As for being intolerant of beliefs, it is perfectly OK to be intolerant of people because of their beliefs, religious or otherwise.
Really? Some people think it's wrong: US Constitution EEOC United Nations Even this guy
Religious beliefs aren't special. They aren't any different from any other beliefs. If someone believes in tartan penguins, I will call them a nut job. If someone believes in an afterlife, I will consider them no differently. Just because you take your irrational beliefs and label them as "religious" isn't going to change anything. You could even say that I'm not intolerant of religion. I'm intolerant of irrational beliefs of any kind.
Hate is hate. Don't try to pretty it up by using weak language.
Now, wait a minute. Perhaps Scott could be more clear and less harsh in his explanation, but consider the following:
I wish to hire a janitor. Suppose, during the interview with a candidate, I discover that they believe water is unholy, and should never be used to clean floors. Suppose they furthermore believe that olive oil is the only substance that should ever be used to wash windows. Would and should I be unable to discriminate against this person in terms of hiring due solely to their beliefs? Their beliefs contradict the very nature of the job, and prevent them from fulfilling even the most basic of its functions.
Suppose I wish to hire a financial auditor for my company. They're otherwise qualified, but express to me during the interview that their child is an "Indigo Child." This belief is ludicrous, harmful to the child, and patently untrue. Holding such a belief reveals a profound personal ignorance and lack of judgement. Should I be forced to not discriminate against this person in hiring them for a position which requires logic and decision-making when they have shown clearly that they cannot be trusted to make sound decisions and carry an insane belief?
Why should an assertion that is "religious" be held to a different standard from an assertion that is not "religious?" How is a religious claim special or different from any other claim, or subject to any less scrutiny?
Is there any reason to respect the intelligence of someone who honestly believes that their child is an "Indigo Child?"
When someone speaks their mind it is obvious that they are exposing themselves to scrutiny. A human being is assessed on their words and actions. It is only natural to judge others based on these words and actions; if we did not do so regularly we would not be a fit society. In judging others on their words and actions, we also judge them on their beliefs, and it is right and moral that we do so.
The claim that religion is somehow inherently different from any other type of belief is ludicrous, as Rym has said. Religion is merely a type of belief that tends to be held by large groups of people, and will shy away from solid evidence against it.
Religion is a difficult one to consider. Physical evidence against it certainly heavily outweighs any in its favour, but this is not the sole possible reason on which to base a belief. There are two other possible "reasons" - support of the principles embodied within it, and an investment in the consequences it will engender for yourself or for the world.
The Hitchens video gives a strong argument against the latter two reasons I mention, so it would seem that there is no rational reason to believe in any religion.
Hey, there is someone further along the belief scale than me! Awesome.
I do not believe that the Bible is the literal truth. I do not believe that God himself held the hand of those who wrote it. I do not - at all - think that most people who have a fundamentalist view of the Bible know what they are talking about. If you follow a fundamentalist view of the Bible then it's an all-or-nothing thing. Either the whole thing is true or none of it is. That's just not possible. You can't claim to follow the whole Bible without following every single rule laid out. Stoned any adulterers lately?
The idea that Jesus is a scapegoat is ridiculous. I like the point made about choice. Free will and all that. But every Christian denomination speaks about seeking forgiveness and atoning for sins. No one is saying "Go on and sin, because Jesus will make it all better!" The basic tenet of Christianity is not "Jesus died for our sins." Easter's next week. The basic tenets of Christianity are summed up here: The Nicene Creed
Lastly, all religions are subject to scrutiny and should be. It always irks me that we Catholics aren't more open about discussing the rules of the Church. I'd love to see women be allowed to become priests and celebrate Mass. But, I'm not the pope. Probably a good thing. The infallibility thing would get to my head pretty quickly. If we think it is horrible when someone is sent to prison or sentenced to die in the Middle East for criticizing Islam, or threatened with death for breaking a rule of Islam (hmmm...drawing Mohammed?), then we should support people's right to criticize all religions.
For Scrym and the rest, though, that doesn't give you the right to be complete dicks about it. Like it or not, you're preaching. You're espousing a belief in nothing. If you get pissy when Christians (or Jews, Muslims, Hindi, Hippies, etc) get preachy at you, think of how we feel. I'm happy being Catholic. I don't really care much what anyone else believes. Why do you care so much what I do?
OMG. Look at what you just wrote. You don't believe in the words of the bible. You don't believe that Jesus was a scapegoat. Yet, you call yourself a Catholic. You aren't Catholic. You might call yourself one, but you are not. There is a definition of what a Catholic is, and you are not it.
What you are is a person who has come up with your own philosophy in life, some of which might be based on fictional tales in an ancient and poorly written book. You may believe that there is some sort of supernatural magic or god of some sort, but really you are more like us atheists than like a real Catholic. Like you we also live by our own moral philosophies, some of which we might gleam from fictional tales or fables from various sources.
The only difference between you and us is that you may irrationally believe in some sort of supernatural forces. Would your life really be so different without that belief in the supernatural? Is that really necessary? Can't you just keep your philosophy and moral code, no matter what it is based on, and just live?
This is what frustrates the atheists the most. Many many people live their lives effectively as atheists, yet they adamantly refuse to be labeled as such. They absolutely demand to be labeled as being a member of some religion or other.
Think about it. If there really were some supernatural all powerful god. Holy fuck! We should all be shitting our pants and running scared constantly. It could disintegrate any one of us at any time for any reason. If there really were a god, and it really did care what you did, you should be spending every waking moment making sure you don't piss it the fuck off. I mean, if you walked into a room, and there were a 30 foot tall giant in there, you would do whatever the fuck it said. Make that giant invisible, and things are no different.
Yet, people who claim that they know for 100% sure that this invisible giant is there do not act this way. They live as if the giant isn't there. Either that, or they decide for themselves the "truth" about what the giant wants. All people are doing is deciding on their own morals and philosophy, but placing the burden of that philosophy on some external supernatural force. Just carry responsibility for your own morality on your own two shoulders, and throw out the god, and you'll be just like us.
A lot of the more rational people arguing against atheism are really atheists who can't let go of their imaginary friend.
The basic tenets of Christianity are summed up here:The Nicene Creed
I'm happy being Catholic.
Catholicism is far more than simply the Nicene Creed: it involves specific beliefs in such things as transubstantiation. If you do not believe in transubstantiation, you are not a Catholic, but a split-off sect of Catholicism which, according to the Catholic church, is heretical.
Do you believe that a man named Jesus who claimed (amid thousands of similar prophets) to be the Messiah is literally and substantively inside of the bread and wine of the Holy Communion? If you do not, then you are not a Catholic.
Do you believe that Mary literally ascended to heaven without dying? If not, then you are not Catholic.
