward and punishment towards your actions at this point, where those actions become the reward or the punishment in themselves..." mentioned the goblin as if knowing that god's existence didn't change his _journey to self_ here, explaining "...you can't know yourself without making yourself self accountable, god and the afterlife are not simply an excuse for you not doing your homework about the merit of your own actions...")

"...simply, you and I are anonymous, the number of posts, the hit rate, and all the other paraphernalia which goes up to create any member on a site actually means nothing because nothing can be proved here, nothing except the fact that I am writing this and you are reading it..." said the goblin whose goal remained to know himself from what he posted, adding "...you can't know the future, there is no way to know it because it is not here yet, but perhaps one can know oneself, because oneself is here all the time..."






49


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Johnny Cosmo said:


> @Legendary Sidekick: A miracle is something that can not be explained by natural or scientific means, and so is attributed to a magical or spiritual force of some kind. Your definition of 'miraculous' is actually the definition of 'very fortunate', which as you acknowledged, is entirely possible without divine intervention. I'm really not sure why anyone could possibly take that as evidence of a higher power.


To be fair, I didn't actually tell the story. I'm not sure that it's something I'll ever share outside of a face-to-face conversation.

I have a feeling that if you knew the full story, our conversation would be similar to the one between Samuel Jackson and John Travolta in Pulp Fiction (when Jackson's character interpreted the bullets missing him as divine intervention).



@Flea Mailman,

My beliefs do have an effect on how I act. For example, I believe there is an afterlife. I don't worry about Heaven or Hell, but I mean that my wife is truly my soulmate. God forbid I outlive her while I'm still healthy, I will not remarry. (I'm a pretty good predictor of how I would behave in situations I didn't expect to find myself in, so yes, I am certain of this.) We'll be reunited after death.

And if I'm wrong about the whole immortal soul thing, well... at least the skeptics won't be able to give me "I told you so."

That said, I don't claim a moral high ground over an athiest who has his/her own reasons to be "a good person," treats others as he/she wants to be treated, etc.


----------



## fleamailman

("...I am gnostic, I am not allowed the luxury of belief, I simply know god without knowing what I know, becoming my homework perhaps..." replied the goblin, adding "...where are those things you love if not within your heart at this point, so by this logic then, when one dies those that one loves will still be there then forever...")

"...ah yes, that word _faith_ again, but you don't know do you, so what do you actually really know mortals, that you are here, yes, and that your _journey to self_, journey to death too, is evident, simply all around you now is indisputable as your dailylife is it not, and you could say that you are just the sum total of the trappings of your dailylife here..." mentioned the goblin, thinking dailylife as one's age, how one looks in the mirror, status, money in the bank, etc., continuing "...but me, I know that I am more than that because I keep facing this slot trying to make posts, not as some religion but as a counter-conditioning process towards dailylife, so that, after a while, I just see myself from what I post...", the goblin paused, then concluded "...look, "knowing" is all you can go on, and yes you can make pacts with the faiths, just as you can accept the trappings of this dailylife as its total too, and even amass those trinkets of the moneygod if you like, but in the end you'll still be asking yourself "where am I in all this", won't you mortal, because _believing_ is accepting _faith_ in place of _truth_ because you have been told to do so, or because it is written as such somewhere, where in fact your sole duty is to know, so that your _journey to self_ is simply "to know for yourself" now, not _faith_ then, gnostics don't believe in god, they know him, but they don't know what it is they actually know, hence _the journey to self_ then, but they still know it much like you and I would know death here, yet few go around saying they believe in death, death is just there for those who know it..."






46


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> To be fair, I didn't actually tell the story. I'm not sure that it's something I'll ever share outside of a face-to-face conversation.
> 
> I have a feeling that if you knew the full story, our conversation would be similar to the one between Samuel Jackson and John Travolta in Pulp Fiction (when Jackson's character interpreted the bullets missing him as divine intervention).



No, but you did acknowledge it as possible. I'm sure things similar to what happened in that Pulp Fiction scene have happened quite a few times, but only those who are predisposed to believe in religion (such as Samuel Jacksons character) would ever interpret it as divine intervention. So really, your kind of miracle is still not evidence, in any way. Obviously you are entitled to believe it, but going back to what Black Dragon said about changing peoples opinions - you probably know that even if you explained it (and it was indeed amazing), I wouldn't view it as divine intervention.

The only real 'problem' I have with this (apart from the fact that I just can't believe it), is that why do you assume some divine power is willing to intervene in your affairs, but not in the affairs of dying children in Africa? The terminally ill? Or even me? Why doesn't a higher power show itself to me so that I can take up religion and save myself from hell (or it's equivalent?)? After all, I can't help being an atheist.



> That said, I don't claim a moral high ground over an athiest who has his/her own reasons to be "a good person," treats others as he/she wants to be treated, etc.



But this is the main point for me; you don't need faith to have morality. Viewpoints on morality factor heavily into how I get along with people. So I agree with this stance heartily.


----------



## Telcontar

I remember what it was like to believe in god, so I generally go for a 'live and let believe' attitude with religion. It was once put to me to say whether I believed anyone who believed in a god was deluded - I had said I don't look down on people with religion, and was being challenged that in fact I DO look down on them.

My answer was yes. I think people who believe in god are deluded. However, the caveat is I think everyone is deluded about something, to some extent. It's part of the human condition - we believe what we want to believe, and even profound skeptics will fall prey to this at some points. It's hard to scrutinize every aspect of your life with a critical eye. Some things you just take for granted, until they are brought to your attention. Then you reveal your character with whether you cling to a mistaken belief  or are able to discard it. I, sadly, have done both at times, though I struggle to always be rational. 

Furthermore, my opinion is that with more years and with the steady advance of scientific knowledge, religion may eventually be a pretty uncommon thing. I doubt it will ever be extinguished entirely, but we're already seeing that the non-believers are increasing rapidly in number. Also, one of the fastest ways to make someone cling to their beliefs - regardless of evidence - is to attack those beliefs. 



> But this is the main point for me; you don't need faith to have morality.



Very much so. The statement "people without religion have no morals" is one of the fastest roads to ticking me off. I also do a vast amount of thinking on morality. It is an important theme in a lot of my writing.

Edit: Also, can I just say I find it wonderful that this conversation has been basically civil and even? This is one of the subjects most likely to inflame passions. Kudos to us all!


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> Very much so. The statement "people without religion have no morals" is one of the fastest roads to ticking me off. I also do a vast amount of thinking on morality. It is an important theme in a lot of my writing.



And to add: assuming that morals require religion is assuming that without religion, believers would also be without morals. So, if the only thing making you 'good' is the fear of a god, or the fear of going to a hell, then you're not really being good at all.


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Someone ( I don't recall the posters name sorry ) asked about miracles. 

Everyday is a small miracle, I see one in the eyes of children, in the setting sun, in a rainbow. 
Even the passing on of humans is; in it of its self a miracle. All the systems beginning to shut down, Cells stop dividing etc. 

Birth is, in my book at least, the biggest miracle of all. Watching a new life come into the world. Knowing _how_ and _why_ does not make much difference really. What is the real miracle in all that is how mother nature gets it just right. The options that nature can chose from are staggering at best, how does one cell become two and two become a trillion? How does everything get directed, eyes here, nose there etc etc?


Just my personal take on it all.  But then again I always did try to find the pot of gold, the silver lining, and I love my rose colored glasses! Well I supposed if I were to be 100% honest they are purple tinted but... you get the point. 

Edit: I think that people need to have something to belive in, be it a higher power or science. It is something that we can connect to, it grounds us when all else fails.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Johnny Cosmo said:


> why do you assume some divine power is willing to intervene in your affairs


A question I asked myself as soon as I discovered that my lungs ceased to function. I couldn't move a limb, my head, my mouth--anything--and I knew that, in that situation, sleep meant death. An adrenaline surge caused time to stop from my perspective. A lot was going through my head I didn't think I deserved special treatment; my selfless prayer wasn't that I be spared. It was that I either fall asleep (I was about to from suffocation) and die, or somehow get out of the mess I was in (unable to jolt myself awake) so I could fight the illness (pneumonia). I didn't want to fight a losing battle, knowing that "instant" death (I was ill for weeks, but had only been in the hospital for an hour) would be easier on my parents if I was going to die anyway.

After the prayer, my eyes opened. I did not make a mental effort to open my eyes. It just happened right after the prayer. ~90 minutes later, I found myself dozing off again and used my eyes to force myself awake. (Knowing that was all I could do in that situation was the difference between life and death.) The expert flown in from Russia and everyone else said my body was too far gone to recover, but my parents and I went through that week unafraid. We all knew I would survive, and doctors were shocked by my parents' fearlessness. The expert dismissed them as fools who "just don't get it."

Whether or not I'm deluded makes no difference if I'm wrong. If there's no God, no soul, no afterlife, then my beliefs just give me a reason not to fear death and being wrong is inconsequential since in that case, death would mean ceasing to experience or perceive.


Also, the beliefs that my wife and I share have undoubtedly saved the life of our first born. When a doctor told us our daughter would have birth defects, which included a dwarfish deformation and low I.Q., we refused to have her tested. Why stick a needle into the womb if we're morally opposed to aborting our own child? Friend of ours, who were expecting a child to be born in the same week as us, chose to abort after hearing similar news from their doctor.

