Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[SteddieEddie]

Belief in a god doesn't make you brave.

I agree. What I said was brave enough to post in here whilst being out numbered

[cobra]

I think Flea doesn't mind asking himself challenging questions. Why else would he post here knowing people like you are set fast in your beliefs and have complete disdain for all things religious.

when things are posted like how jesus's life story was ripped off from early myths and that is reasonable evidence that the stories about jesus are just made up and there is no christian response you have to assume that they have ignored it and just plan to keep living their lies

also i am not set fast in my beliefs, i always look for areas where my beliefs are wrong so i can change and improve them, unfortunately christians telling me to fuck off because my world view is different and based on facts and evidence doesn't really challenge what i believe

[KiLL3r]

also i am not set fast in my beliefs, i always look for areas where my beliefs are wrong so i can change and improve them, unfortunately christians telling me to fuck off because my world view is different and based on facts and evidence doesn't really challenge what i believe

exactly. if i was given irrefutable evidence that jesus and the christian god exists then i would believe it.

on the otherhand if a religious fundamentalist is given irrefutable evidence that their god/s dont exist then they would most likely ignore it and keep believing their stupid lies.

[ThaFleastyler]

Just to stick it to Cobra that I'm not afraid to answer specific, difficult questions in regards to my beliefs, herewith are some responses to things that have been posted since my last post:

Could I not hate god for what he has allowed man to represent him as?

A good question, and I don't know if I have an answer.
My immediate thought is that such hatred would be justified. That said, it implies that a belief in God is present; if that is the case, would that belief in God not be stronger than a belief in people, or indeed those people who have put themselves in a position to represent God?

sorry but i believe that it is your human input that has created a god that is about love and compassion....

you are human and you are flawed, you cant be trusted to say what god is and is not

If man cannot be trusted to say who/what God is, then no relationship with God would be possible at all. All the bibles/material in the world, from every single religion or sect, would mean diddly-squat in the face of such distrust of man, as any/all interactions between man and God could not be trusted.

If he can't say who or what his god is, or isn't, then who can? There's no indication who or what gods are, outside the words and actions of the people who believe they exist.

Bear in mind that those who do believe, believe the source of their faith (in Christianity, the bible) to be the indication of what God is.

tbh i hate god as much as i hate leprechauns, which is not at all as they are both human constructs - god is only what man represents of him

This is hate towards human actions justified by men who claim they are justified by god

So why, then, are so many of your posts pointed hatred towards God himself?

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."  Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics

Again, this guy is really talking about the human aspect, rather than God.
I don't disagree with his assertion, though.

then why does he continue to do nothing despite all the terrible things that happen in our world on a daily basis.

surely if he is omnipotent and omniscient then he knows what is going on and could stop it anytime.

that fact that he chooses to do nothing must make you question his so called "love and compassion"?

This:

Free will.
Humans always got a choice... 'he' can't do shit about that.

when things are posted like how jesus's life story was ripped off from early myths and that is reasonable evidence that the stories about jesus are just made up and there is no christian response you have to assume that they have ignored it and just plan to keep living their lies

I'm no more qualified to respond to that kind of post, than you are to post it.
Which is to say, not at all.

The problem I have with responding to such a detailed post as that is that my only experience with this idea is the post you're speaking of, and the first third of the movie Zeitgeist (which I found funny, since the film-maker starts off by dismissing Christianity, then finishes his film by promoting the same kind of population control - embedded chips - that a number of Christian "end times" groups say is the real "mark of the beast" from the book of Revelation at the end of the Christian bible he dismissed earlier on - and his only source is a member of the Rockafeller family who isn't mentioned on any of their websites, and may or may not be fictionalised).

As I've said before, I believe in the possibility of Universalism - roughly, that we all have the same God - which would possibly answer some of the ideas put forward by the idea that the Jesus story is based on earlier stories. The historical aspect of it all is a little hazy - I didn't study history at school, and have little interest in it now (thus my admission that I'm not qualified to post on the subject).