Do you believe that heaven, hell, and purgatory (Limbo is "debated" still) literally exist, and that all souls are sent to one of the three immediately upon death? If not, then you are not Catholic.
Do you believe that anyone who does not believe in any one or more of the above is subject to excommunication, forgivable only by the Pope or God, which by default means that they will be sent to hell? If not, then you are not Catholic.
Let's not get overcomplicated about specific denominations within Christianity; if someone disagrees or has an issue with something at the very heart of it, then a far more convincing argument can be constructed from there.
If Wikipedia tells me true, "The core Christian belief is that, through the death and resurrection of Jesus, sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation and the promise of eternal life." As Scott said, if you disagree with that last point, you're not a Christian. In addition, I think it's quite clear that Christianity is pointless without that belief.
This belief is slightly masked within the Nicene Creed, but it's still there. The Nicene Creed emphasizes:- - There exists God, Christ son of God, Holy Spirit - Jesus came for the salvation of humankind - Jesus rose from the dead. - There is life after death
Without that critical doctrine, Christianity tells you absolutely nothing about how to live your life and is pointless.
If you take the doctrine at face value, it is exactly what Hitchens claims it to be - scapegoating.
So now I'll try to respond specifically to Sparkybuzzed's point
But every Christian denomination speaks about seeking forgiveness and atoning for sins.
Part of Hitchens' argument about the immorality of personal responsibility still applies here. The very idea that you can be "forgiven" by anyone other than whoever it is you wronged is, again, just evasion of responsibility. At least you balance this with the need to atone for your sins.
Well, religion is not only unnecessary in allowing one to atone for one's sins, it is ineffective. Even if God was a 100% accurate moral compass, the fact that He cannot be expected to transmit this information to you means that ultimately the decision on how to atone for one's sins is made by people. It is ultimately a social mechanism that allows you to do so. Unless you claim that humans are such "filthy" creatures that they need to be forced to behave, the simple and isolated belief in atoning for one's sins fits far better outside the Christian doctrine than within it.
So, the only thing left is the dangling "carrot" of eternal life, against the "stick" of eternal hellfire. If you would believe in everything else within Christianity simply out of fear and wishful thinking, then so be it; but I'd recommend you read up on Pascal's Wager
EDIT: I went to an Anglican school in Australia, and it was great. We only had to go to chapel once a fortnight or so, and in R.E. classes we discussed other religions and it was all pretty free. Any tiny detriment from the religious aspects was certainly greatly outweighed by the fact that it was an awesome school.
In the interest of saving time, I'm just going to reply to a few things, and not cite them from the above posts.
Earlier there was a question of proof or no proof, evidence of the non-existence of God. I submit that our very existence and the beautiful symmetry that exists in our universe as proof of design. The Bible, its consistency and the power of its message are also proof. So there is some evidence that God exists. For every study that seeks to find "evidence" there is another to refute the claims on either side of the issue. It is mind numbing and pointless. If God created us He is very well capable of concealing Himself from us.
If you required your floors to be clean and someone used olive oil to clean them then what's the problem. If olive oil actually made the floors slippery and dirty then you would fire them for not doing the job. Decrementing against someone for their belief specifically is wrong. If their belief is easily dis-proven then you can help steer them along. Religion isn't held to a higher standard, it's the same standard you use to judge people for any difference.
I try to be tolerant of everyone. I am not perfect, and my patience only goes so far.
The Bible says Jesus is a door. I don't take that literally. In order to have context you must read the text. Jesus stopped an adulteress from being stoned to death. Remember "Let him among you cast the first stone."?
Look Scott, I came into your house (this board) and I'm not trying to start trouble. I understand how you feel. My context is that of a Christian, that is my world view. I've read the Bible; I've studied what it says. I've faced adversity (a fair amount too), and I believe in one universal truth. I can not comprehend how you don't believe. The beliefs I hold are only irrational if there is no God. If there is a God it is all possible. Your presupposition that there is no God only makes my claims seem irrational. Suppose perhaps that your belief that there is no God is only a natural response to your desire to make up your own morality, or fear of the consequences of your actions. You don’t want there to be a God for fear of being judged.
An American writer, Sheldon Vanauken, gave this description of his decision:
There is a gap between the probable and the proved. How was I to cross it? If I were to stake my whole life on the risen Christ, I wanted proof. I wanted certainty. I wanted to see him eat a bit of fish. I wanted letters of fire across the sky. I got none of these ... It was a question of whether I was to accept him—or reject him. My God! There was a gap behind me as well! Perhaps the leap to acceptance was a horrifying gamble—but what of the leap to rejection? There might be no certainty that Christ was God—but, by God, there was no certainty that he was not. This was not to be borne. I could not reject Jesus. There was only one thing to do once I had seen the gap behind me. I turned away from it, and flung myself over the gap towards Jesus.
I know this is highly unlikely but grab a copy of the Life Application Study Bible. Read the New Testament. Think of how it relates to you in the context of your existence. I've read the Failed Hypothesis book, if nothing else you will have the benefit of knowing your enemy. Now we can go full circle, we don't have to run around scared of God. He is vengeful and wrathful; however at the end of Noah's story he made a promise not to just wipe us out of existence. He also sent His Son as a sign of His love for us. God is not likely to strike you down; he gave you free will, if you choose not to believe you have that option.
I submit that our very existence and the beautiful symmetry that exists in our universe as proof of design.
Wrong. The irreducable complexity of the universe is actually evidence against design, not for it. See here.
The Bible, its consistency and the power of its message are also proof.
Yes, nobody has ever found any inconsistiencies in the bible. Listen, the bible is just a book. Just because something is in a book doesn't make it any true. Do you believe the Lord of the Rings was true? It's a book, and it's a lot more consistent than any bible. There are also plenty of books out there that have messages that are much more powerful. That doesn't make them true either.
If God created us He is very well capable of concealing Himself from us.
If there is a god, and that god conceals itself entirely from us, then it effectively doesn't exist. If there is something out there which is not observable, and has no observable influence on the universe, it effectively does not exist. So even if it really does exist, and we just can't see it, there is no reason to believe in it. It might as well be a tartan penguin hiding behind a rock.
Your presupposition that there is no God only makes my claims seem irrational.
I don't have a presupposition that there is no god. I have a presupposition that I don't know anything. That the only things that can be known are those things that which can be observed. That is the very nature of knowledge, logic, and reason. Irrationality means you think in a way that is not congruent. Which, if you believe in magic, you do.
Suppose perhaps that your belief that there is no God is only a natural response to your desire to make up your own morality, or fear of the consequences of your actions. You don’t want there to be a God for fear of being judged.