My first born is tall for her age (90th percentile) and I won't get into specifics about her intelligence--you really don't want a father to start bragging about his daughter, especially when there's much to brag about.


Getting back to your question:

I cannot answer why a divine force would intervene in the affairs of a mortal. I do not expect to convert an atheist with this story, just as I do not expect to make an atheist question his beliefs by asking how life or the Universe could have been created without a Creator. This question can't be satisfactorily answered by a religious person either; the concept of something (living or non-) having no beginning is impossible for the human mind to fathom.


I completely agree with Telcontor’s philosophy, "Live and let believe."


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> I completely agree with Telcontor’s philosophy, "Live and let believe."



I agree too, up to a certain point (though I won't get into the damage caused by certain religions). I'm not meaning to drag this on; I know I can't change anyone's opinion, so this is just my own curiosity into other's beliefs. 

My previous point wasn't as to why a god would intervene in mortal affairs, but as to why a god would choose to intervene with a particular persons affairs, because it implies that we are prioritised by the higher power. If I were to believe in a god, I still wouldn't believe in miracles. 

It's similar to when an actress or model thanks God for an award. How arrogant of them to believe that God is on their side, that God had anything to do with them winning. Granted, believing that you have experienced a miracle isn't what I'd call 'actively arrogant', but it does require the assumption that you are a higher priority than a starving, disease riddled child of a third-world country (amongst others far less fortunate).


----------



## fleamailman

("...well said..." went the goblin feeling that between the sheep of blind belief and those mules of stubborn disbelief were those who questioned till their arrival at self, adding "...why be followers in christ when you can be a leader in christ, belief is shortchange for knowledge, _knock and he may enter_, yes but one still has to knock on the door of doubt to be sure...")

something within the goblin always feared all that they call _organized religion_ for the fact that it was organized, and thus trying to organize one too, saying "...how often do I feel that organized religion is an excuse not to find out for oneself then, and that one's connection to within, to that which has always been there too, is just ignored because of this compliant towing of the given external line each time, so no, I won't believe in, nor go somewhere closer, nor pay something towards, anything outside of me now, when you and I know it to be just *there within oneself without those preconditions* then..."






70


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I completely agree with Telcontor’s philosophy, "Live and let believe."



I do too. Unfortunately, too many believers (and, alas, a few atheists) go out of their way to try to force their beliefs on others. _That's_ when I start doing my Incredible Hulk impression.


----------



## Reaver

benjamin clayborne said:


> i do too. Unfortunately, too many believers (and, alas, a few atheists) go out of their way to try to force their beliefs on others. _that's_ when i start doing my incredible hulk impression.




*clayborne smash!!!!*


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Legendary Sidekick said:


> My first born is tall for her age (90th percentile) and I won't get into specifics about her intelligence--you really don't want a father to start bragging about his daughter, especially when there's much to brag about.
> 
> I completely agree with Telcontor’s philosophy, "Live and let believe."




Awwww !  How freaking cute! you have some very lucky children SideKick! 


Oh and as a side note, perhaps you were saved by comitting a selfless act? If not that than by sheer force of will you are still here.   

In either case you have good karma kiddo, may be be blessed always.


----------



## The Grey Sage

I am a firm Christian myself, and love to discuss my beliefs with others, but I don't try to force the issue with anyone. I believe the issue of the so called forcing of beliefs by other Christians is because they are concerned and eager to try and spread the Gospel. Unfortuantely there are many negative emotions towards the church, and that saddens me greatly. I would love to discuss my beliefs if anyone asks.


----------



## The Blue Lotus

The Grey Sage said:


> I am a firm Christian myself, and love to discuss my beliefs with others, but I don't try to force the issue with anyone. I believe the issue of the so called forcing of beliefs by other Christians is because they are concerned and eager to try and spread the Gospel. Unfortuantely there are many negative emotions towards the church, and that saddens me greatly. I would love to discuss my beliefs if anyone asks.



I'm asking... what do you believe exactly?


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Reaver said:


> *clayborne smash!!!!*



You would not _believe_ how much I have to spend on purple shorts.


----------



## Reaver

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> You would not _believe_ how much I have to spend on purple shorts.



A small fortune, I would wager. Have you considered investing in stretch pants? They're the boon to millions of obese people and the occasional gamma-ray-powered super hero.  Have been for decades.  Check out 1,000s of New Clearance Items at REI - Save Up to 50% › Men's › Men's Pants › Men's Running Pants/Tights


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Hmm, Well Ben, Mountain Hardwear Mighty Power 3/4 Tights - Men's at REI.com, or http://www.google.com/imgres?q=Men+...nw=193&start=151&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:151 I am sure you can pull them off... ROLMAO.


----------



## Neurosis

I believe thoroughly and completely that there is no God. Although to offer a littler juxtaposition to this, I shall copy and paste something I once wrote:

Having said all this I still think there is an argument for a God, although perhaps not in the way most would conceive of. You need to understand I use the term God very loosely. I mean by it some sort of higher intelligence. Not a power or "being". Let me explain. We know that the human brain is made of billions of neurons, none of which are touching. They are separate, yet communicating. Furthermore there are many regions of the brain that process specific groups of things; for example the precentral gyrus is known for motor initiation and somatic mapping, Broca's area is important for hand gestures and motor control in speech - etc. The point is this; the brain has many disparate functions, but where does it all come together? At what place does it become consciousness, the fundamental "I"? The best answer modern Neuroscience has been able to come up with may not please you, nevertheless it is that the mere processing of data as a unit, gives rise to the experience of a conscience, and the idea of the ego, the me, whatever you want to call it. Simply put, the facets create the whole without need of a singularity or convergence point. Given this assumption think on this: if all our brains are separate and are processing "as a whole" the same reality (which minor Einsteinian differences, but lets ignore these as they are inconsequential) does that mean that our collective intelligence would give rise to a higher conscience? Are we collectively all a "God"? Personally I think there would be nothing more fitting than this. The universe created us from star-stuff, intricate patterns built up over time, through chance and oppertunity and error we came to be. And now, in the very act of arguing the existence of a God, in trying to validate out own ephemeral and entirely unprovable existence we create "God". Not a benevolent creator, nor a wicked dictator, but instead whatever we are, our collective thoughts and dreams.

Perhaps we are the raw material that evolved to form this higher consciousness. Much like our own cells - maybe - if they could think they might think they are an individual in a great community, when really they are only the units that make up our existence. First there was mere RNA, the beginning of a great tree of evolution. Then came cells that housed the newly altered form of RNA known as DNA. Then these cells made up organisms, and now perhaps organisms make up something else. Why can these "millions of years of evolution" not progress towards another level of intelligence? Of course I don't actually believe any of this, and I certainly wouldn't waste my time trying to prove it, I am just trying to make people think. Its more of a verbose and bombastic troll (I can't think of a better word) than anything else. Still, its a nice thought.

I have, however, strayed away from science, and into half supported speculation. But if that is not the fuel of Philosophy, I don't know what is.


----------



## mythique890

I believe in God.  I know there are horrible, unfair things that happen, but just because we can't see the reason doesn't mean there isn't one.  I believe that we're here to gain experience and grow as people so we can become more like God like our children grow up to be adults.  My not-quite two-year-old would love to eat candy and drink juice for every meal, and I'm sure she can't fathom why on earth I won't let her.  If she could talk to her peers, maybe they'd all talk about how unfair it is that the adults won't let them eat candy and drink juice all the time because it makes them feel good.  I know why I can't let her do it, even though it's great in the short run, it would be devastating to her in the long run (cavities, obesity, diabetes, general health, etc.) but I can't possibly explain my reasoning to her because she isn't capable of understanding.  It's a simple metaphor for the "God must be cruel/uncaring" argument, but it's the best way I can explain.

For me, my belief is comforting.  I know I'm not alone when I'm in my darkest places.  Also, like some PP's have said, when it comes down to it, whether I disappear after this life or end up in my vision of the afterlife, I'll have lived a decent life.  I could have done it without religion, but I like what I believe.  I feel it's logical and beautiful and helps me to understand and deal with things I couldn't otherwise.

I hear a lot of talk about how people who have religion believe in fairy tales, but I came across an interesting quote about atheism today.  "The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing exploded for no reason, creating everything.  Then everything rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits that became dinosaurs."  Of course this isn't an accurate representation, but it highlighted the fact that what seems ridiculous and what doesn't is really all in how you word things.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

mythique890 said:


> I believe in God.  I know there are horrible, unfair things that happen, but just because we can't see the reason doesn't mean there isn't one.



True, but without any way to determine whether such a reason exists, why is it reasonable to claim that it does? If someone tells me there's an invisible teapot orbiting Mars, I'm not going to be swayed when they say that I can't prove it's _not_ there.



> It's a simple metaphor for the "God must be cruel/uncaring" argument, but it's the best way I can explain.



It's an interesting metaphor; the problem with it is that eventually the two-year old grows up and learns to understand all the reasons why Mommy did the things she did. It doesn't really analogize to the deity situation, unless dying is the equivalent of growing up... but as far as we can tell, brain activity stops and your body decomposes once you die, so I'm not sure exactly how dying is supposed to teach you something.

I get the metaphor, I'm just not sure where phase is where we "grow up" and learn to understand all the things that a deity supposedly is trying to teach us. Unless there isn't one, which brings us back to the problem of how do we even know this is happening in the first place?