Lastly, I think its naive and juvenile to post a link found on some blog that could easily be a misrepresentation of a thesis by some history major, which in itself could really be based on a large number of assumptions as to the meaning and translation of a large amount of historical data - and expect Christian people to read it and go "OMG!!! I'VE BEEN LIVING A LIE!!!".

exactly. if i was given irrefutable evidence that jesus and the christian god exists then i would believe it.

Yeah ........ but really, would you?

on the otherhand if a religious fundamentalist is given irrefutable evidence that their god/s dont exist then they would most likely ignore it and keep believing their stupid lies.

Another assumption, based in ignorance - they won't believe your "proof" that their god/s don't exist for the exact same damn reason you won't believe their "proof" that their god/s do exist.


Last but not least:

part of christianity is rewarding people who dont question, flea will be giving him self a self high five for ignoring any challenging questions. blind faith and all

See above

(And for the record, I continually question every single aspect of my faith - you haven't yet asked me a question that I haven't dealt with myself; please don't talk down to me in future, thanks.)

[ThaFleastyler]

I used to like this thread, but now it is just a bunch of atheists giving each other reach arounds and hassling the 2-3 christians  who are brave enough to post their reasons for having religion in their lives.

I agree - when myself, or the other Christian people (or those who defend some Christian beliefs), come in here, its less like a discussion and more like a gangrape of their beliefs.

Consider this:
Aside from me and Krasher (who no longer posts for the above reason), the last few people who tried to come in and discuss some of the stuff in here have been vanquished by the neg-rep brigade. Talk about your fair fights ... /sarcasm

If you ask me (and you didn't) the problem with this thread now is:

a) it's not really a discussion at all, given the attitude displayed.

b) the thread isn't even really a discussion about religion anyway - its a thinly-veiled attack on Christianity, which isn't right at all; we live in a country where people are free to believe what they want, in whatever manner they want. If you want a thread to promote hatred against Christians, feel free to start one with a little "fuck off Christian scum" sign at the entrance - but don't complain when people like myself come in and disagree with you.

c) no difference is made between the belief in God ("faith") and the man-made dogma surrounding it ("religion") - especially when the difference is quite a major one; I don't consider myself religious and often agree with you guys when you comment on what church denominations have been up to (for example, the banished 9 year old girl a page or 2 back).

d) no difference is made between the different religious groups - Catholics are tarred with the same brush as Protestants, Anglicans, "Christians", Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhism, Bah'ai, Scientologists ... which is ridiculous. Further than that, those groups are placed in a stereotype - time and again I've had to clarify that I don't believe in every wacky belief people here have heard. This is no different than presuming that everyone from New Zealand has shagged a sheep, fixed a fence with number 8 wire, gets slobbering drunk every weekend, and has starred in a Lord of the Rings movie.



It's no wonder I don't answer half the questions :disappoin.

[cobra]

So why, then, are so many of your posts pointed hatred towards God himself?

because you are reading my posts with your perspective - i can not hate things that dont exist

I'm no more qualified to respond to that kind of post, than you are to post it.
Which is to say, not at all.

lol - not qualified to ask questions? if it helps you sleep at night, i guess...

well if you are answering questions to "stick it to me" (lol) - you claim god speaks to you, god told bush to invade iraq which just seems evil, the suffering it has cause - why would god instruct bush to do such a thing?

and why, if god has an open communication channel are all the different views on what god wants us to do so different - to the point where it almost looks like there is no god and relegion is just a human power construct?

[ThaFleastyler]

you claim god speaks to you

I've never said anything of the sort.
If you can show me the post where I said that, I'll answer this:

god told bush to invade iraq which just seems evil, the suffering it has cause - why would god instruct bush to do such a thing?

and why, if god has an open communication channel are all the different views on what god wants us to do so different - to the point where it almost looks like there is no god and relegion is just a human power construct?

Because the "open communication channel" is dependent on men trying to figure it out. Religion literally is men trying to figure God out, and then putting rules and boundaries in place to try and make it all nice and easy. But it isn't.

[cobra]

Because the "open communication channel" is dependent on men trying to figure it out. Religion literally is men trying to figure God out, and then putting rules and boundaries in place to try and make it all nice and easy. But it isn't.

but isn't this completely inconsistent with an all powerful god? a god who beams out communications from his space lair yet created us so his communications would most certainly be misinterpreted <- how does that make sense?, how can you live with glaring inconsistencies in your world view?

