My controversial views on religion (Christianity mostly)
 

I've been thinking it over and listening to some interpretations of the bible (watch the first third of Zeitgeist) and I'm certain christianity is bollocks. Jesus was pretty much proved not to exist (see obove), heaven is a fairy tale explanation for what's going on in death, created in old times to stop people from fearing death and the mith has somehow survived into modern times where you think people would be smart enough to have worked out you don't sit on a cloud forever after your body shuts down. The mith of hell was created by people in power a long time ago to keep the masses in order and again, somehow the mith has survived into modern times where you think people would have realised that if there was a god the way the church and the bible describes it, he wouldn't put you in a place like that for any reason. There is no devil, because if god was powerful enough to kick him out of heaven, god would be powerful enough to stop the devil from persuading us to do evil. All bollocks.

Also, if this life was to test our spirits, why wouldn't god tell us so himself. They say it is to test our faith, but we need to develop faith to have it tested and people in robes retelling old propaganda and explanations for things we can now explain our selves with the various forms of science we have that have logical explanations for diseases and numerous things the bible tries to exlplain just isn't enough to develop lifelong faith. It just isn't going to cut it.

I stated earlier in the thread that having religion is good becuase it teaches morals ect., but maybe it's doing more harm than good. With such a large percentage of people shutting out the logic and believing in tall tales that have no meaning in reality, how much can humanity accomplish? As we (the human race) advance more people are turning thier back on religion and they are realising what a pile of crap it all is. Wich leads to this point, if we advance and simultaniously begin to shut out religion, it could work both ways, meaning, if we all stop listening to this **** we would advance quicker and have a better chance at answering questions like "why are we here?" or "what happens after death?" rather than accept what is clearly a load of bollocks if you look hard enough, as the answers to the important questions, wich could be answered.

I'm not sure what happens after death (probably nothing) but if we just accept what the bible tells us happens (with no proof) then we will abolish any hope of finding out what happens at death, before the time comes, so if you believe what the bible says, you're in for some disapointment, or if, like me, you've decided not to take what certain people say as fact with no proof, then you'll just have to wait and see unless we all wake up.

Isn't that the same movie that stated that the WTC were brought down by controlled demolition?

Yes, it is. It was a three part movie, I made a reference to the first part wich was about religion, why did you bring up the second part wich was about the events on September Eleventh?

so why does your belief in the illegitimacy of christianity have more value than the legitimate belief of a christian?

how is your opening post remotely controversial when NO ONE tries to push religion in this forum aside from a few instances of other 'enlightened' members trying to crap on organized religion?

how does choosing to believe in the message the producers of zeitgeist push mean more than choosing to believe the message any other preacher pushes?

Well, for one, the producers of zeigeist are using facts to prove what they say is true. Very diffrent from a book full of stories.

Typical response. Educated material enters conversation about religion and suddenly I'm crappying on everyones dreams...

Zeitgeist is a terrible example but I'll attempt to field this question. Skepticism holds basis in known, observable reality, blind faith is just blind. Believing in something real has more value than believing in something that doesn't exist. You can accomplish more scientifically when your brain functions in the reality of existence as opposed to the falsehoods of ancient texts. Skepticism cures diseases, faith does not. Skepticism asks the questions that are important in hopes of getting a real answer, faith claims to have the answers and then searches for the questions which skepticism hasn't answered yet as "proof" for its claims. Therefore I can conclude skepticism has more validity and usefulness until some faith can be proven empirically true.

skinny - you're missing my point. it's not whether the belief is valid but that one chooses to believe in something. can you actually prove all the claims made by zeitgeist or just refer to them as factual for convenience?

unfan - you're totally right that skepticism drives science. but would a group of people have a reason to be skeptical if there wasn't a group of people who believed? doesn't the skepticism develop from a desire to prove a belief to be either true or false? you kind of need one to have the other no?

Personally, no. My skepticism derives from wanting to understand things. There doesn't need to be a belief to be questioned, just a thing to be questioned.

However, I want to make another point. Faith is not invalid if derived from rationality. If you honestly observe what you know and it brings you to belief that belief isn't invalid. Not all rational lines of thought bring you to the right answers always and even science is often wrong. The difference is science intends to correct its errors where faith does not.

absolutely, but that's all about personal perceptions of life. i don't think it's science so much as the individual scientists who intend to correct its errors. which can also be said about rational devout individuals, you can find close minded zealots on both sides of the science/religion fence.

as for you're comment about 'rational lines of thought bring you to the right answer'. while i agree with the sentiment, how can anyone really define 'the right answer' for anyone else's existence?