> For me, my belief is comforting.  I know I'm not alone when I'm in my darkest places.  Also, like some PP's have said, when it comes down to it, whether I disappear after this life or end up in my vision of the afterlife, I'll have lived a decent life.  I could have done it without religion, but I like what I believe.  I feel it's logical and beautiful and helps me to understand and deal with things I couldn't otherwise.



Sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. Some people need that belief in order to make it along; others don't. As long as no one tries to justify changing social policy based on their religious beliefs.



> I hear a lot of talk about how people who have religion believe in fairy tales, but I came across an interesting quote about atheism today.  "The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing exploded for no reason, creating everything.  Then everything rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits that became dinosaurs."  Of course this isn't an accurate representation, but it highlighted the fact that what seems ridiculous and what doesn't is really all in how you word things.



It seems to me that the only thing that quote demonstrates is that there are people out there who don't have any idea what atheists believe.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> _I hear a lot of talk about how people who have religion believe in fairy tales, but I came across an interesting quote about atheism today. "The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing exploded for no reason, creating everything. Then everything rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits that became dinosaurs." Of course this isn't an accurate representation, but it highlighted the fact that what seems ridiculous and what doesn't is really all in how you word things._



I don't believe nothing happened to nothing for no reason. And I don't believe it just 'created everything' that rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating bits that became dinosaurs. When you put it so simply and inaccurately, you can make anything sound outlandish.



> It's a simple metaphor for the "God must be cruel/uncaring" argument, but it's the best way I can explain.



Except that when we don't allow our children candy and juice for each meal, we're not causing them starve or contract disease, nor eventually killing them after a life of only suffering. Plus, why couldn't an omnipotent god have given us the power to comprehend his actions? It almost sounds like he's trying to deceive and manipulate us into not believing in him, then getting really mad at us for exercising the gift of free-will.



> _I feel it's logical and beautiful and helps me to understand and deal with things I couldn't otherwise._



It's cool that is comforts you, but I don't really see that as a point of discussion. Whether or not a belief is comforting has no effect on whether it is true, but we won't go into that. It might be beautiful (if we turn a blind eye to all the suffering, all the imperfection, and all the problems in the world), but science and evolutionism is beautiful and elegant in it's own way. It's also logical, as the theory is based on evidence. As with the 'miracles' debate earlier, I think your definition of 'logical' is misguided.


----------



## Devor

I made this comment last night, and then I deleted it.  But now I'll make it again:  Do we have to confront each other about our beliefs?  We were invited to share.  Just let it be that.

There should be a rule going forward of one post per person.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> I made this comment last night, and then I deleted it. But now I'll make it again: Do we have to confront each other about our beliefs? We were invited to share. Just let it be that.
> 
> There should be a rule going forward of one post per person.



The discussion is on-topic and not out of hand, no one is name calling, so I don't see the problem. As the recent thread on conflict suggested, I don't think we should be scared of debate as long as it doesn't degenerate into mindless or offensive argument. From what I can tell, no one is getting angry, or intentionally insulting.

And one post per person, per thread? That wouldn't be much of a discussion...


----------



## Devor

Johnny Cosmo said:


> The discussion is on-topic and not out of hand, no one is name calling, so I don't see the problem. As the recent thread on conflict suggested, I don't think we should be scared of debate as long as it doesn't degenerate into mindless or offensive argument. From what I can tell, no one is getting angry, or intentionally insulting.
> 
> And one post per person, per thread? That wouldn't be much of a discussion...



But why does it have to be a discussion?  Nobody asked, "Hey what do you think of my beliefs?"  Nobody has tried to convince you of anything, so why should now two people feel compelled to challenge mythique890's post?  It isn't necessary.  That's not the makings for a friendly atmosphere.  That's the kind of stuff that makes religion so difficult to talk about openly.  People just don't know how to talk about it without having to feel confrontational or defensive or put off, and people don't want to feel that way.

I've had many, many conversations with people of different faiths, and most of them were genuinely _fun_.  But that doesn't happen unless people take a genuine interest in learning what others believe instead of confronting each other.


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Who is to say anyone is right? We could all even with the wide sampeling of view points here be dead wrong. 

There may be pearled gates and angels with wings waiting for us, or there could just be nothing at all. 

I don't really see why it would matter where in the spectrum one falls, if what they think gives them hope and comfort then so be it. 

I have had the joy of having this conversation with many rational people who could sit and talk with out attacking many a times. *not that anyone is attacking anyone else here mind you* However, it could descend into that quickly so let us all proceed with caution.

What if, and mind you this is pure speculation...

What if, Heaven and Hell do exist, what if GOD does too? Does that not stand to reason that perhaps purgatory is also going to be real?

If that were true, one could come to the conclusion that Earth may in fact be purgatory. A place to make amends, as well as learn before being allowed to attain a higher understanding. Which would answer why we are not able to prove or disprove, it would also make sense that "God" is less likely to intercept problems. As His/Her/Their assistance would only come after you have learned what you were sent to learn. 

Again just speculation, but I do think that if God is real there is a reason we were not "built" to understand. I however can not bring myself to think that an altruistic being would first make humans, while leaving them totally unprepared and unequipped to do what he wants or needs. It makes more sense that "God" Either is a true God and has not a care for us, or we have yet to learn what was intended and as such God is unable to enter with his full power as of yet. 

I do know that if we were not sent here simply to learn specific lessons than an all loving God makes little sense because as so many have pointed out life is a box of brown something but it surely isn’t chocolates!


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> But why does it have to be a discussion?


Because that's what a forum is best suited for. 





> I've had many, many conversations with people of different faiths, and most of them were genuinely_fun. But that doesn't happen unless people take a genuine interest in learning what others believe instead of confronting each other._


We (I assume you mean Benjamin Clayborne too) haven't attacked anyone on a personal level; we have used the forum to express our views, taking into account previous posts. Why is it that religion gets special treatment? Why are opinions on politics, sports, music and literature open for debate but religion is not? 

You don't have to participate if the mere thought of religious debate offends or annoys you, but you shouldn't expect people to respect the opinion that religious debate is forbidden territory. And honestly, I don't sense this 'bad atmosphere' at all. We're a community of creatives, we should thrive on this sort of discussion.

*Edit: *And just to add - I'm not sure why you feel inclined to come to the 'defence' of another user as if they are incapable of discussing it themselves (which I'm certain is not the case).


----------



## Telcontar

A bunch of people posting their own beliefs about anything without the chance for discussion is far-and-away less interesting than having that AND discussion. The conversation so far has been even-handed and civil from all involved. I do not see why you wish to end that, Devor.

I have a strong dislike for the 'God has a reason for everything' or 'God has a plan' line of thought. Allowing millions, even billions of people to suffer and die for any reason is evil. Any god who would do it is no god I'd worship. I'm not going to worship something out of fear, or out of awe at its power. It's going to have to earn my respect...


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Telcontar said:


> I have a strong dislike for the 'God has a reason for everything' or 'God has a plan' line of thought.



The thing that occurred to me several years ago is that "God's plan" appears to be indistinguishable from random chance. If I try to envision what a world would look like that was governed only by the cold laws of physics, I get the world we already live in.


----------



## Devor

You guys strongly give the impression that you need to prove others wrong.  Belief systems are often quite complex and rooted in one's identity; it would be extremely difficult to defend or justify many of them adequately within the confines of a few forum posts.  So I don't understand why those beliefs need to be challenged and put down.  There are plenty of others, with beliefs similar to your own, who will undoubtedly share their thoughts as well.  Give them that chance.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Devor said:


> You guys strongly give the impression that you need to prove others wrong.



Nope. Merely introducing some memes that might be new to some people.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> You guys strongly give the impression that you need to prove others wrong.



I'm not sure why you came to that conclusion. I acknowledged the fact that discussion such as this is very unlikely to change anyone's opinion, but that shouldn't stop me from talking about it.



> Belief systems are often quite complex and rooted in one's identity; it would be extremely difficult to defend or justify many of them adequately within the confines of a few forum posts.



I agree, so why not try to defend and justify them in _more_ than a few forum posts?



> So I don't understand why those beliefs need to be challenged and put down. There are plenty of others, with beliefs similar to your own, who will undoubtedly share their thoughts as well. Give them that chance.


Why does it matter who brings their thoughts to the table? What gives you the right to restrict what we post? Especially considering you tried to do so on moral grounds, which now seem to have disappeared from your argument.


----------



## Devor

Johnny Cosmo said:


> Why does it matter who brings their thoughts to the table? What gives you the right to restrict what we post? Especially considering you tried to do so on moral grounds, which now seem to have disappeared from your argument.



All I did was propose a rule; I haven't even pushed it.  I am honestly at a loss as to what you mean by "moral grounds."  I was just pointing out that it seemed excessive and unnecessary and a little hostile to confront fairly sparse religious statements as if they were meant to prove anything.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> All I did was propose a rule; I haven't even pushed it. I am honestly at a loss as to what you mean by "moral grounds." I was just pointing out that it seemed excessive and unnecessary and a little hostile to confront fairly sparse religious statements as if they were meant to prove anything.



A rule that goes against the fundamental point of a forum. You were coming to the defence of a user that didn't really need to be defended, and discouraging discussion because it might offend someone who is insecure enough to take points of an argument as some kind of personal criticism (which would be understandable if users were being insulting, but that's not the case).