[Zig]

but isn't this completely inconsistent with an all powerful god? a god who beams out communications from his space lair yet created us so his communications would most certainly be misinterpreted <- how does that make sense?, how can you live with glaring inconsistencies in your world view?

Humans are inconsistent by nature, Science itself shows us that. Look at how many different interpretations there are on science, both now and in History. Give billions of humans the same message/data and they are never going to all agree on what it says.

[Zarkov]

You do a mighty good job of defending your faith Fleastyler.

Unfortunately, religion is one of those things that polarizes people, and they're not generally amenable to changing their views once they're formed.

I used to think I could change people's opinions on the subject, but usually I would just wind up hurting them instead, so I seldom do it now.


Christians have another cross to bear today, in that they're inextricably linked to the extremists of both their own faith and that of radical Islam.

Both faiths are, in their own way, trying to drag the world back into the 14th century.

You shouldn't be surprised that most people take exception to that.

[cobra]

Humans are inconsistent by nature, Science itself shows us that. Look at how many different interpretations there are on science, both now and in History. Give billions of humans the same message/data and they are never going to all agree on what it says.

what is your point? if god created us and wanted to communicate clearly then he would be able to communicate with us clearly, anything else is inconsistent with an all powerful god

can you share the "many different interpretations there are on science" because there is little disagreement with 99% of science

[Zig]

what is your point? if god created us and wanted to communicate clearly then he would be able to communicate with us clearly, anything else is inconsistent with an all powerful god

Of course...and he has done that. It's called The Bible.

He gave us free choice, and that includes the free choice about whether to listen to him or not.

can you share the "many different interpretations there are on science" because there is little disagreement with 99% of science

Have you ever been to a University? 'Little disagreement' my arse...

Sure there is mainstream Science, which is semi-stable, but there is also more 'alternative' views on science. Just as there is main-stream Christianity, which is semi-stable, but there is also more 'alternative' views on Christianity....

[cobra]

Of course...and he has done that. It's called The Bible.

so the bible is gods clear communication? that makes perfect sense and you win this argument clearly because i have never heard of any different interpretations of the bible it is all the same consistent view - some nice work god!

Have you ever been to a University? 'Little disagreement' my arse...

Sure there is mainstream Science, which is semi-stable, but there is also more 'alternative' views on science. Just as there is main-stream Christianity, which is semi-stable, but there is also more 'alternative' views on Christianity....

can you give examples?, not more of the same rhetoric - if there are heaps of disagreements then examples should flow

[Zarkov]

What is this "alternative science" you speak of?

Needs a thread of it's own, by the sound of it.

[UppityDuck]

Of course...and he has done that. It's called The Bible.

Torah, Qu'ran, Bhagavadgita, Vedas, Guru Granth Sahib, Avesta, Book of Mormon?

He gave us free choice, and that includes the free choice about whether to listen to him or not.

I'll say again: Saul.

There have also been many other episodes of an Interventionist God. Why no more?

Sure there is mainstream Science, which is semi-stable, but there is also more 'alternative' views on science. Just as there is main-stream Christianity, which is semi-stable, but there is also more 'alternative' views on Christianity....

The more 'alternative' views on Science tend to be either not Science, or accepted into the general scientific fold because they employ the scientific approach even if they may not be widely accepted.
Possibly the same for the views on Christianity?

[Zhija]

God "gave" us free choice, but choosing something means choosing the consequences as well, he never "said" that he couldn't influence them.

Everyone, stop posting bad 1 liners in the form of a paragraph. If you post something then think about it, don't just make it relevant to the post before it, because a lot of these things have already been answered, even in the last 5 pages.

If you can't be bothered trawling through it then you aren't really after an answer and shouldn't bother asking the question.

[Iblis]

If man cannot be trusted to say who/what God is, then no relationship with God would be possible at all. All the bibles/material in the world, from every single religion or sect, would mean diddly-squat in the face of such distrust of man, as any/all interactions between man and God could not be trusted.

Welcome to atheism. It's more lucid on this side of the fence.