This is exactly what Hitchens was talking about. You have this assumption that humans are dirty filthy evil creatures. That without the powers of fear and force, humans will not do good. In my experience most people think that the rest of humanity is like themselves. I say it is you who are more likely to be a terrible person. Imagine for a moment that there was indeed no god. We had definite proof that we knew for certain there was absolutely no god. What would you do? Start killing? Stealing? Meanwhile, here I am, no god, no stealing, no murdering, no violence. If you need to be frightened by omnipotent magical forces into being a good person, what does that say about you? Maybe it's you who are afraid of atheism because a world without god will expose what a terrible person you are?
There is a gap between the probable and the proved.
There is a gap between the probable and the proved. Nothing is proved. Nothing is unproved. Everything is probabilities. What is the probability that the sky is blue? Almost 100%, but not quite 100%. What is the probability my name is Scott? Almost 100%, but not quite 100%. The only thing that I can know 100% is that I exist. The only thing you know 100% is that you exist. No more no less. Everything else lies somewhere between 0% and 100%.
Everyone has to drawn a line at which level of probability they will begin to accept something as fact. Will you believe that this medicine will work even if we are only 75% sure? Will you believe that this machine is safe if we are only 25% sure? Are you willing to say the sky is definitely blue even though we are only 99.999999% sure? The line goes somewhere.
Sadly for believers in god, the line is incredibly low. The odds of there being a god are almost 0. We're talking about 0.0000000__0000001% chance of it being true if you replace those two underscores with infinity zeroes. There is just as much chance of god being real as there is tartan penguins being real. There is just as much chance of god being real as the flying spaghetti monster being real. They are all equally probable. To believe in one thing and not another, when both are equally probably, is inconsistent and hypocritical. If words in a book are enough to get you to believe in something fully, then you must believe everything in every book ever written.
I've read the Failed Hypothesis book, if nothing else you will have the benefit of knowing your enemy.
You apparently didn't pay attention because you have made the same tired lame old arguments that have been defeated time and time again.
Wait, so you don't take all parts of the Bible literally? What are your criteria for what you take literally and what you don't? From whence are those criteria derived?
Your beliefs ARE irrational BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM. If you drum up evidence to support them, then you're denying your faith. Either way, you can't win. Your position is inherently untenable in a rational world, AND THAT'S HOW IT SHOULD BE.
The whole point of religion is FAITH. You believe in something DESPITE the lack of evidence to support it.
Remember how Moses and his people wandered around the desert for 40 years? Moses could get water by striking a rock; God would then make water pour forth from it. Once, Moses struck the rock, and no water poured forth; he became flustered and struck the rock several times. Eventually, God made water pour forth, but then told Moses that though he valued him, he would not be able to enter into the promised land because his faith wavered.
Moses had gathered evidence via observation that God existed (strike the rock, I get water). When he found evidence that contradicted his theory, he gave up on the theory (no water, doubt God's existence). This tale is telling you that you CANNOT look for evidence for God's existence. To do so is to deny faith, and to be a poor Christian.
The whole point is that, yes, your beliefs are irrational because they cannot be tested. You have to have FAITH, and it's the process of developing and struggling with faith that makes you a better person. If you're looking for evidence, you're not doing it right.
And no, our very existence is NOT proof that God exists. We are the emergence of a complex system of chemical interactions and nothing more. Saying "We exist, thus God," is no different than saying "We exist, thus Odin," or "We exist, thus Flying Spaghetti Monster."
If you required your floors to be clean and someone used olive oil to clean them then what's the problem?
Are you serious? That's crazy. I want someone to wash my floors with water. If they refuse to do that, for whatever reason, they're fired. Why is their refusal somehow special if it's based on some belief? The job requires water-use. I must discriminate against this person purely based on his beliefs, or else the job cannot get done.
What about hiring a chef? If my restaurant serves pork, I certainly cannot hire a devout practicing Muslim or Orthodox Jew. I clearly must discriminate, or else my restaurant will be clearly affected. What if I need network support for weekends? I clearly must discriminate against anyone who holds sacred the Sabbath.
I note you completely skipped the "Indigo Child" question. Should that person's belief be respected? Should I accept the decisions a person like that would make, in light of the fact that they've clearly made very poor decisions to date? Do you believe in Indigo Children?
What if someone believes that 4+4=5? Should I respect that? Should I not challenge it? Would I hire them to teach math?
What if someone believes that the ritual mutilation of their female children's genitalia is necessary? Should I respect that belief? Should I allow them to continue in their practices?
What if someone believes that Star Trek is real, and that the USS Enterprise is honestly overhead, and that the captain is watching him? Should I let that belief stand? Should I hire that person to do ANYTHING involving logic or reason? Should I commit them to an asylum?
I'm very busy, so I don't really have time to debate this in depth, but here comes the Christian viewpoint. I believe that the Bible is not only true, it is the inspired word of God handed down to be passed on through the ages. I believe in the fall of man, the virgin birth, the death and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
If you steal something you have to deal with the guilt. If you are caught you must pay for your crime. You can give back the item you stole in full and pay restitution. Do you still have the guilt? Most people would say yes, you did something wrong and you know it.
If someone commits a sin, it is their sin and they have to live with it. In the early books of the Bible there are rules to atone for your sins. The world became so sinful and corrupt that nothing on Earth would atone for the sins. God sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to serve as the ultimate sacrifice. His death paid the price for any sins anyone would commit, so long as they believed that Jesus was the literal Son of God and gave Himself for us. Think about just this part, Christian or not. You commit a crime, are caught, and the punishment would dramatically alter your life. Then someone walks up and says "I got this one bro." and you walk away free of any obligation due to your crime, how would you feel towards the person that "saved" you? Would you go out and commit the crime again? Would you want to repay that person for their gift?
I take issue with a couple things in the first video. I know many Christians that would not tell you Noah's Ark was a myth. Most Christians I know believe in the virgin birth. Also I'm getting a little tired of the "You only do good to evade punishment." garbage (it's at 4:40 in the first video). That is not how Christians should think. If I do good it is because I owe a debt to Jesus and the only thing I can do to repay the debt is to live honestly, truthfully, and be the best person I can.
As far as the age of the universe goes, it's irrelevant. It's like a story problem, Bob has 4 apples, Julie has 3 apples, Julie's shirt 100,000 years old. How many apples are there? It doesn't make one bit of difference to my faith how old the the Earth is or appears to be. Am I dodging the issue? If the Earth is 6000, or 600,000,000 years old it does not disprove the existence of God. It only proves to me that God is more awesome than we can comprehend.
Up until about six months ago, I was like you. I believed all of these things. What made me change was simply the fact that I reread the Bible for the first time in years. I saw condemnations of eating shellfish, rules for selling slaves, and many, many things different in other bibles. Among one of the most startling to me was a passage I saw about God wanting people to follow the law. I remembered from history, the Spanish Inquisition, the Hundred Years' War, and the silence of the Church during the Holocaust. I also remembered that the Bible was used to subjugate women. What finally did it for me was Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is [an] abomination."