----------



## Devor

Johnny Cosmo said:


> A rule that goes against the fundamental point of a forum. You were coming to the defence of a user that didn't really need to be defended, and discouraging discussion because it might offend someone (which would be understandable if users were being insulting, but nobody was).



So okay, nobody liked the rule idea.  I'm not broken up by it.

I didn't really come to mythique's defense, in the sense that I haven't supported her actual statements.  My concern is only the vibe and atmosphere of this thread and its impact on the community's willingness to share their rather personal, intimate views.  That's all.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> I didn't really come to mythique's defense, in the sense that I haven't supported her actual statements.



I didn't mean to say you supported her statements, but that you defended her in a kind of protective way.



> My concern is only the vibe and atmosphere of this thread and its impact on the community's willingness to share their rather personal, intimate views. That's all.



That's fair enough, and you obviously meant well, but I don't think that restriction and paranoia of accidentally offending someone is healthy for a discussion forum. If I offend somebody, I'm happy to acknowledge and apologise for that, but whether I respect their right to be offended really depends on what we're discussing. So far, I don't see why anybody should be offended.

As I've heard Richard Dawkins (and others) suggest, tolerance is not respect. Saying 'I know that my faith is true, but you can believe what ever you want to believe' is actually quite condescending. I think it's far more respectful to say 'I think you're wrong, and this is why' (not that I've even been _that_ aggressive).

And I didn't mean to emphasise your rule idea, I just thought it was a non-solution really.


----------



## Devor

Johnny Cosmo said:


> As I've heard Richard Dawkins (and others) suggest, tolerance is not respect. Saying 'I know that my faith is true, but you can believe what ever you want to believe' is actually quite condescending. I think it's far more respectful to say 'I think you're wrong, and this is why' (not that I've even been _that_ aggressive).



Yeah, but Dawkins and others actually make that statement as an argument against certain religions because of how those religions are thought to view non-believers.  But as Telcontar mentioned, everyone in some way has their own religion, and I'll add that even the official versions of those religions often give more space to members of differing belief systems than is commonly understood.  It might not really be condescending at all.

But it's just as likely to be condescending to say, prove your beliefs to me right here, right now, in a forum post, in front of everyone, while we team up and challenge the logic behind them.  I feel like that's what's happened.

((edit))  I'm sorry, thread hijack complete, I won't post again unless it's to share my own beliefs.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> Yeah, but Dawkins and others actually make that statement as an argument against certain religions because of how those religions are thought to view non-believers. But as Telcontar mentioned, everyone in some way has their own religion, and I'll add that even the official versions of those religions often give more space to members of differing belief systems than is commonly understood. It might not really be condescending at all.



It can be used as a way to justify debate between any two people of different beliefs, and I didn't imply anything more than that. Of course not _all_ religions view non-believers in the same way, but they do assume that they are right and non-believers are wrong, so the point still remains.



> But it's just as likely to be condescending to say, prove your beliefs to me right here, right now, in a forum post, in front of everyone, while we team up and challenge the logic behind them. I feel like that's what's happened.



How is it condescending to question a belief? I would argue that if people didn't want to discuss their opinions, they shouldn't bring it to a discussion forum, but I'll settle on saying that if they do have a problem, they're free to say so. And it's not like we intended to 'team-up' on anyone, so why are you equating what seems to have been a perfectly civil discussion as bullying?

In fact, the first insults are just starting to surface, and you're the one using them.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Johnny Cosmo said:


> But it's just as likely to be condescending to say, prove your beliefs to me right here, right now, in a forum post, in front of everyone, while we team up and challenge the logic behind them. I feel like that's what's happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it condescending to question a belief? I would argue that if people didn't want to discuss their opinions, they shouldn't bring it to a discussion forum, but I'll settle on saying that if they do have a problem, they're free to say so. And it's not like we intended to 'team-up' on anyone, so why are you equating what seems to have been a perfectly civil discussion as bullying?
Click to expand...


I agree; that's not what "condescending" means. The act of asking someone to support their claims while you try to debunk them is not, in itself, condescending. It can be done in a condescending way, but so can anything.


----------



## The Blue Lotus

On an unrelated note: 
Has anyone noticed when someone tries to defend their point of view on well... just about anything considered a "Button Issue" They get ultra defensive? And the opposing person goes into attack mode, and I don't mean just attacking the topic they will hit way below the belt. So much so that "baby mamma drama" is preferable to spending even one more moment in the same room with them?

I wonder why that is? 

At least you guys can have a civil debate about something without it becoming a pointless poo slinging contest. 
Thanks for that!  You're all rock stars.


----------



## Steerpike

The Blue Lotus said:


> On an unrelated note:
> Has anyone noticed when someone tries to defend their point of view on well... just about anything considered a "Button Issue" They get ultra defensive?



In many cases, though certainly not all, the person isn't entirely grounded in their own belief, or they haven't given a substantial amount of thought to it, or they are unable to articulate it and defend it in a logical manner. Because of this, even if the belief can stand up to scrutiny, the individual person isn't able to adequately defend it. It makes them feel foolish, and then angry, because they're adopting a position they can't defend (or for which they cannot articulate a defense).


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Steerpike said:


> In many cases, though certainly not all, the person isn't entirely grounded in their own belief, or they haven't given a substantial amount of thought to it, or they are unable to articulate it and defend it in a logical manner. Because of this, even if the belief can stand up to scrutiny, the individual person isn't able to adequately defend it. It makes them feel foolish, and then angry, because they're adopting a position they can't defend (or for which they cannot articulate a defense).



Yes, but why attack the individual posing a differing view point?
Name calling, and persoanl attacks just serve to make them look even smaller. I guess I just don't understand that. Then again I was raised with a father who would sit for hours on end arguing a point with me both of us with stacks of refference books in hand. Maybe I was just lucky like that? 
At least it ballanced out my mother who is one of those attack type people. 

Anywho, said it once I will say it again I'm glad that the members here are more even headed than the majority of the human population.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> ((edit)) I'm sorry, thread hijack complete, I won't post again unless it's to share my own beliefs.



I only just noticed this. I think it's fair to continue posting (providing you want to), because now we're getting on to the discussion of whether religion is fair game for debate, which is somewhat relevant to the original topic.

And I have to agree with The Blue Lotus. I wish all debates were this calm and collected. Face-to-face debates usually get more heated because people don't have time to consider their points before making them, which leads to mistakes and misinterpretations. This leads to frustration, and the easiest place to direct that frustration is to the person opposite.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Johnny Cosmo said:


> I only just noticed this. I think it's fair to continue posting (providing you want to), because now we're getting on to the discussion of whether religion is fair game for debate, which is somewhat relevant to the original topic.
> 
> And I have to agree with The Blue Lotus. I wish all debates were this calm and collected. Face-to-face debates usually get more heated because people don't have time to consider their points before making them, which leads to mistakes and misinterpretations. This leads to frustration, and the easiest place to direct that frustration is to the person opposite.



Yar. This is perilously close to arguing about arguing, which is the death of conversation 

Anyway, it's reasonable to discuss religion, even if that means asking someone to provide evidence for their beliefs. Nobody's obligated to participate in the discussion.

Does anyone at this point have any actual _points_ to make?


----------



## The Grey Sage

Sorry for not being faster... here is my belief: God is prime reality. He created all the existing things around us, as well as things we cannot see. The Bible is the secondary source of truth and is the infallible inspired words of God. God is Triune (don't ask me to explain that) and sent his Son to be the blood offering, not to apease God, but to be the catalyst for the new covenant. I believe in Heaven and Hell. I also believe that you cannot get to heaven by works but by faith. That's the basics. But if you want more... trust me there is more.


Steerpike said:


> In many cases, though certainly not all, the person isn't entirely grounded in their own belief, or they haven't given a substantial amount of thought to it, or they are unable to articulate it and defend it in a logical manner. Because of this, even if the belief can stand up to scrutiny, the individual person isn't able to adequately defend it. It makes them feel foolish, and then angry, because they're adopting a position they can't defend (or for which they cannot articulate a defense).


I agree completely but I have studied and supported my faith a majority of my life, after all it is the deciding factor on how you live. And I believe my faith to be very logical nad thought out. However, I have encountered many who have so many questions that they literally fall apart the second anyone challenges them with supposed evidence.

As for points to make: I think that disscussing your beliefs (not arguing) can be one of the most valuable ways of beginning to learn about yourself and the world around you.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> I also believe that you cannot get to heaven by works but by faith.



What about those who are brought up in an environment in which they are not exposed to the belief in a Christian God, and have not been given the opportunity to attain faith? Does their lack of knowledge deny them entrance in to heaven?


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Johnny Cosmo said:


> What about those who are brought up in an environment in which they are not exposed to the belief in a Christian God, and have not been given the opportunity to attain faith? Does their lack of knowledge deny them entrance in to heaven?



I won't speak for anyone here but my parents fully believe that would be true. Billions of people who have never heard of Christ are doomed.  



But it's ok, just imagine what they think about me! ROFL I left the church and converted to a "pagan" religion. In their eyes... I am the devils handmaiden!  



I on the other hand happen to think that God is known by many names, many faces, and that there are many paths to him. Not a one is more right than the other. Why would a benevolent being set 90% of the human population up for failure? That just makes no sense to me, and given my studies, I can't swallow that particular pill.