Bear in mind that those who do believe, believe the source of their faith (in Christianity, the bible) to be the indication of what God is.

So religion is pure aesthetic? Without the appreciation of the believer god would not exist? Sounds right to me.

So why, then, are so many of your posts pointed hatred towards God himself?

It is rational for atheists to hate the human concept of god. Anything that must be taken on "faith" is bound to be a target for massive and relentless skepticism. Do you instantly believe anything anyone tells you based on your faith? You must send a lot of money to Nigeria, and still believe in Santa Claus.

I'm no more qualified to respond to that kind of post, than you are to post it.
Which is to say, not at all.

The problem I have with responding to such a detailed post as that is that my only experience with this idea is the post you're speaking of, and the first third of the movie Zeitgeist (which I found funny, since the film-maker starts off by dismissing Christianity, then finishes his film by promoting the same kind of population control - embedded chips - that a number of Christian "end times" groups say is the real "mark of the beast" from the book of Revelation at the end of the Christian bible he dismissed earlier on - and his only source is a member of the Rockafeller family who isn't mentioned on any of their websites, and may or may not be fictionalised).

As I've said before, I believe in the possibility of Universalism - roughly, that we all have the same God - which would possibly answer some of the ideas put forward by the idea that the Jesus story is based on earlier stories. The historical aspect of it all is a little hazy - I didn't study history at school, and have little interest in it now (thus my admission that I'm not qualified to post on the subject).

Lastly, I think its naive and juvenile to post a link found on some blog that could easily be a misrepresentation of a thesis by some history major, which in itself could really be based on a large number of assumptions as to the meaning and translation of a large amount of historical data - and expect Christian people to read it and go "OMG!!! I'VE BEEN LIVING A LIE!!!".

What evidence exists to say that the bible is not based on a large number of assumptions? Zeitgeist may be silly in its presentation, but the question remains: why would you not believe in any of the other religions? Universalism is just PC friendly atheism. If there is one force that all religions point to, then it must not regard in the slightest how we interpret it or believe in it at all. Therefore, it is an emotionless, unreactionary natural force that holds no more regard for us than it does a cricket.

Yeah ........ but really, would you?

I think he would. The more and more I read about all the evidence regarding evolution by natural selection, the more I believed that it is the best explanation so far. I can honestly say that at the beginning I had a hard time imagining how an eyeball can evolve. The inverse is true of religion/god of any kind for me. The more and more I look for the validity of a supernatural caretaker that is testing me and wants me to punish me eternally for a condition that is neither my own choice or of my own creation, and that the answer can only be proven when it is too late for me, the more it sounds absolutely ludicrous.

Another assumption, based in ignorance - they won't believe your "proof" that their god/s don't exist for the exact same damn reason you won't believe their "proof" that their god/s do exist.

Lack of proof is not proof toward. Do you still believe in Santa Claus/Easter Bunny/Bigfoot?

(And for the record, I continually question every single aspect of my faith - you haven't yet asked me a question that I haven't dealt with myself; please don't talk down to me in future, thanks.)

You really have to question yourself harder. I came from a Mormon family who come from lower class families with meager educations. From the day I saw my first photograph of dinosaur bones way before photoshop was ever around, religion began to conflict with my understanding of the world around me. It eventually became that everything I understood from a biblical standpoint began to sound ridiculous in comparison to a reasonable one. I'm sure what began as a guide on how to avoid getting in trouble with your neighbours, keeping your kids in line, and making sure you get a good price for your daughters in a society that had no cumulative knowledge of history, medicine, or science has now become an impediment through blind, unquestionable faith.

[GhostOfGallipoli]

It's no wonder I don't answer half the questions :disappoin.

but the one's you do answer, you do so with intelligence and restraint


i may not agree with you, but you put your point across so well


please dont stop

[mattnz]

Why is it better to believe in science than to believe in religion?

[GhostOfGallipoli]

Why is it better to believe in science than to believe in religion?

it's not, but either way, some people need an anchor


which is scarier, that were are being looked/controlled by a possibly omnipotent power that chooses to stay away

or that we are completely alone, and have no one to blame but ourselves, for good or ill



IMO the most rational people will just carry on

[Iblis]

Why is it better to believe in science than to believe in religion?