I have gay friends. I saw their pain. That is no choice a sane human being would make.
I am 20 years old, and I am embarrassed to admit it took me that long to wake up. I should have listened to John Lennon: it is easy if you try.
"Imagine" is a beautiful song with a beautiful sentiment. Ignorance breeds ignorance. People find ways to seperate themselves from others all by themselves. Insecurities that cause racism, sexism, etc. create giant dividing lines between people. We don't need entire factions of people dedicated to saying that one way to live is the only way to live.
People fear the Muslim extremists, but what of the Christian extremism that gets overlooked because they just happen to believe in Jesus? What of the "Jesus Camps"? What of the Christians that pray for the Rapture to come and claim that natural disasters are gods will striking down sinners? I swore I read something about turning the other cheek that bible you refer to so lovingly.
I was raised catholic. I questioned every belief shoved down my throat by my hyper religious mother, the way catholicism was shoved down my Hispanic ancestors throats. I was baptised without my consent [as a child, of course], and forced along through my first communion and my confirmation before deciding it was all bullshit when I hit the age of 15. I know full well the hypocrisy of the catholic church, and I see what it does to people's sensibilities when my mother watches the news and believes every word.
Do you believe that a man named Jesus who claimed (amid thousands of similar prophets) to be the Messiah is literally and substantively inside of the bread and wine of the Holy Communion? If you do not, then you are not a Catholic.
Yes.
Do you believe that Mary literally ascended to heaven without dying? If not, then you are not Catholic.
Yes.
Do you believe that heaven, hell, and purgatory (Limbo is "debated" still) literally exist, and that all souls are sent to one of the three immediately upon death? If not, then you are not Catholic.
Yes, and Limbo is officially gone.
Do you believe that anyone who does not believe in any one or more of the above is subject to excommunication, forgivable only by the Pope or God, which by default means that they will be sent to hell? If not, then you are not Catholic.
Do you know the last time the Church excommunicated someone for simply not believing? With a billion Catholics in the world, don't you think the Pope might be a bit too busy to start kicking people out who don't believe individual items in the Church's dogma? And - since we're on the topic here - all sins but one are forgivable.
(Went to a Catholic school for several years)
You went to Catholic school for a few years? Well, good for you. I'm glad those years have made you a theological scholar and an expert on the Catholic Church.
Question: can one be an agnostic, yet still consider themselves a Jew? Then why can't someone be culturally a Catholic?
Wait, so you don't take all parts of the Bible literally? What are your criteria for what you take literally and what you don't? From whence are those criteria derived?
So, again, it's an all or nothing proposition? So, the letters written by Peter and Paul are fakes since the flood story isn't real? The story of the Macabees is fiction because Genesis is a story? How do you separate the two? Why would you discount an entire book because parts are fiction and parts aren't? I think that a vast majority of Leviticus is inapplicable to today's world. And anyone who tells you that they are anything more than a code of laws meant to ensure the survival of the Jews at that time is a fool. (Oh, and ask anyone who quotes Lev. 18:22 to you if they eat shellfish, trim their beard or have stoned adulterers. If someone's going to pick out on word or phrase to go by in that book, they better take the whole thing)
You guys do know that people are to blame for bad things done in the name of religion, right? People. It's hard to blame an institution. Do you want to shoulder the responsibility for how your country (wherever that happens to be) treated other countries or peoples? Americans, do you want to be blamed for slavery or the oppression and murder of Native Americans? Neither do I want to be blamed for the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. How can I support a Church that once caused such pain? How can you support a country that did? No, I don't agree with my Church's decisions all the time. I do not believe that abortion should be legislated. (I think it's immoral, but not up to me in the long run) I do not believe that genetic research or stem cell research aiming to cure disease is wrong. That doesn't keep me from being Catholic, it makes me a person. But I do support a Church that rallys for peace around the world and aims to fulfill two statements made in that book most of you seem to hate: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these." - Mark 12:30-31
Question: can one be an agnostic, yet still consider themselves a Jew? Then why can't someone be culturally a Catholic?
I'm not a Jew, religiously speaking. I'm culturally a Jew. Think of it like someone who is Irish, and like to drink Guinness and eat corned beef on St. Patrick's day, but isn't Catholic.
Also, there are multiple "levels" of judaism. Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and Hasidic are the major ones. Hasidm are the most fundamentalist, they live their entire lives according to the literal word of the old testament, talmud, etc. Reform are the least fundamentalist. These are usually the kinds of Jews who may not really believe, but they go to temple once or twice a year, and they have their kids Bar or Bat-Mitzvah. Many Hasidim do not consider the less fundamentalist Jews to be Jews, whether they believe or not. They may be crazy, but they aren't hypocritical. Well, at least they aren't hypocritical in this one sense.
The rest of your post will be pwn3d when I get home, if not sooner by someone else.
Wrong. The irreducable complexity of the universe is actually evidence against design, not for it.See here.
This is an endless loop. The level of complexity proves nothing. To me as a Christian, proof is all around me. Your evidence against is my evidence for.
Listen, the bible is just a book. Just because something is in a book doesn't make it any true. Do you believe the Lord of the Rings was true? It's a book, and it's a lot more consistent than any bible. There are also plenty of books out there that have messages that are much more powerful. That doesn't make them true either.
Quote from that site “Please keep in mind that by ‘inconsistencies’ I do not necessarily mean ‘contradictions.’ “. Most are simply taken out of context, or easily explained, I didn’t have time to read them all. The Bible is special, I’ve seen it change enough lives for the better to know that is the case. Thousands of years of history with numerous authors, and it is very coherent in the message it conveys. I can’t think of another book that has had such a profound effect on so many people. No, I don’t believe the Lord of the Rings is true.
If there is a god, and that god conceals itself entirely from us, then it effectively doesn't exist. If there is something out there which is not observable, and has no observable influence on the universe, it effectively does not exist. So even if it really does exist, and we just can't see it, there is no reason to believe in it. It might as well be a tartan penguin hiding behind a rock.
Can we stop with the tooth fairies and penguins, we are talking about an all power being with 2 major religions and thousands of years of belief structure. Not something someone thought up to counter a proof argument. They are not the same you can’t compare them. I’ve observed Gods effects on my life, my children, and the world around me. Proof enough for me.
I don't have a presupposition that there is no god. I have a presupposition that I don't know anything. That the only things that can be known are those things that which can be observed. That is the very nature of knowledge, logic, and reason. Irrationality means you think in a way that is not congruent. Which, if you believe in magic, you do.
If you don’t know anything then how are we having this conversation? What am I not congruent with, your world view? I think we already defined that point. I believe in God that doesn’t really have much to do with magic.