----------



## The Grey Sage

Devil's handmaiden? That's kinda harsh... but I understnad the view. I believe that there is one path to salvation: through Christ. I do believe that there are ways for a person to not know the name of Jesus, but have his entire story and believe, and be saved. Salvation isn't in the name but in God.


----------



## sashamerideth

The Grey Sage said:
			
		

> Devil's handmaiden? That's kinda harsh... but I understnad the view. I believe that there is one path to salvation: through Christ. I do believe that there are ways for a person to not know the name of Jesus, but have his entire story and believe, and be saved. Salvation isn't in the name but in God.



That would seem to run contrary to what I thought the Bible had to say about the matter, but it's been a while since I read anything from it.

Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner


----------



## Telcontar

Back when I was still a believer, I though there might be an intermission of sorts between death and judgement where all souls learned the truth, whatever that may be. Then those who had lived a good life and accepted this final revelation were admitted to heaven. Only truly wicked folks wouldn't be able to accept the truth, and they go... elsewhere. 

I came up with this because obviously no benevolent god would damn billions of his people due to his own use of poor advertising.  Word of mouth is a terrible way to spread the only hope of eternal salvation.


----------



## sashamerideth

Telcontar said:
			
		

> Back when I was still a believer, I though there might be an intermission of sorts between death and judgement where all souls learned the truth, whatever that may be. Then those who had lived a good life and accepted this final revelation were admitted to heaven. Only truly wicked folks wouldn't be able to accept the truth, and they go... elsewhere.
> 
> I came up with this because obviously no benevolent god would damn billions of his people due to his own use of poor advertising.  Word of mouth is a terrible way to spread the only hope of eternal salvation.



That sounds a lot like what my Mormon friend thinks. Yeah he's cute but hasn't managed to convince me yet.

Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner


----------



## The Grey Sage

Telcontar said:


> Back when I was still a believer, I though there might be an intermission of sorts between death and judgement where all souls learned the truth, whatever that may be. Then those who had lived a good life and accepted this final revelation were admitted to heaven. Only truly wicked folks wouldn't be able to accept the truth, and they go... elsewhere.
> 
> I came up with this because obviously no benevolent god would damn billions of his people due to his own use of poor advertising.  Word of mouth is a terrible way to spread the only hope of eternal salvation.



I understand where you are coming from, but I would have to disagree. Thousands of people world wide are becoming Christians and mostly because a trusted friend or loved one told them the truth. Word of mouth isn't the only way either. The bestselling book of all time is... THE BIBLE. And through its truth, many come to believe.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> I understand where you are coming from, but I would have to disagree.



The point still remains that many, many, many people will have no opportunity to practice the Christian faith, and are essentially condemned to hell for because of it. Would a benevolent God really condemn even _one_ soul to hell?

Also, I've heard that the claim that the Bible is the best-selling book of all time includes Bibles that are given away (which is clearly not the same thing, because I imagine a hell of a lot of Bibles are given away). I'm not sure though, and I can't find a decent answer online at the moment - does anybody know more about that?


----------



## sashamerideth

Just because a book sells well dies not give it legitimacy. I have one on my bookshelf and I don't think there is much of value in it beyond it being a classic work of fiction.

Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner


----------



## Telcontar

There are a _lot_ of versions of the Bible, and many religions claim only one as the 'correct' version, so I think for the purposes of 'best-selling' I would only consider it true if a single version was, itself, the best selling book. Which I doubt. More likely every version is counted. I also have no hard data to support this, though.


----------



## Steerpike

A benevolent God might simply appear, so humans would know he exists. Seems a bit odd to play the game of cat and mouse, with ancients texts, and maybe a bona fide religious experience for a few, while condemning to hell others who couldn't or didn't play the game, didn't have the information, or didn't see the proof.

And the "problem of evil" is a huge one for any god perceived as omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent. Free will doesn't solve the problem (though that is what is thrown out as an answer often). To paraphrase Ivan, if that's the price of the ticket, I'll return it because the price is too high.


----------



## The Grey Sage

sashamerideth said:


> Just because a book sells well dies not give it legitimacy. I have one on my bookshelf and I don't think there is much of value in it beyond it being a classic work of fiction.
> 
> Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner



First of all, the Bible is the most historically reliable  ancient text of all time. There over 5,000 copies of the Bible within 25 years after Jesus' death. If that's not reliable, I don't know what is.


----------



## sashamerideth

The Grey Sage said:
			
		

> First of all, the Bible is the most historically reliable  ancient text of all time. There over 5,000 copies of the Bible within 25 years after Jesus' death. If that's not reliable, I don't know what is.



The history in the Bible is laughably bad. I don't feel like debating the legitimacy of it right now. It is a sacred text like the Koran or Bhagvad Gita. It doesn't need historical accuracy, nor can it be given it. 

I won't try to counter any of your points, I just don't accept that the Bible holds any legitimacy or authority.

Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner


----------



## Steerpike

It is unfortunate, in my view, that there are those who attempt to turn the Bible into a science text or a history text. It is not particularly good at being either one, which should't be surprising because it was never meant to be either one.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Here is something I wrote on the first page of this thread.

_Italics = what I hoped to see._
*Bold = what I feared I would see.*


"On religion, _I believe a discussion of religion is actually "safer" than one on politics--under one condition: nothing is up for debate._

_My experience in Hong Kong was that most people can discuss religion respectfully. I've been to Taoist funerals. My wife was worried about what I would think, but I found it fascinating! (A lot of drumming, kung fu-like poses, and breaking stuff!)_ My experience discussing religion in the US is much different. *Everyone from atheists to unitarians states his belief as fact and any contradiction is evidence of the other guy's ignorance.*

_If this thread can be more like my Hong Kong experience, we will learn much about each other, and what a vast place this world truly is._

If this is going to be *a my-belief-is-better-than-yours discussion*, we may as well all leave this forum and run for congress. Then we can get paid for having *arguments that never end and solve nothing*. (Okay, I made a political joke, but I didn't take sides so I think that was safe.)"


I'm not telling anyone how to respond. I don't have the right to do that.

What I will say is that I'm seeing what I had predicted as a "worst-case-scenario" for this thread. It could be a lot worse. I don't feel this discussion is "heated." However, I would like to point out that debating about one's personal beliefs in this forum will not change any hearts and minds, as I believe everyone knows. What it does is discourage others from sharing about their beliefs, and I'm not sure how many people consider this when responding. I know this to be the case because people have PM'd me with messages like, "I wanted to share my experience, but..."

(Please note the bold-underlined portion of my quote so there is no misunderstanding: I'm trying to be objective, and not target one particular group or "side.")


----------



## Steerpike

I find the academic or philosophical discussion of the issue to be interesting. The only productive discussion of the issue comes about as a result of people sharing their views, others questioning or raising objections, the first person answering, and so forth. I don't see anything disrespectful about pointing out areas of a belief system one does not find convincing, or about the person adhering to the belief system coming back with counter arguments. That's the nature of such a discussion, and in my mind that exchange is valuable in and of itself. Minds won't be changed, but the discussion can still be interesting and even illuminating. People take argument as a personal offense, whether believers or non-believers, regardless of which religion is under discussion, should probably stay out of the discussion because that mentality isn't productive for anyone. But the back and forth questioning and even challenging is what makes the discussion worth it.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> What I will say is that I'm seeing what I had predicted as a "worst-case-scenario" for this thread. It could be a lot worse.



If it could be worse, then this isn't the worst-case-scenario.



> *Everyone from atheists to unitarians states his belief as fact*



Everyone from atheists to unitarians believes their belief is fact, so it doesn't really matter whether they state it or not. However, I am inclined to agree after looking back at posts from believers and non-believers alike.



> However, I would like to point out that debating about one's personal beliefs in this forum will not change any hearts and minds, as I believe everyone knows. What it does is discourage others from sharing about their beliefs, and I'm not sure how many people consider this when responding.



I'd find it easier to cut the questions if these were just comments on a blog post or responses to a survey, but they're not. They're messages in a discussion and I think that if people aren't comfortable posting or backing-up their points then they should simply not post; it's all up to the individual. If they'd sooner tell me that I don't have the right to deny their participation, then they _should _post; again_, _it's all up to the individual. I mean... did anybody really want this thread to be a series of yeses and noes?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but your post seems to shout "I'm being fair". I think your previous participation in the discussion invalidates your claim to objectivity and your consistent and almost apologetic explanations show insecurity rooted in the fact that you know you're already on a 'side' and that you know that your post targets certain users. Again, I'm not completely certain, but I'm guessing that you think a certain 'side' is being more aggressive than the other. If so, I'd like to argue that it seems like that 'side' is just more willing to question and present only logic (I don't mean logic in a way that is at odds with religion here, but that when someone claims that the Bible being the best selling [or distributed] book of all time equates to historical accuracy, they are not really making a point because sales/distribution doesn't correlate with historical accuracy).*

As has already been discussed (and as you touched on), I don't think we should be scared to discuss our beliefs, but that doesn't mean that we have a right to immunity from further discussion, question, criticism, et cetera. From a young age we're taught that it's fine to debate constructively; politics, music, film, sports, ideas, changes - but never religion. Well I don't think religion is sacred, I think it's another opinion. It's an opinion as old in individuals as the opinion of who the best Star Wars character is, so it shouldn't be unfair to discuss it. 