It is better because science encourages you to test the results yourself, and offer any additional input based on your findings. Ask the Vatican why it took 367 years to apologize to Galileo for trying to show that the evidence he gathered proved that the earth revolved around the sun.
Today, the Catholic church is considered a 'moderate' religion. God(pun intended) help us if a more fundamental church were to gain influence over most of society.

Most religions refuse to reconcile their historical beliefs with modern morality. Things we would consider terrible acts today remain unacknowledged by the religions themselves. Ask the jews why they once believed it was OK to sell your daughter into slavery. Ask the vatican to publicly condemn the spanish inquisition or the Crusades. Ask Islam why so many executions and mob violence have been perpetrated for blasphemy when numerous muslim scholars have repeatedly pointed out that there is no earthly punishment for blasphemy in the quran. You will get stone silence. Despite these religions trying to 'modernise' themselves, they refuse to acknowledge anything done historically in their name because it would lead to revisionism, and revisionism would lead to erasing most of their doctrines altogether.

[Zig]

so the bible is gods clear communication? that makes perfect sense and you win this argument clearly because i have never heard of any different interpretations of the bible it is all the same consistent view - some nice work god!

You'll find that the 'mainstream' Bible translations (and I say that in the same broad sense I said for science) are very similar in their words (and almost identical in their meaning. The translations that are significantly different in their content are ones that don't use all the same scrolls for translating. For instance the King James Version was published in the early 1600's, and a large number of original scrolls have been rediscovered since then.

Have you actually read the Bible through per chance? Interesting that automatically assume that different translations have different theologies. The mainstream translations mainly differ in style, readability is a big one for instance. Just as with science textbooks, there is of course a large difference between a Bible used by a Theologian studying for his Ph.D and someone who is not quite so linguistically capable.

The more 'alternative' views on Science tend to be either not Science, or accepted into the general scientific fold because they employ the scientific approach even if they may not be widely accepted.
Possibly the same for the views on Christianity?

For the most part. Which is what seems to be confusing Cobra.

[Zig]

It is better because science encourages you to test the results yourself, and offer any additional input based on your findings.

And religion doesn't?

Well I can't speak for Islam or any other worldviews, but this seems to be one of the most recurring misunderstandings. Christianity is not a blind faith.

Romans 4:21 says "...being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised."

Being fully persuaded in something, would mean to me, taking the facts under consideration and coming up with a resolution based on those facts. Hardly 'blind' faith then.

There are many verses like this, and in particular the four Gospels are full of eye witness accounts of Jesus' speeches etc. These sources and scrolls are widely accepted by secular historians to be true and accurate. There is no doubt that Jesus was a real person.

Christians are called upon to think about what they believe, and Christianity is most definitely not the polar opposite of Science.

If you want me to expand on what I just said, it would mainly involve me quoting a lot of various authors (christian and secular), and I'm not going to do that. I suggest you do what I did, and read some of the arguments put forward by both sides. I thought Richard Dawkins made some interesting statements, so I read some of his work, not all that impressed tbh...

I recommend "Has Science Buried God?" By John C. Lennox. A very objective book on the relationship between Science and Reigion, by a very renowned Professor from Oxford.

Also some books by Alistair McGrath. He was one of Dawkins 'type', a leading molecular biologist, a real religion hater, before becoming a leading Theologian.

Be objective, thats all I'm saying, and it's all I'm trying to do myself.

[Tandoori]

I think St!g might need a bigger boat.

[Iblis]

Romans 4:21 is about Abraham being fertile at 100 years old.

4:19 Without being weak in faith, he considered his own body as dead (because he was about one hundred years old) and the deadness of Sarah’s womb.
4:20 He did not waver in unbelief about the promise of God but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God.
4:21 He was fully convinced that what God promised he was also able to do.

How does Abraham being persuaded that God will make him fertile at 100 years old translate to being able to validate religion in the face of scientific evidence? You had better read your bible again before quoting some random verse out of context. I'll assume that you have half a brain and assumed that I had neither read it, nor bothered to google it.

P.S. Alistair McGrath never publicly denounced religion.