This is exactly what Hitchens was talking about. You have this assumption that humans are dirty filthy evil creatures. That without the powers of fear and force, humans will not do good. In my experience most people think that the rest of humanity is like themselves. I say it is you who are more likely to be a terrible person. Imagine for a moment that there was indeed no god. We had definite proof that we knew for certain there was absolutely no god. What would you do? Start killing? Stealing? Meanwhile, here I am, no god, no stealing, no murdering, no violence. If you need to be frightened by omnipotent magical forces into being a good person, what does that say about you? Maybe it's you who are afraid of atheism because a world without god will expose what a terrible person you are?
I think you missed my point. I really think this is a matter of a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity. I don’t have to do good things, I don’t fear for my salvation. Christianity is not as self deprecating as you might think. Saying “Christians think all humans are vile creatures†is off the mark. All humans sin, everyone does something wrong. That makes us sinful creatures, it doesn’t mean we all rape and murder it’s just that we all do bad things from time to time. I have solace in knowing that my sins are forgiven, because I believe. Even with that knowledge I still do good.
There is a gap between the probable and the proved. Nothing is proved. Nothing is unproved. Everything is probabilities. What is the probability that the sky is blue? Almost 100%, but not quite 100%. What is the probability my name is Scott? Almost 100%, but not quite 100%. The only thing that I can know 100% is that I exist. The only thing you know 100% is that you exist. No more no less. Everything else lies somewhere between 0% and 100%.
Everyone has to drawn a line at which level of probability they will begin to accept something as fact. Will you believe that this medicine will work even if we are only 75% sure? Will you believe that this machine is safe if we are only 25% sure? Are you willing to say the sky is definitely blue even though we are only 99.999999% sure? The line goes somewhere.
Sadly for believers in god, the line is incredibly low. The odds of there being a god are almost 0. We're talking about 0.0000000__0000001% chance of it being true if you replace those two underscores with infinity zeroes. There is just as much chance of god being real as there is tartan penguins being real. There is just as much chance of god being real as the flying spaghetti monster being real. They are all equally probable. To believe in one thing and not another, when both are equally probably, is inconsistent and hypocritical. If words in a book are enough to get you to believe in something fully, then you must believe everything in every book ever written. .
I know my name, it is Adam I’m 100% positive. I know God exists and I’m 100% on that one too. See all this rationalism clouds your mind. It hides truth more often than it helps. You dig up more questions than answers. I don’t have to calculate the probability of my name, I know it.
You apparently didn't pay attention because you have made the same tired lame old arguments that have been defeated time and time again.
They are not defeated, they are only challenged by incredibly complex theories the try to reconcile something that can not be reconciled.
Quote from Stephen Jay Gould: “To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.â€Â
If you're looking for evidence, you're not doing it right.
I’m not looking for evidence, this is something that should be clear from my posts. I have my proof.
Are you serious? That's crazy. I want someone to wash my floors with water. If they refuse to do that, forwhateverreason, they're fired. Why is their refusal somehow special if it's based on some belief? The job requires water-use. Imustdiscriminate against this person purely based on his beliefs, or else the jobcannotget done.
Yes I’m serious, if they apply for the job and do the job then what’s the problem. Just because they have an unorthodox approach doesn’t make it wrong. Now if the floor isn’t clean or you specify in the job description that it must be cleaned with water then you have grounds for dismissal.
What about hiring a chef? If my restaurant serves pork…
Then the people that care about those things won’t apply for the job. I don’t want to clean toilets, I don’t apply for janitor jobs.
I note you completely skipped the "Indigo Child" question. Should that person's belief be respected? Should I accept the decisions a person like that would make, in light of the fact that they've clearly made very poor decisions to date? Do you believe in Indigo Children?
Because it’s simple, if they can’t do the job they where hired to do, fire them. No I don’t believe in Indigo children (do you people know what Christians believe?) and the worst thing I can see coming out of it is some spoiled, socially inept adults. There are lots of those now so not really anything new.
What if someone believes that 4+4=5? Should I respect that? Should I not challenge it? Would I hire them to teach math?
Come on Rym, have you ever met anyone over the age of 5 that held this belief? If you couldn’t convince them otherwise with a pencil and some paper I’m very sorry.
What if someone believes that the ritual mutilation of their female children's genitalia is necessary? Should I respect that belief? Should I allow them to continue in their practices?
Report them to the police. If the practice is causing physical harm and done against their will I would not respect this belief.
What if someone believes that Star Trek is real, and that the USS Enterprise is honestly overhead, and that the captain is watching him? Should I let that belief stand? Should I hire that person to do ANYTHING involving logic or reason? Should I commit them to an asylum?
Have you ever met anyone that holds this belief? I don’t think these hypotheticals add to the discussion. I would think it would be fairly easy to determine the mental health of the person in question. If the person is capable of completing the task they are hired for what does it matter what they believe?
To sum this up, using reason to determine there may or may not be a God is understandable. Choosing to believe that there is no God is your right. I do not disrespect you for that choice. Why would you disrespect me for mine? If there were no Bible, no Gospel, no church, the choice would have been more difficult for me. When I read the Bible, and study the life of Christ it makes sense. Everything falls in to place. A reason for our existence, an explanation for our consciousness and an answer to what is morality and where did it come from. Those are questions that must gnaw at you. I found the answer and it makes sense to me.
The rest of your post will be pwn3d when I get home, if not sooner by someone else.
Really? I await my faith-shaking experience. Look, I really, really don't care what your views of my beliefs are. My point is that I have my beliefs, you have yours. Why do you feel the need to push yours on me? I don't care what you believe. Don't want to believe in God? Fine! Have a good time. If I'm wrong and there is no God, truly, what have I lost? Being at Mass gives me a sense of peace. In the long run, what harm has it done me? And, more importantly for this discussion, what harm has my faith done you? That's much more my point.
Can we simply agree to disagree here? Nothing you're going to say will change my mind and nothing I will say will change your mind. There's no argument you can come up with that I already haven't dealt with in my own faith journey. I said it before, I'll say it again: I like being Catholic. I identify with it. My ancestors were Catholic back as far as we can find. My religion is part of my personal identity.
I'm not a Jew, religiously speaking. I'm culturally a Jew. Think of it like someone who is Irish, and like to drink Guinness and eat corned beef on St. Patrick's day, but isn't Catholic.
That makes no sense. Being Irish doesn't make you Catholic, nor does being Catholic make you Irish. There are millions of Protestant Irish. If the point you're trying to make is that you're an atheist who still celebrates the High Holidays...well, I'm not sure what to make of that.
I'd take the helm, but I'm headed home as well.
Really? Is that what this has come to? Let's bash on the religious guy? If you want to have a decent discussion, I'm all for it, but if this is going to turn into "Sparky's an idiot because he actually believes in God" then count me out. I should know better then to discuss religion on an online forum.
I saw condemnations of eating shellfish, rules for selling slaves, and many, many things different in other bibles.