In light of the recent discussion on not being afraid of conflict, I think the users that have opposed this debate are overreacting. As has been pointed out repeatedly, no one is going to change their minds, and so I doubt they'll consider it worth worrying about it either. That said, I've said all I really wanted to, so I'm happy to retire from this discussion unless something else interests me. Whilst I don't agree that it should be, religion is obviously a sensitive topic.

*Sorry to use your post as an example Grey Sage. It's not that I don't value the contribution, rather that I _do_ value it as spark for further discussion.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Johnny Cosmo said:


> If it could be worse, then this isn't the worst-case-scenario.


CLARIFICATION: By "worst-case-scenario" I was referring to the worst thing that I expected to happen, not the worst thing that I could possibly think of, which is that our discussion offends a jihadist so much that he blows up the Sun, killing us all, and it turns out his belief was the correct one, so now he's in paradise deflowering 72 virgins while we're being tortured in Hell and eternally debating about which of us had the second-most correct belief.


My worst-case-scenario was THIS:


Legendary Sidekick said:


> *Everyone from atheists to unitarians states his belief as fact and any contradiction is evidence of the other guy's ignorance.*
> 
> (which leads to)
> 
> *a my-belief-is-better-than-yours discussion*
> *arguments that never end and solve nothing*


My best-case-scenario was THIS:


Legendary Sidekick said:


> _one condition: nothing is up for debate_
> 
> (therefore)
> 
> _we will learn much about each other_


I'll be the first to admit that my use of "best" and "worst" is a reflection of my opinion, and another valid way to look at the above is that my scenarios are two extremes.


People who want to debate and challenge ideas will likely prefer the scenario in bold, and may see the underlined scenario as a form of censorship because you're "not supposed to" debate or challenge ideas.

People who want to share unique ideas and learn about how others think will likely prefer the underlined scenario, and may see the scenario in bold as a form of censorship because any idea that is unique will contradict somebody else's idea; therefore, the idea will be challenged by somebody; therefore, those who don't want to be challenged will not participate in the discussion; therefore, you won't learn how those people think.


Personally, I have no problem with a healthy, logical debate. I just think debate here is pointless and illogical because there is no chance of persuasion. The arguments either preach to the choir or preach to those not in the choir.





Johnny Cosmo said:


> Forgive me if I'm wrong, but your post seems to shout "I'm being fair". I think your previous participation in the discussion invalidates your claim to objectivity and your consistent and almost apologetic explanations show insecurity rooted in the fact that you know you're already on a 'side' and that you know that your post targets certain users. Again, I'm not completely certain, but I'm guessing that you think a certain 'side' is being more aggressive than the other. If so, I'd like to argue that it seems like that 'side' is just more willing to question and present only logic (I don't mean logic in a way that is at odds with religion here, but that when someone claims that the Bible being the best selling [or distributed] book of all time equates to historical accuracy, they are not really making a point because sales/distribution doesn't correlate with historical accuracy).


You're forgiven.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Legendary Sidekick said:


> Personally, I have no problem with a healthy, logical debate. I just think debate here is pointless and illogical because there is no chance of persuasion. The arguments either preach to the choir or preach to those not in the choir.



I have to disagree; you're basically saying that religious debate is always pointless because no one can ever convince anyone else. It should be pretty self-evident why that's not the case.


----------



## Black Dragon

> @BlackDragon: As you said, it's not like reasoning will change anyones  opinion... but I'm curious as to what these miracles were? Were they  impossible for science to explain? I'm not sure if you're talking about  something magical, or something very fortunate (and entirely possible).



I rarely discuss these occurrences, as few people are likely to believe them...  unless they are inclined to do so already. 

 But I have directly witnessed supernatural phenomena that cannot be explained by the laws of science.  They would, in fact, appear "magical" or "spiritual."

For that I reason I am convinced that more exists than the material world that we can see, feel and touch.  And yes, I believe that there is a God (who far exceeds human understanding) who is actively intervening in this world.  I know this to be true.

But no, I don't wish to be drawn into a debate on religion.  It would be pointless.


----------



## Devor

If you guys really want a debate, _invite someone to a friendly debate_.  That's a lot different than challenging every modest and often personal opinion that comes your direction.  You're driving people off, instead of creating a welcoming atmosphere.

If you really want to get into it, I could recommend a number of online places where people who are pretty proficient in these subjects like to discuss them.  CARM.org has the most knowledgeable and active discussions of the places I've seen.  Debate.org is diverse and impartial, with rules and a round of voting.  There are others.

I've known a lot of people on all sides of the discussion who are fully capable of responding to just about every post made in this thread, and I could probably do a pretty good job myself.  But in this atmosphere, I don't believe they'd take the time to do so.


----------



## Steerpike

I don't discount the idea of an interventionist god out of hand, but I'm not certain whether the idea is comforting or troubling given the state of the world. People who advocate the idea of an interactive, intervening god always point the many good things that occur, whether to be considered miraculous or otherwise, and either rationalize or outright ignore the ills. The problem of evil, broadly speaking, becomes an insurmountable hurdle.

As a microcosm of this, think of sports events. There are some players who, upon winning, give thanks to god, saying that god is the reason they won the game. But upon losing, those same played never say god let them down. There is something in the human psyche that lets us partition good and bad, mentally, so that we can ascribe good to the interaction of a divine being we revere while at the same time absolving the divine (either actively or passively) from the bad.

I'm more apt to believe in such a thing as an interventionist deity from someone who recognizes a consistent amount of divine control over both the good and the bad.


----------



## The Grey Sage

sashamerideth said:


> The history in the Bible is laughably bad. I don't feel like debating the legitimacy of it right now. It is a sacred text like the Koran or Bhagvad Gita. It doesn't need historical accuracy, nor can it be given it.
> 
> I won't try to counter any of your points, I just don't accept that the Bible holds any legitimacy or authority.
> 
> Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner


Obviously you haven't actually studied this topic but considering ten years ago I was of the same thought process and had no respect for any Biblical evidence I'll let it go with this one last statement: there is no Archaeological evidence to prove the Bible wrong, and the text itself has been found without any contradictions. Most people would say things like, "Oh, well in Genesis there are two different accounts of the flood's length." at first this is a glaring issue, but one time is for the rain, one is for the actual flood- in short one of the most popular pieces of supposed contradiction is just people reading in their view. That's all.
I do think I will back off from this thread for a while, I understand the importance of not preaching on a forum. I hope my contributions have sparks some minds but I am rather of the same mind as Dragon and think that perhaps I will discontinue my contributions, seeing as you all know my beliefs, and that was the original intent of the thread.


----------



## Steerpike

To me, the historical accuracy is a separate issue from the spiritual accuracy of the book. People on both sides of the issue seem to be hung up on that topic at times, but it really doesn't advance any of the spiritual arguments.

As for flood stories, those appear all over the world, and the Biblical flood story was almost certainly taken from religious that predate the Bible and predate the oral tradition of the Hebrew peoples. You can find common threads going back to the Sumerians, and to the polytheistic Caananite religions (which took from Egypt as well as what came before in Mesopotamia). If the old Testament is correct, then one has to admit that people's going back to ancient Sumeria had at least hit on part of the correct picture.


----------



## The Blue Lotus

My question is, If christans were so concerned about their religion why on earth would they change dates of celibrations at will. 


By that I mean the date we celibrate the birth of Jesus, amungst other things. These were changed "to make the transition easier for people who were of other faiths."

It seems to me if these things are so trivial that they would allow the dates to be changed then the whole thing is in its self trival. 

The vatican holds thousands od documents that they would rather kill over than let people see. Why is that? Would these documents bring religion as we know it to its knees as some tend to think?


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

The Grey Sage said:


> Obviously you haven't actually studied this topic but considering ten years ago I was of the same thought process and had no respect for any Biblical evidence I'll let it go with this one last statement: there is no Archaeological evidence to prove the Bible wrong, and the text itself has been found *without any contradictions.*



*Are you joking?*


----------



## Black Dragon

OK, this is getting ugly.  I only foresee it getting uglier.

I can't imagine anything positive coming from this thread.  Is there any compelling reason to keep it open, or would we all be better off just locking it?


----------



## Steerpike

I don't know that I'd consider this ugly.

There are some reasonable and non-confrontational posts in the thread that go ignored in favor of sniping at one another. But I've never seen the reasoning behind locking a thread that has reasonable discussion because of a few instances of sniping. That seems to me to cater to those who want to disrupt threads.


----------



## fleamailman

("...I still wonder why there is no _boiler room section_ on this forum..." mentioned the goblin without malice, explaining "...I mean to the casual eye then, seeing lots of locked threads for whatever reason hardly looks inviting, moreover, those hell bent to fight it out here will simply hijack another thread on the forum to do so, however, if the thread is simply moved to the boiler room section within the forum itself, the rest of the forum will look neat for having no locks, while those interested in fraying can do so to their heart's content alone without bothering the rest of us, leaving others like myself who are not interested in frays at all to get on with trying to up the readership here without the fear of the thread being hijacked for their infights..." in fact, if one ever talked to a troll on one of their forums, one soon learns that one of their favorite ploys when raiding a forum is to get moddy to lock one thread after another for obvious reasons)


----------



## Telcontar

I'm not sure I'd call it 'ugly' yet, but let's see if I can pretty it up at all:

I do not feel that the Bible is a good historical text, certainly. I imagine that is has been used a a correlation for certain historical events, though, and I'm sure much can be learned from it as a more-or-less faithfully preserved (I'll elaborate on that in a moment) old text. However, the real 'meat' of the bible is not accounts historical events, but of an inspirational _person_. The Jesus Christ presented by the Bible is, even to atheists, one helluva role-model. "Let he amongst you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone," is one of my favorite quotes, from any source.