Actually, I said not all rational lines of thought bring you to the right answer. As to define the right answer, the one which is correct. God can't be both non-existent and existent. If we can find empirical proof for either side, than the other side is wrong. I might be wrong as an atheist, but I doubt it.

The problem I have is that most if not all religions don't seek understanding because they already claim to have all the answers. I question how anyone can accept something that conceals studies and ignores anything contrary to it. How can something that teaches you to be satisfied without full understanding of the world ever bring forth knowledge or hope?

my bad but you obviously got what i was saying. again though, how do you define the 'correct' answer?

why can't everything be nothing? how do you define existence?

i think the idea that one side has to be wrong so the other is right is one of the major failings of humans.

the easiest analogy i can think of is war. every single person who willingly fought in any war has always been on the same side - the one they believed was right. yet one side always goes down in the history books as having been 'wrong'. were they really wrong or is it just the easiest way of justifying the actions of the victor and their violently enforced view of what is 'right' into the collective psyche of the species?

@Skinny: You have the wrong idea. Religion for 99% of people is not about needing proof, or believing in something that is defiantly proven and true. It is about having a set of morals and code of ethics to follow.

Those archaic belief systems should have no place in the modern world, IMO. Just look at Israel and Palestine. It's regressive. Medieval even.
People used to be tortured and burned alive as a result of differing interpretations of the Bible; but that was back when you just didn't question the order of the Church, the Pope possessed more power than many world leaders do today.

I think it's all well and good to have a faith and belief system if it gets you through the day; but it's when I see the bonafide fanatics trying to force their beliefs on others that I start to get worried.
Christianity may have once had alot to offer (Milton's 'Paradise Lost' being one); but in this day and age people really should know better than to adopt it literally, word-for-word.

Either I've been listening to too much NOFX and Bad Religion, or that opinion is not unpopular.

And RezZ is right. That's how I look at religion. For me, the Bible just makes sense... I really have no reasons to not be religious. No amount of scientific theories or evidence (unless it's like, super-hardcore) can change that.

I don't think I'm a close-minded person though, like a lot of people percieve us to be.

Two different kinds of right and wrong. The former in the discussion is objective right and wrong, statements that are flasifiable. "God is real" is a statement where it can either be proven he does or doesn't exist. For instance 1+1=2. This is true. We can prove by physically putting one object next to another object and seeing there are two objects. The latter is subjective right and wrong/good and bad. Morals are intangibles and abstracts and are thus objectively immeasurable. You can deem them as being of quality, but not empirically true or false.

Interpretations of history are undeniably biased, but there are so many factors to take into account with war though; I mean Nazi Germany thought they were right - rampant patriotism and skewed philosophies gone postal rising from the ashes of a crippling economic depression etc etc...
But I think you can draw the moral line at a fundamental, instinctive level, the few wrongs and rights that were recorded common to all the ancient religions - thou shalt not kill and so forth.

To illustrate - it wasn't until the end of the war, I think I'm correct in saying, that the general public in Germany became aware of the mass genocide that had been occurring in the death camps. They were kept in the dark to avoid dissent. Unclouded by religion or politics or any ulterior motive, human death is not open to interpretation; so I think you can define what is right and what is wrong to a certain point. We exist or we do not exist.

As for defining existence surely it has always been self awareness, consciousness?

Also I think what Unfan says about religions that claim to have all the answers is a very good point. That's the danger. Trust yourself.

EDIT: Philosophy and Ethics was low on my agenda in college, Unfan has the terminology down, ignore my muddlings.

this is where i differ. when a person states 'god is real' i don't take it as anything besides a reflection of their own belief. not right or wrong or needing to be proven just their belief. i don't see why i should try to deny another person's belief simply because it runs counter to my own. arguing semantics seems like an even bigger waste of time.

molecules says it best - trust yourself.

i don't have a problem with people actively discussing their beliefs with me but i draw the line at people who actively try to alter my own beliefs to further reinforce their own to cover up their lack of belief in their own judgement.

as for existence does a rock cease to exist because it's not self aware?

Again I'm sure there are proper terms for all this but, short of being omnipresent, aren't the properties of existence defined by us humans? I see where you're going - how is blind faith in God any less valid than my firm belief that a rock exists because I can see it and touch it? Hmm. It's like the old 'what if all life is just somebody else's dream'? Conundrum...