You should have finished reading. Towards the back there’s this guy named Jesus that shows up things change a bit. I think you would like Him. Start at Matthew, and go eat some crab.
Quote from Stephen Jay Gould: “To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.â€Â
Ummmm... This is talking about whether there is a generic "GOD", this has nothing to do with disproving claims made by religions (Chirstianity, Islam, Hinduism) that they claim happened sometime in history or something behaves a certain way that Science has showed us behaves in a different way (or is caused by something different).
You are right, you can't disprove a deist god, but where does that get you in terms of this debate? Yes we can not prove a god that does not interact with us, false.
That makes no sense. Being Irish doesn't make you Catholic, nor does being Catholic make you Irish. There are millions of Protestant Irish. If the point you're trying to make is that you're an atheist who still celebrates the High Holidays...well, I'm not sure what to make of that.
I still participate in a bunch of holidays, mainly because at this point in American Culture, holidays like Christmas and Easter are just commercial excuses to get/give presents/hang out with family/get off from work/eat lots of tasty food.
Can we simply agree to disagree here? Nothing you're going to say will change my mind and nothing I will say will change your mind. There's no argument you can come up with that I already haven't dealt with in my own faith journey. I said it before, I'll say it again: I like being Catholic. I identify with it. My ancestors were Catholic back as far as we can find. My religion is part of my personal identity.
Actually, personally I have no trouble with someone being religious, as long as they do not present a political or social view that relies totally on there religious beliefs and believe that everyone else should be converted to how they see things and also do not say things like "I would never vote for an atheist" or something along that line.
I saw condemnations of eating shellfish, rules for selling slaves, and many, many things different in other bibles.
You should have finished reading. Towards the back there’s this guy named Jesus that shows up things change a bit. I think you would like Him. Start at Matthew, and go eat some crab.
So why did God first tell his people they should do X, and then sends his son to tell them they should stop doing X and go do Y. Now, lets say history repeats itself, what would you do when a second Jesus came to earth and told us to stop doing Y and start killing every non-Christian in cold blood? No exceptions. Would you as a self-proclaimed believer do as the first disciples did and follow this Jesus? Would you listen to his word and act upon it like the first disciples did?
You should have finished reading. Towards the back there’s this guy named Jesus that shows up things change a bit. I think you would like Him. Start at Matthew, and go eat some crab.
Why stop there wasn't there some guy came along a few years later (well around 1805) another prophet was born, Joseph Smith and he added a few chapters to the bible as well. At which point should we decide that we've learned exactly how god is going to treat us and what we have to do? I mean we can just stick with the old testament and figure Jesus was some sort of self-made messiah or we can accept Jesus and reject Mohammad or Smith? At what point is the bible closed for revision? I mean, I would figure we should just stay with the original stories not screwed with by roman emperors. How about the many gods of the early Judaism before their god pwned all the others?
Edit: damn me and myself seem to post the same point ^_^
Comments
US Constitution
EEOC
United Nations
Even this guy
Hate is hate. Don't try to pretty it up by using weak language.
I wish to hire a janitor. Suppose, during the interview with a candidate, I discover that they believe water is unholy, and should never be used to clean floors. Suppose they furthermore believe that olive oil is the only substance that should ever be used to wash windows. Would and should I be unable to discriminate against this person in terms of hiring due solely to their beliefs? Their beliefs contradict the very nature of the job, and prevent them from fulfilling even the most basic of its functions.
Suppose I wish to hire a financial auditor for my company. They're otherwise qualified, but express to me during the interview that their child is an "Indigo Child." This belief is ludicrous, harmful to the child, and patently untrue. Holding such a belief reveals a profound personal ignorance and lack of judgement. Should I be forced to not discriminate against this person in hiring them for a position which requires logic and decision-making when they have shown clearly that they cannot be trusted to make sound decisions and carry an insane belief?
Why should an assertion that is "religious" be held to a different standard from an assertion that is not "religious?" How is a religious claim special or different from any other claim, or subject to any less scrutiny?
Is there any reason to respect the intelligence of someone who honestly believes that their child is an "Indigo Child?"
The claim that religion is somehow inherently different from any other type of belief is ludicrous, as Rym has said. Religion is merely a type of belief that tends to be held by large groups of people, and will shy away from solid evidence against it.
Religion is a difficult one to consider. Physical evidence against it certainly heavily outweighs any in its favour, but this is not the sole possible reason on which to base a belief. There are two other possible "reasons" - support of the principles embodied within it, and an investment in the consequences it will engender for yourself or for the world.
The Hitchens video gives a strong argument against the latter two reasons I mention, so it would seem that there is no rational reason to believe in any religion.
I do not believe that the Bible is the literal truth. I do not believe that God himself held the hand of those who wrote it. I do not - at all - think that most people who have a fundamentalist view of the Bible know what they are talking about. If you follow a fundamentalist view of the Bible then it's an all-or-nothing thing. Either the whole thing is true or none of it is. That's just not possible. You can't claim to follow the whole Bible without following every single rule laid out. Stoned any adulterers lately?
The idea that Jesus is a scapegoat is ridiculous. I like the point made about choice. Free will and all that. But every Christian denomination speaks about seeking forgiveness and atoning for sins. No one is saying "Go on and sin, because Jesus will make it all better!" The basic tenet of Christianity is not "Jesus died for our sins." Easter's next week. The basic tenets of Christianity are summed up here: The Nicene Creed
Lastly, all religions are subject to scrutiny and should be. It always irks me that we Catholics aren't more open about discussing the rules of the Church. I'd love to see women be allowed to become priests and celebrate Mass. But, I'm not the pope. Probably a good thing. The infallibility thing would get to my head pretty quickly. If we think it is horrible when someone is sent to prison or sentenced to die in the Middle East for criticizing Islam, or threatened with death for breaking a rule of Islam (hmmm...drawing Mohammed?), then we should support people's right to criticize all religions.
For Scrym and the rest, though, that doesn't give you the right to be complete dicks about it. Like it or not, you're preaching. You're espousing a belief in nothing. If you get pissy when Christians (or Jews, Muslims, Hindi, Hippies, etc) get preachy at you, think of how we feel. I'm happy being Catholic. I don't really care much what anyone else believes. Why do you care so much what I do?
What you are is a person who has come up with your own philosophy in life, some of which might be based on fictional tales in an ancient and poorly written book. You may believe that there is some sort of supernatural magic or god of some sort, but really you are more like us atheists than like a real Catholic. Like you we also live by our own moral philosophies, some of which we might gleam from fictional tales or fables from various sources.
The only difference between you and us is that you may irrationally believe in some sort of supernatural forces. Would your life really be so different without that belief in the supernatural? Is that really necessary? Can't you just keep your philosophy and moral code, no matter what it is based on, and just live?
This is what frustrates the atheists the most. Many many people live their lives effectively as atheists, yet they adamantly refuse to be labeled as such. They absolutely demand to be labeled as being a member of some religion or other.