Has anyone heard of the Jefferson Bible? CNN just did another story on it so I was reminded. Thomas Jefferson was, even during his presidency, assembling a personal version of the Bible that focused entirely on Jesus as a man. It got rid of miracles and the like. Here is the article for a bit more info, and there is more info elsewhere as well.

It's an interesting project that Jefferson had going. He apparently considered accounts of miracles to be bogus, and yet still turned to the stories of the life of Jesus for a moral guide. Stories of miracles are nice and all, but they don't actually help us live our lives better. 

Now, as to the 'more or less faithfully preserved' bit - as I've said before, the Bible has been cut up, reassembled, and translated both with and without outside agenda for a couple thousand years. The early church fathers had to decide which books went in and which did not - one of the most interesting things I ever read was the Gospel of Judas. However, it's a big book, and most of the parts that were subject to change and redaction were the same parts we debate over a lot these days. Lots of it, by virtue of its relative mundanity (mundane-ness? What the hell is the word for that?) has been preserved 'more-or-less' faithfully.

Leaving aside the question of any historical veracity, what do people think of Thomas Jefferson's project? Would you agree with the statement: "The only thing that truly 'matters' in the Bible is the story of Jesus' life?"

Finally, I wonder what followers of various other religions might say is the "Central aspect" of their own holy writings...


----------



## The Blue Lotus

fleamailman said:


> ("...I still wonder why there is no _boiler room section_ on this forum..." mentioned the goblin without malice, explaining "...I mean to the casual eye then, seeing lots of locked threads for whatever reason hardly looks inviting, moreover, those hell bent to fight it out here will simply hijack another thread on the forum to do so, however, if the thread is simply moved to the boiler room section within the forum itself, the rest of the forum will look neat for having no locks, while those interested in fraying can do so to their heart's content alone without bothering the rest of us, leaving others like myself who are not interested in frays at all to get on with trying to up the readership here without the fear of the thread being hijacked for their infights...")



WOW for once you almost make sense!  I agree there should be a place where a thread can be moved that is dedicated to heated, sometimes nasty debates. With a few ground rules of course.


----------



## Steerpike

Yeah I've seen what fleamailman is talking about as well -trolls whose purpose is to disrupt thread and get them locked. I do not see any of that going on here - not even close, in fact. But oddly enough (in my view) the mods on plenty of forums are only too happy to give the trolls exactly what they want and lock the threads. I've never understood it, to be honest.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Telcontar said:


> Leaving aside the question of any historical veracity, what do people think of Thomas Jefferson's project?



It's the kind of thing I'd do, if Jefferson hadn't beaten me to it by two centuries ;-)



> Would you agree with the statement: "The only thing that truly 'matters' in the Bible is the story of Jesus' life?"



Eh, it depends on what is meant by "matters." Matters to whom? Very little of the Bible matters to me _per se_, but all of it matters insofar as it informs the beliefs and actions of billions of people, many of whom would gladly imprison or kill me simply for what I believe. There are definitely some good insights in the Bible—it's no different in that respect from any other half-decent work of fiction—and plenty of (what I consider to be) nonsense, as well as some stuff which is downright horrifying (the numerous instances, mostly in the Old Testament, that are totally A-OK with slavery, rape, genocide, etc.).

Jesus as depicted, minus the supernatural stuff, is an interesting guy, but since I take it for granted that none of the supernatural things depicted actually happened (and I have my doubts about the mundane stuff, too), Jesus to me is no more (or less) inherently interesting or profound than e.g. Gandhi or Buddha or Washington or Hitler or any other important historical figure.


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Telcontar said:


> I'm not sure I'd call it 'ugly' yet, but let's see if I can pretty it up at all:
> 
> I do not feel that the Bible is a good historical text, certainly. I imagine that is has been used a a correlation for certain historical events, though, and I'm sure much can be learned from it as a more-or-less faithfully preserved (I'll elaborate on that in a moment) old text. However, the real 'meat' of the bible is not accounts historical events, but of an inspirational _person_. The Jesus Christ presented by the Bible is, even to atheists, one helluva role-model. "Let he amongst you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone," is one of my favorite quotes, from any source.
> 
> Has anyone heard of the Jefferson Bible? CNN just did another story on it so I was reminded. Thomas Jefferson was, even during his presidency, assembling a personal version of the Bible that focused entirely on Jesus as a man. It got rid of miracles and the like. Here is the article for a bit more info, and there is more info elsewhere as well.
> 
> It's an interesting project that Jefferson had going. He apparently considered accounts of miracles to be bogus, and yet still turned to the stories of the life of Jesus for a moral guide. Stories of miracles are nice and all, but they don't actually help us live our lives better.
> 
> Now, as to the 'more or less faithfully preserved' bit - as I've said before, the Bible has been cut up, reassembled, and translated both with and without outside agenda for a couple thousand years. The early church fathers had to decide which books went in and which did not - one of the most interesting things I ever read was the Gospel of Judas. However, it's a big book, and most of the parts that were subject to change and redaction were the same parts we debate over a lot these days. Lots of it, by virtue of its relative mundanity (mundane-ness? What the hell is the word for that?) has been preserved 'more-or-less' faithfully.
> 
> Leaving aside the question of any historical veracity, what do people think of Thomas Jefferson's project? Would you agree with the statement: "The only thing that truly 'matters' in the Bible is the story of Jesus' life?"
> 
> Finally, I wonder what followers of various other religions might say is the "Central aspect" of their own holy writings...



Jefferson like many of the founding fathers had very specific ideas about religion. 

So much so that we are left grasping at straws in effect to figure out exactly what they did belive. 
What we do know is that they were for the most part people who belived that religion was something that was never to be talked about.

For that matter most of the founders are now thought to have been Deist. 
According to deists, the creator does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events. Tending instead to assert that a god does not (or can not)  alter the universe by intervening in it.

As for other points brought up, I can point out many things with in the bible that seem to cancel eachother out but, I won't. Unless asked specificly to do so. The OP asked what we believed, they did not however ask us to try and debate and or convice one another about who is right.


----------



## Black Dragon

Here's the deal:

I've been getting private messages from long-standing members who are feeling *alienated* because of how people are responding to each other in this thread.

Originally, this thread began with a simple question:  What is your view of God?  

In good faith people began sharing their views.  My hope was that people would respectfully share their perspectives, and that we could learn from one another.

That isn't what happened.  Instead, the religious beliefs of some members are being systematically dissected and torn apart.  

While there has been no name calling or flaming, what is going on here can hardly be described as a respectful exchange.  Attempting to deconstruct and prove as false another person's deeply held beliefs is not a respectful exchange.

The end result is that people are experiencing hurt feelings and alienation.  How is this good for our community?

We built this site to be a place where fantasy writers can exchange ideas.  This thread is not a good example of that.  As one member told me, this thread has become an "echo chamber" where only one viewpoint is welcome.  People are afraid to share their ideas here.

My concern is that the lack of trust and ill-will that is building in this thread will spill over and poison other parts of the site.  I don't think that adding a boiler room will stop that.  From my vantage point, what's going on here is counterproductive to the purpose of our community.


----------



## Steerpike

Maybe a separate thread in the research forums?

The reason I suggest that is this: in a few of my works (and one in particular) religious beliefs are an important element of the story. I do find discussion of it helpful, particularly with respect to a point/counter-point exchange where people with or without religious views make a point, others question it, the original person offers their answer to questions or problems posed, and the like. Debate in that manner gives me insight into viewpoints and rationales I wouldn't have come up with on my own.

If you had a topic somewhere on the boards that dealt with those issues, I think it could be helpful. We deal with cosmology a lot in creating fantasy worlds. People who were not interested in participating could easily avoid the thread.

Of course there are other places online where such discussions can be found, but it isn't quite the same as having it among a group of writers with similar interests.

I do get the sense that there are those who want the subject matter off the table entirely. In the end, the decision of the admins stands, and that's as it should be. But threads are so easily avoided in a forum setting like this that I'd hate to see a situation where the board as a whole caters to a person with a religious viewpoint who simply can't tolerate the idea of the discussion existing on the board, or someone with an atheistic viewpoint who simply can't abide any sort of religious discussion. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Black Dragon

Steerpike, 

I certainly don't want to make religious discussion off-limits.  In the "real world" I'm a professor of philosophy and religious studies.  Facilitating and encouraging religious discussion is what I do for a living.

In my classes, though, we always follow a cardinal rule: _treat other religions with respect.  
_
I encourage my students to look for what is good and true in all religions -  even those that they disagree with.

If you don't understand another person's belief, politely ask them to explain it, emphasizing that you _want_ to understand where they are coming from.

If you disagree with another person's belief, don't bring it up.  If your mind is already made up that they are wrong, there's no point in having a discussion.  It only puts them on the defensive.