Surely our conscious is all we have - whether we choose to only believe in the laws of physics or some sadomasochist Mover?

it's all a big paradox until you accept that you are the big paradox hehe

Blind faith is a choice that I made after deciding it was my way to get out of the systems that this world forces upon us. The point is that if you are a true skeptic (as in the way the Greeks started it) then believing in a God should be no less the same as believing that this forum has the color black on the template. I am a true skeptic in this matter and I find logical to be quite illogical (simply because you can't prove, using logic, why logic is the best method for me to deduce things.) Therefore, I accept the blind faith Christianity needs and now I find my self in a better stance. It is all personal choice, and no one can tell me why I shouldn't believe it because you are just going to bring faulty logic into the argument.

As for Christianity causing problems, you are wrong. Christians cause the problems, not Christianity. No Christian lives by the word fully because it is next to impossible so you end up having people who tell you you will go to hell and **** like that. I am a much more post-modernist when it comes to Christianity in that I believe it is up to the interpretation of the individual.

My interpretation is that Christianity is having a relationship with God, which exceeds everything else. Then others come before yourself, to the point where your life goal is to better others (these were principals Jesus practiced.) I am not a full pacifist, because I believe to harm in order to save another person is biblical, but I am against all other uses of violence. I believe violence to save yourself is wrong because it is the sacrifice of oneself for another. My Christianity is based off of Jesus's life, which (I believe) taught, the rejection of formalism, self-sacrifice, maximized faith (because no one can truly achieve 100% faith,) and the spreading of the gospel by showing others love (not showing a bible to a starving child if you know what I mean.) I have some major problems with the church these days, like the fact that I don't think tithing goes to the actual church building, but to people in need, and the fact that there shouldn't even be a church building because it costs money, which supports a system that we shouldn't be supporting.

This system is the idea that even the circulation of money is the cause of crime in the world. The reality is that a lot of the money you have touched in your lifetime is probably "dirty money." I believe that no Christian should strive to be rich because Jesus was poor as **** and depended on his faith to get him through. As you can see, I see no problem with self-expression, even if it could make someone feel bad. I believe that the person who interprets that comment makes it worse for themself, and it is not so much the person expressing that is causing the problem. I believe that Christian's should try to only strive for basic needs in life. While humans naturally need entertainment and other things of the sort, I believe the minimal amount is best.

It is a lot different than most Christian backgrounds, but that is my interpretation in a nutshell. A lot of other stuff though.

Believing rocks are real is valid because they are observable, quantifiable, and falsifiable.

As far as the statement "God is real" being just a belief, I agree. However, it is also a statement of existence. "I believe God is real" would mean someone is stating just their beliefs but "God is real" is a statement of God's existence. God being real or not has to be objective since God isn't an abstract. It is a falsifiable statement. We don't have the work to prove he is either real or non-existent, however he can't be both.

but at this point you're arguing semantics.

I agree with you to a point, I was trying to imply that in my own inept way :). I realize not all Christians live by the book so exactly, I was referring to the Neanderthal element. And they exist cuz I dun seen em on teevee.

So do you incorporate the creation myth into your beliefs aswell Inuzuka? Since the tenets of Christianity and the characteristics of God are derived from the Bible surely one would have to accept it as true in order to be faithful? I mean to have a foundation for that faith?
This has been on my mind. Because even if I were willing to join a club to solidify my moral conscience and give me a raison d'etre (no offense intended, that's just how I see it) I could never get past the fact that God spans time... The point being that 'He' allegedly foresaw the fall of Lucifer and half of heaven; that Man (sorry, woman, those silly things) would eat from the tree of Knowledge; civilization would be thrown into chaos again and again, etc.
Something like God's sick little project. He's meant to be Perfect, right? I never understood why he couldn't be content to dwell in utter perfection, he had to create toys to bask in his light and appreciate every minute of it.

I'm not taking all Christians for fools, incidentally, just trying to clarify.

Well technically, one can say God does not logically exist, but one cannot say he logically doesn't exist. I do agree with your statement, but I do give respect to atheists because they are at least picking the logical choice that follows their own philosophy. My problem are the Christians who try to prove God is logical. Total bull.

The problem isn't necessarily them being so fundamental as it is there interpretation and where it stems from. Now I may be a bit general in this statement, but most of the trouble causing Christians believe what they believe because of their background and the fact that they believe everything that daddy or the preacher tells them. Most of them spend so much time looking at the Bible one way that they never see anyone else's point of view. These are the fundamentalists. The only respect I have for them is that a lot of them have the balls to go against modern society.