Think about it. If there really were some supernatural all powerful god. Holy fuck! We should all be shitting our pants and running scared constantly. It could disintegrate any one of us at any time for any reason. If there really were a god, and it really did care what you did, you should be spending every waking moment making sure you don't piss it the fuck off. I mean, if you walked into a room, and there were a 30 foot tall giant in there, you would do whatever the fuck it said. Make that giant invisible, and things are no different.
Yet, people who claim that they know for 100% sure that this invisible giant is there do not act this way. They live as if the giant isn't there. Either that, or they decide for themselves the "truth" about what the giant wants. All people are doing is deciding on their own morals and philosophy, but placing the burden of that philosophy on some external supernatural force. Just carry responsibility for your own morality on your own two shoulders, and throw out the god, and you'll be just like us.
A lot of the more rational people arguing against atheism are really atheists who can't let go of their imaginary friend.
Do you believe that a man named Jesus who claimed (amid thousands of similar prophets) to be the Messiah is literally and substantively inside of the bread and wine of the Holy Communion? If you do not, then you are not a Catholic.
Do you believe that Mary literally ascended to heaven without dying? If not, then you are not Catholic.
Do you believe that heaven, hell, and purgatory (Limbo is "debated" still) literally exist, and that all souls are sent to one of the three immediately upon death? If not, then you are not Catholic.
Do you believe that anyone who does not believe in any one or more of the above is subject to excommunication, forgivable only by the Pope or God, which by default means that they will be sent to hell? If not, then you are not Catholic.
(Went to a Catholic school for several years)
If Wikipedia tells me true, "The core Christian belief is that, through the death and resurrection of Jesus, sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation and the promise of eternal life."
As Scott said, if you disagree with that last point, you're not a Christian. In addition, I think it's quite clear that Christianity is pointless without that belief.
This belief is slightly masked within the Nicene Creed, but it's still there. The Nicene Creed emphasizes:-
- There exists God, Christ son of God, Holy Spirit
- Jesus came for the salvation of humankind
- Jesus rose from the dead.
- There is life after death
Without that critical doctrine, Christianity tells you absolutely nothing about how to live your life and is pointless.
If you take the doctrine at face value, it is exactly what Hitchens claims it to be - scapegoating.
So now I'll try to respond specifically to Sparkybuzzed's point Part of Hitchens' argument about the immorality of personal responsibility still applies here. The very idea that you can be "forgiven" by anyone other than whoever it is you wronged is, again, just evasion of responsibility.
At least you balance this with the need to atone for your sins.
Well, religion is not only unnecessary in allowing one to atone for one's sins, it is ineffective. Even if God was a 100% accurate moral compass, the fact that He cannot be expected to transmit this information to you means that ultimately the decision on how to atone for one's sins is made by people. It is ultimately a social mechanism that allows you to do so. Unless you claim that humans are such "filthy" creatures that they need to be forced to behave, the simple and isolated belief in atoning for one's sins fits far better outside the Christian doctrine than within it.
So, the only thing left is the dangling "carrot" of eternal life, against the "stick" of eternal hellfire. If you would believe in everything else within Christianity simply out of fear and wishful thinking, then so be it; but I'd recommend you read up on Pascal's Wager
EDIT: I went to an Anglican school in Australia, and it was great. We only had to go to chapel once a fortnight or so, and in R.E. classes we discussed other religions and it was all pretty free. Any tiny detriment from the religious aspects was certainly greatly outweighed by the fact that it was an awesome school.
Earlier there was a question of proof or no proof, evidence of the non-existence of God. I submit that our very existence and the beautiful symmetry that exists in our universe as proof of design. The Bible, its consistency and the power of its message are also proof. So there is some evidence that God exists. For every study that seeks to find "evidence" there is another to refute the claims on either side of the issue. It is mind numbing and pointless. If God created us He is very well capable of concealing Himself from us.
If you required your floors to be clean and someone used olive oil to clean them then what's the problem. If olive oil actually made the floors slippery and dirty then you would fire them for not doing the job. Decrementing against someone for their belief specifically is wrong. If their belief is easily dis-proven then you can help steer them along. Religion isn't held to a higher standard, it's the same standard you use to judge people for any difference.
I try to be tolerant of everyone. I am not perfect, and my patience only goes so far.
The Bible says Jesus is a door. I don't take that literally. In order to have context you must read the text. Jesus stopped an adulteress from being stoned to death. Remember "Let him among you cast the first stone."?
Look Scott, I came into your house (this board) and I'm not trying to start trouble. I understand how you feel. My context is that of a Christian, that is my world view. I've read the Bible; I've studied what it says. I've faced adversity (a fair amount too), and I believe in one universal truth. I can not comprehend how you don't believe. The beliefs I hold are only irrational if there is no God. If there is a God it is all possible. Your presupposition that there is no God only makes my claims seem irrational. Suppose perhaps that your belief that there is no God is only a natural response to your desire to make up your own morality, or fear of the consequences of your actions. You don’t want there to be a God for fear of being judged.
An American writer, Sheldon Vanauken, gave this description of his decision:
I know this is highly unlikely but grab a copy of the Life Application Study Bible. Read the New Testament. Think of how it relates to you in the context of your existence. I've read the Failed Hypothesis book, if nothing else you will have the benefit of knowing your enemy. Now we can go full circle, we don't have to run around scared of God. He is vengeful and wrathful; however at the end of Noah's story he made a promise not to just wipe us out of existence. He also sent His Son as a sign of His love for us. God is not likely to strike you down; he gave you free will, if you choose not to believe you have that option.
Everyone has to drawn a line at which level of probability they will begin to accept something as fact. Will you believe that this medicine will work even if we are only 75% sure? Will you believe that this machine is safe if we are only 25% sure? Are you willing to say the sky is definitely blue even though we are only 99.999999% sure? The line goes somewhere.
Sadly for believers in god, the line is incredibly low. The odds of there being a god are almost 0. We're talking about 0.0000000__0000001% chance of it being true if you replace those two underscores with infinity zeroes. There is just as much chance of god being real as there is tartan penguins being real. There is just as much chance of god being real as the flying spaghetti monster being real. They are all equally probable. To believe in one thing and not another, when both are equally probably, is inconsistent and hypocritical. If words in a book are enough to get you to believe in something fully, then you must believe everything in every book ever written. You apparently didn't pay attention because you have made the same tired lame old arguments that have been defeated time and time again.
Your beliefs ARE irrational BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM. If you drum up evidence to support them, then you're denying your faith. Either way, you can't win. Your position is inherently untenable in a rational world, AND THAT'S HOW IT SHOULD BE.
The whole point of religion is FAITH. You believe in something DESPITE the lack of evidence to support it.