If we approach religious discussion from this perspective, we can have fruitful exchanges.


----------



## Neurosis

Black Dragon said:


> Steerpike,
> 
> I certainly don't want to make religious discussion off-limits.  In the "real world" I'm a professor of philosophy and religious studies.  Facilitating and encouraging religious discussion is what I do for a living.
> 
> In my classes, though, we always follow a cardinal rule: _treat other religions with respect.
> _
> I encourage my students to look for what is good and true in all religions -  even those that they disagree with.
> 
> If you don't understand another person's belief, politely ask them to explain it, emphasizing that you _want_ to understand where they are coming from.
> 
> If you disagree with another person's belief, don't bring it up.  If your mind is already made up that they are wrong, there's no point in having a discussion.  It only puts them on the defensive.
> 
> If we approach religious discussion from this perspective, we can have fruitful exchanges.



And if that doesn't work, we go on a holy crusade to their homeland. There we kill thousands of them and steal all their possessions in the name of our God, then tell them their deity is not good as our deity.

In my experience religious discussion == argument. Anyone who doesn't want to be involved in that should just not post in such a thread.


----------



## The Blue Lotus

Neurosis said:


> And if that doesn't work, we go on a holy crusade to their homeland. There we kill thousands of them and steal all their possessions in the name of our God, then tell them their deity is not good as our deity.





Oh dear... I'm at a loss for words. 

That statement sums up what is wrong with the world. In glaring technicolor no less! 



Neurosis said:


> In my experience religious discussion == argument. Anyone who doesn't want to be involved in that should just not post in such a thread.



And I shall now add that common sense dictates that one not make such obtuse, horrid statements, even if it were a bad attempt at humor.


----------



## Philip Overby

I've been watching this thread for a while and would agree with Black Dragon and what others have said that I don't feel comfortable sharing my views about this because I feel like I'll get attacked or have my views dissected.  Overall, we're a pretty united community and discussing politics and religion almost always ends in tears (or people getting agressive).  I don't think this thread has reached any personal attacks as of yet, but it's just talking in circles.


----------



## Neurosis

The Blue Lotus said:


> Oh dear... I'm at a loss for words.
> 
> That statement sums up what is wrong with the world. In glaring technicolor no less!
> 
> 
> 
> And I shall now add that common sense dictates that one not make such obtuse, horrid statements, even if it were a bad attempt at humor.



I don't see anything funny about genocide in the name of the adult version of an "imaginary friend". Everything to do with religion leads to conflict--which was obviously the point of my "obtuse, horrid statements".


----------



## Black Dragon

Neurosis said:


> I don't see anything funny about genocide in the name of the adult version of an "imaginary friend".



A statement such as this doesn't advance the conversation in any meaningful way.  It's dismissive and insulting to refer to someone's deity as an "imaginary friend."  

Surely you know better than this.


----------



## Steerpike

Black Dragon said:


> If you disagree with another person's belief, don't bring it up.



I agree with what you said in the post, above, except with respect to the quoted portion. To me, the most fruitful discussions I've been a part of have involved people who disagree with one another, and are able to do so in a respectful manner. If someone becomes defensive merely at the idea of being disagreed with, they have problems in my opinion. There is no cause for that sort of reaction so long as all of those who are in disagreement with one another are able to be respectful. Respect does not necessarily equate to agreement or silence.

Discussing the Problem of Evil, for example, is interesting and can be enlightening in terms of learning how various people approach the subject. It is a very longstanding philosophical debate. If someone follows the Christian religion, and I say "Hey, what about the problem of evil," there is nothing disrespectful in that (unless the way I say it is insulting), it is a legitimate interest on my part to see how people reconcile such issues with their own beliefs, particularly because I do not find a way to reconcile them myself.

I'm not sure why someone would feel threatened or unwanted or somehow less able to contribute to the community at a whole because of a thread in which some members disagree with their religious views (or lack thereof). I haven't seen the PMs you are getting, but I've seen them on other boards and they often are some variation on "I don't like or am not interested in that subject, so please don't let people talk about it." I admit to finding that odd when the obvious solution for any forum member who feels that is to not click on the thread regarding that subject matter. When I see threads that don't interest me, I just don't read them.

EDIT: I might add that I do appreciate the fact that we are being allowed to "debate" the moderation issues regarding this thread. On some sites it would simply be locked without much commentary.


----------



## Devor

Steerpike said:


> I agree with what you said in the post, above, except with respect to the quoted portion. To me, the most fruitful discussions I've been a part of have involved people who disagree with one another, and are able to do so in a respectful manner. If someone becomes defensive merely at the idea of being disagreed with, they have problems in my opinion. There is no cause for that sort of reaction so long as all of those who are in disagreement with one another are able to be respectful. Respect does not necessarily equate to agreement or silence.



There's levels to community building.  You can't simply try and refute every statement someone makes and expect them to continue interacting with you.  You need to build a legitimate level of trust.


----------



## Steerpike

Devor said:


> There's levels to community building.  You can't simply try and refute every statement someone makes and expect them to continue interacting with you.  You need to build a legitimate level of trust.



True. But if someone wants to stop interacting with me, or with you, in a given thread, that's exactly what they should do. My question is of the need to take it beyond that and actually complain to the mods in an attempt to get them to stop everyone else from interacting in the thread as well.


----------



## Black Dragon

Steerpike said:


> I agree with what you said in the post, above, except with respect to the quoted portion.



Steerpike,

The full sentence reads as follows:



> If you disagree with another person's belief, don't bring it up.  *If  your mind is already made up that they are wrong, there's no point in  having a discussion.*  It only puts them on the defensive.



If you initially disagree with a belief, but are open to the possibility that they may be correct, that's a different story.  If you are legitimately interested in learning where they are coming from, that's also fine.

But if you KNOW that you're right and that they're wrong, and your objective is to prove how right you are, then having a discussion is pointless.



> I'm not sure why someone would feel threatened or unwanted or somehow  less able to contribute to the community at a whole because of a thread  in which some members disagree with their religious views (or lack  thereof). I haven't seen the PMs you are getting, but I've seen them on  other boards and they often are some variation on "I don't like or am  not interested in that subject, so please don't let people talk about  it."



The private messages that I've been receiving are nothing like that.


----------



## Devor

Steerpike said:


> True. But if someone wants to stop interacting with me, or with you, in a given thread, that's exactly what they should do. My question is of the need to take it beyond that and actually complain to the mods in an attempt to get them to stop everyone else from interacting in the thread as well.



Trust was already broken in this thread.  People had already stopped sharing.  The remaining conversation was _hostile_ by its very nature.


----------



## Steerpike

Black Dragon said:


> If you initially disagree with a belief, but are open to the possibility that they may be correct, that's a different story.  If you are legitimately interested in learning where they are coming from, that's also fine.
> 
> But if you KNOW that you're right and that they're wrong, and your objective is to prove how right you are, then having a discussion is pointless.



That makes sense. I generally assume when someone is engaging in a discussion that they have some interest in the other person's point of view. Even if they aren't likely to be swayed, I hope they have a legitimate interest in understanding the other viewpoint.

In my case, for example, while I am not a religious person now, I grew up in a religious environment. My grandfather was a southern baptist "preacher," and I attended his church as a child. He was also a very kind and intelligent person. Much of my family remains quite religious, others of us are not. Religious or not, I think we all tend to be good people. Because of my own path in life, I am always very interested in religious discussion, and in how people respond to philosophical and other problems. For example, with respect to historical accuracy or internal consistency in a religious text - I think too many religious people are drawn into that trap. From a religious point of view, I'm not sure any of that matters, because the book is meant to provide spiritual guidance and teaching, and not intended to be a science text or historical treatise. On the other side, the non-religious person who criticizes on those grounds as a way of dismissing the work is also going down the wrong path (in my view)....

In any event, this is not to restart the discussion if we do not want it here, but merely to illustrate where I'm coming from when I enter a discussion of this sort. I'm genuinely interested, and even though I do not have religious views and have (in my view) good reasons for my objections, I have found that people who are religious, from all faiths I've encountered, are intelligent, reasonable people. My questions aren't intended to be disrespectful because I do not feel any disrespect toward people who hold religious viewpoints, whether the views be those of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, a Native American spiritual belief system, or what have you.


----------



## Black Dragon

Steerpike said:


> That makes sense. I generally assume when someone is engaging in a discussion that they have some interest in the other person's point of view. Even if they aren't likely to be swayed, I hope they have a legitimate interest in understanding the other viewpoint.



I would hope so.  But all too often people are interested in defending their own beliefs, usually at the expense of proving someone else to be wrong.



> I'm genuinely interested, and even though I do not have religious views and have (in my view) good reasons for my objections, I have found that people who are religious, from all faiths I've encountered, are intelligent, reasonable people. My questions aren't intended to be disrespectful because I do not feel any disrespect toward people who hold religious viewpoints, whether the views be those of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, a Native American spiritual belief system, or what have you.



And we welcome all religious discussion carried out in a tone such as this.


----------



## Black Dragon

Because of the sensitive (and potentially explosive) nature of this subject, special guidelines have been enacted for the discussion of religion:

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/news-announcements/2101-guidelines-discussing-religion.html

I believe that this thread has exhausted its usefulness, so I am locking it.  I invite you to create a new religion thread, in which these guidelines will be observed from the start.


----------