No, I do not incorporate even the beginning of the earth in a biblical sense. While I believe there is a small chance that it could be possible, I don't see how it benefits my Christianity or others by deciding how the universe was formed. That passage can be interpreted many ways, so I don't even bother. That and Revelation, I don't read much because they don't really tell me much about living a Christian life or and lessons I might learn. I don't waste my time trying to find out random facts that could help prove God's existence. I simply try to interpret his word so that I might better live my life for him and others.

That is an argument a lot of people struggle with, and it is a valid one. I used to not understand so much why God would even want to exist because he knew everything. What is the point of existence if you are never to experience anything new? The bottom line is that when I look at it this way I am bringing earthly thoughts and feelings into an argument that has no rules of the such. The bottom line is that it is beyond my understanding why God does what he does. The one thing I do understand, I believe, is why he created us. I believe he created us in order to show love, and in order for us to show love to him. Now why some people will not be shown that love, I really don't know, but I am all for that love and like to express it to God and other people.

One thing that has helped me along with this argument is, what is true love? I mean, if everyone could gain salvation then would it be love or would it just be like a forced charity. It is kind of like this. If we loved everyone, then how would one define love? It would really be almost impossible, and only a god of some sort could really do it because as a human it is beyond our understanding. Must they experience some of the opposite in order to experience love? That would mean that if God did not have the opposite we would never be able to understand true love.

The problem with this though, is that I experience it under human terms and am, once again, enslaved by a system where I must follow certain rules. At the end of this pondering you wonder, "Well, couldn't a perfect god make all of this happen because he is perfect?" I mean, I am stumped again.

So, after all of this thinking and depressing knowledge you can go a couple ways:

- You can turn to pleasures such as money, fame, sex, revenge, etc.
- You can forget about it by taking things such as drugs or use your mind by rejecting any thinking.
- You can turn to a religion, which I believe breaks the system.
- You can be a Nihilist, or another of the sort.
- You can commit suicide.

I picked religion.

You can never prove the existance of God. Anyone who thinks you can prove that is an idiot.

but you could say the complete opposite of that and still be accurate.

The complete opposite = ?

You can prove that God doesn't exist?

Depends. Are we defining God as "a grand arbitrator" or strictly the biblical God? If the former your statement is accurate for now, if the latter than all evidence points to him not existing, including the bible.

I didn't say it caused problems, I said it limits our potential as a species. As far as that goes, it's christianity not the christians limiting our potential. How much can we accomplish if we live a lie?

Although, Islam is far worse than christianity. A majority rate of british teen belonging to the muslim faith said anyone who leaves the faith deserves death. All those people thinking like this are slowing us down and even setting us back.

Prove to me that atheism is truth.

I am pretty sure no one said that yet.

Beliefs don't hinder us as long as we can keep an open mind and are willing to fact check. Though that may just be my liberal political leanings talking.

That's only assuming that sensory perception is accurate...

Well we only know that the only thing truly "real" is our consciousness so....


But lets no delve further into that branch of philosophy or we'll have the unmoved mover argument in here.

From the Christian perspective you're the one holding our species back.

There is a hell of alot more facts supporting scientific explanations for existence than there is for an invisible man in the clouds who controls the universe.

People spend they're whole lives believing in a god they have never seen or herd from, with no evidence or reason to believe in his existance, yet they want people to prove he doesn't exist.

You mean, I'm stopping us all from ascending into heaven when hell rises up?

religion is bull****. period.

Yea, but the idea is nice.

The fact that this was included in the September 11th hoax easily makes your source bollocks.
So it helps create order and peace. Where is the problem here?
What kind of place are you talking about now?
The devil persuading is a good indication of how strong we can resist. Not everyone gets persuaded, just the lazy people who choose the easy way out of things.

Maybe that doesn't develop faith for you, but you also don't speak for everyone. I've developed faith based on this scant information.

How is it in any way holding us back from discovery?
You can thank media for that.
Religion is in no way interfering with this. There are plenty of scientists out there that have no faith and choose to figure out these questions.
This couldn't be answered, either way. A dead person sure as hell isn't going to be able to give us the solution. I don't even know why you need to know what happens. You'll find out sooner or later. Curiosity killed the cat.

Finding out what happens after death will in no way affect what happens after death.
If I'm wrong when I die, I won't be disappointed, because as you put it, nothing happens after death. Thus, I won't be able to feel anything, as in disappointment.

I choose to take the risk in believing, and have the chance of it paying off when I go to heaven. And if I'm wrong? Oh no, I wasted an hour a week at church! What a terrible commitment! I've made my choice, you've made yours.

I've always hated Pascal's way of thinking.

This post made me lol. Your faith isn't superficial at all.