Remember how Moses and his people wandered around the desert for 40 years? Moses could get water by striking a rock; God would then make water pour forth from it. Once, Moses struck the rock, and no water poured forth; he became flustered and struck the rock several times. Eventually, God made water pour forth, but then told Moses that though he valued him, he would not be able to enter into the promised land because his faith wavered.
Moses had gathered evidence via observation that God existed (strike the rock, I get water). When he found evidence that contradicted his theory, he gave up on the theory (no water, doubt God's existence). This tale is telling you that you CANNOT look for evidence for God's existence. To do so is to deny faith, and to be a poor Christian.
The whole point is that, yes, your beliefs are irrational because they cannot be tested. You have to have FAITH, and it's the process of developing and struggling with faith that makes you a better person. If you're looking for evidence, you're not doing it right.
And no, our very existence is NOT proof that God exists. We are the emergence of a complex system of chemical interactions and nothing more. Saying "We exist, thus God," is no different than saying "We exist, thus Odin," or "We exist, thus Flying Spaghetti Monster."
EDIT: Also, I echo everything Apreche said.
What about hiring a chef? If my restaurant serves pork, I certainly cannot hire a devout practicing Muslim or Orthodox Jew. I clearly must discriminate, or else my restaurant will be clearly affected. What if I need network support for weekends? I clearly must discriminate against anyone who holds sacred the Sabbath.
I note you completely skipped the "Indigo Child" question. Should that person's belief be respected? Should I accept the decisions a person like that would make, in light of the fact that they've clearly made very poor decisions to date? Do you believe in Indigo Children?
What if someone believes that the ritual mutilation of their female children's genitalia is necessary? Should I respect that belief? Should I allow them to continue in their practices?
What if someone believes that Star Trek is real, and that the USS Enterprise is honestly overhead, and that the captain is watching him? Should I let that belief stand? Should I hire that person to do ANYTHING involving logic or reason? Should I commit them to an asylum?
These are not rhetorical questions.
I have gay friends. I saw their pain. That is no choice a sane human being would make.
I am 20 years old, and I am embarrassed to admit it took me that long to wake up. I should have listened to John Lennon: it is easy if you try.
People fear the Muslim extremists, but what of the Christian extremism that gets overlooked because they just happen to believe in Jesus? What of the "Jesus Camps"? What of the Christians that pray for the Rapture to come and claim that natural disasters are gods will striking down sinners? I swore I read something about turning the other cheek that bible you refer to so lovingly.
I was raised catholic. I questioned every belief shoved down my throat by my hyper religious mother, the way catholicism was shoved down my Hispanic ancestors throats. I was baptised without my consent [as a child, of course], and forced along through my first communion and my confirmation before deciding it was all bullshit when I hit the age of 15. I know full well the hypocrisy of the catholic church, and I see what it does to people's sensibilities when my mother watches the news and believes every word.
Question: can one be an agnostic, yet still consider themselves a Jew? Then why can't someone be culturally a Catholic? So, again, it's an all or nothing proposition? So, the letters written by Peter and Paul are fakes since the flood story isn't real? The story of the Macabees is fiction because Genesis is a story? How do you separate the two? Why would you discount an entire book because parts are fiction and parts aren't? I think that a vast majority of Leviticus is inapplicable to today's world. And anyone who tells you that they are anything more than a code of laws meant to ensure the survival of the Jews at that time is a fool. (Oh, and ask anyone who quotes Lev. 18:22 to you if they eat shellfish, trim their beard or have stoned adulterers. If someone's going to pick out on word or phrase to go by in that book, they better take the whole thing)
You guys do know that people are to blame for bad things done in the name of religion, right? People. It's hard to blame an institution. Do you want to shoulder the responsibility for how your country (wherever that happens to be) treated other countries or peoples? Americans, do you want to be blamed for slavery or the oppression and murder of Native Americans? Neither do I want to be blamed for the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. How can I support a Church that once caused such pain? How can you support a country that did? No, I don't agree with my Church's decisions all the time. I do not believe that abortion should be legislated. (I think it's immoral, but not up to me in the long run) I do not believe that genetic research or stem cell research aiming to cure disease is wrong. That doesn't keep me from being Catholic, it makes me a person. But I do support a Church that rallys for peace around the world and aims to fulfill two statements made in that book most of you seem to hate: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these." - Mark 12:30-31
Also, there are multiple "levels" of judaism. Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and Hasidic are the major ones. Hasidm are the most fundamentalist, they live their entire lives according to the literal word of the old testament, talmud, etc. Reform are the least fundamentalist. These are usually the kinds of Jews who may not really believe, but they go to temple once or twice a year, and they have their kids Bar or Bat-Mitzvah. Many Hasidim do not consider the less fundamentalist Jews to be Jews, whether they believe or not. They may be crazy, but they aren't hypocritical. Well, at least they aren't hypocritical in this one sense.
The rest of your post will be pwn3d when I get home, if not sooner by someone else.
::Passes torch::
I know my name, it is Adam I’m 100% positive. I know God exists and I’m 100% on that one too. See all this rationalism clouds your mind. It hides truth more often than it helps. You dig up more questions than answers. I don’t have to calculate the probability of my name, I know it. They are not defeated, they are only challenged by incredibly complex theories the try to reconcile something that can not be reconciled.
Quote from Stephen Jay Gould:
“To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.†I’m not looking for evidence, this is something that should be clear from my posts. I have my proof.
To sum this up, using reason to determine there may or may not be a God is understandable. Choosing to believe that there is no God is your right. I do not disrespect you for that choice. Why would you disrespect me for mine? If there were no Bible, no Gospel, no church, the choice would have been more difficult for me. When I read the Bible, and study the life of Christ it makes sense. Everything falls in to place. A reason for our existence, an explanation for our consciousness and an answer to what is morality and where did it come from. Those are questions that must gnaw at you. I found the answer and it makes sense to me.
Can we simply agree to disagree here? Nothing you're going to say will change my mind and nothing I will say will change your mind. There's no argument you can come up with that I already haven't dealt with in my own faith journey. I said it before, I'll say it again: I like being Catholic. I identify with it. My ancestors were Catholic back as far as we can find. My religion is part of my personal identity. That makes no sense. Being Irish doesn't make you Catholic, nor does being Catholic make you Irish. There are millions of Protestant Irish. If the point you're trying to make is that you're an atheist who still celebrates the High Holidays...well, I'm not sure what to make of that. Really? Is that what this has come to? Let's bash on the religious guy? If you want to have a decent discussion, I'm all for it, but if this is going to turn into "Sparky's an idiot because he actually believes in God" then count me out. I should know better then to discuss religion on an online forum.
You are right, you can't disprove a deist god, but where does that get you in terms of this debate? Yes we can not prove a god that does not interact with us, false.
Edit: damn me and myself seem to post the same point ^_^