Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
God wrote the constitution? I though it was written by committee in 1787 and modified nearly 30 times since (taking out slavery and the like).
And I though you were a person. Perhaps we should call you Militia-Jeff from now on?
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
--John Adams
He is. And he's doing it brilliantly
By which I mean he's doing it terribly, but the fact it's still genuinely plausible is brilliant.
By which I mean he's doing it terribly, but the fact it's still genuinely plausible is brilliant.
I'm being serious. It's not as if I have a degree in biochemistry with a fair amount of work in evolutionary biology. I believe in a literal interpretation of the bible! Divinely chosen rulers, immaculate conception, smitings and other suchness!
I'm 99% certain he had a post a few pages back asking Red Dreams what would happen to nonbelievers that's been deleted and then I realised he was trolling. But I decided to not say anything to see how long it would take and how far he'd push it.
Assuming you are being serious, why do you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible? What is in it that makes you think this is the best possible explanation for how the world works?
Any levity added to a thread full of people beating dead horses is well done. I for one welcome our Poe overlords.
How did this one not give it away?
I've encountered far crazier things than that. I get crazier things given away in cereal.
That transitionalfossils.com site is excellent, the whale section also gives some pretty good examples of extant animals that could in themselves be seen as "transitional" between land and marine animals, in crocodiles and seals. You can also say that penguins are on the same course in adapting birds to water life. Such a bogus argument.
Fair enough, it's shocking what many people can be convinced of because it feels good. If it makes you feel better the arguments you and others presented were very cogent and backed up well. I'm just sharpening your skills so you are better prepared for discussion with actual believers
Think it would be fun to discuss religion as an evolutionary adaptation. As opposed to the cynical or pragmatic theories that religion came about to perpetuate subjugation of people or to keep the moral compass of believers in line with that of the ruling class at the time, maybe it originated or has lasted so long because it allows humans to avoid existential crisis by tying everything up nicely. Much easier to handle the thought of an afterlife as opposed to the possibility of nothingness, at first impression at least. If that is the case it would be reasonable to say metaphysics are just the next step in the progression as there seems to have been a somewhat recent shift even within religions to the thought that we are all connected in some deep and meaningful way even if we don't hold the same religious beliefs. It has allowed for people that are religious to avoid the uncomfortable notion that their friend or family that believe in a different religion aren't going to hell because "she believes in something and that something is the same god that I believe in, she just doesn't know it."
I'm sure there has been plenty of discussion on that specific topic but I haven't done much research into it myself.
It is troubling that some of these things I've said are accepted as fact by so many for so long
The Genesis story I believe is to say that God created the universe and humanity.
As to the question about what I believe happens to non Christians. I think it is a fair question. Salvation is for all. Each of us has a choice. To do good or evil. Faith without action is just lip service.
So all can be saved.
But if they are not saved, what happens then?
If you mean by them chosing to do evil, they by their own actions have damned their own souls.
You have decided that God creating the universe and humanity is true presumably because it is written in the Bible (correct me if I'm wrong). What I'm asking about is why you choose to believe that specific part of Genesis but not other parts (since you said you don't believe in it literally). How have you separated them so that you think one part is true and worthy of belief, but another is not?
The other part of what I was saying was to ask you how you know whether to pick what the Bible says or what the scientific method says as truth since it is undeniable that they come in direct conflict sometimes. The example I gave was Adam and Eve vs. the scientific theory of evolution.
One of the main reasons I stopped being religious in my early teens was that I started listening in church and quickly realised that the vast majority of what was written in the bibles was utter nonsense. Not just implausible but utter gibberish. So silly that you would have to be a fool to believe it.
What finalised it for me was when we were forced to go on a religious retreat. It was meant to reinforce our faith but it probably created a large number of atheists. If a number of priests give answers that strongly suggest that they know none of it is true it tends to do that. of course any fundamentalists silliness would have had me running for the hills. I guess once you know that the King's new clothes are fictitious you can't go back to believing otherwise. Some things can't be unseen and all that.
What finalised it for me was when we were forced to go on a religious retreat. It was meant to reinforce our faith but it probably created a large number of atheists. If a number of priests give answers that strongly suggest that they know none of it is true it tends to do that. of course any fundamentalists silliness would have had me running for the hills. I guess once you know that the King's new clothes are fictitious you can't go back to believing otherwise. Some things can't be unseen and all that.
If you read Genesis, it talks about Cain's wife. I know the strict 'bible Christians' will say she must be his sister or such. I believe Adam and Eve are specifically mentioned because through them Jesus is descended. The entire Old Testament is really about the preperation of the coming of the Messiah. Jesus is the center of the entire bible. Everything is before and after him.
Fair enough, it's shocking what many people can be convinced of because it feels good. If it makes you feel better the arguments you and others presented were very cogent and backed up well. I'm just sharpening your skills so you are better prepared for discussion with actual believers
Some of the discussions on here in the old days were far madder than this one. One bloke believed that a statue was drinking milk amongst other oddness.
Superbird AKA The King was one
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/exi...more-rational-atheism-or-belief-in-god.43774/
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/lets-talk-evolution.82434/
Lots of interesting things in there.
I've considered the possibility that religious belief is adaptive and I can think of a few ways that it might be but I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that this is true.
My best guess is that our particular intelligence is brilliant at filling gaps. Our eyes/brain take snippets of information and produce what we "see" and we are excellent at taking diverse bits of information to come to an (often) correct conclusion at great speed. I also suspect that this is why we are prone to religion, conspiracy theory and the like. We naturally fill the gaps even when there aren't really gaps to be filled.
Combine this with the temptation of thinking that there is something to look forward to after we die and I can see why religion perseveres despite us no longer needing it to explain stuff like storms and mountains. There is also the power of belonging to a tribe and being told what is the correct thing to do/think by an infallible being.
I understand where you are coming from Wibs. The priests of those days were dictatorial to say the least.
I talk about my faith and challenge my parish priest even. Well he is younger guy...perhaps he tollerates me. No he is a very intelligent man. Full of faith.The priest in question was a young trendy type and I wasn't even sure if he believed what be was saying. Funnily enough one of my best mates is an Anglican Priest and I'm far from sure he believes in God (he probably does but his version is so inclusive it throws me).
Christ is inclusive. Many do not see this.
I'd say he was pretty inconclusive, personally.
Having had a quick look at that first thread I found it slightly amusing that you straight away said you found agnosticism to be a 'cop out term' because that was part of a disagreement I had on here recently - 11 years after the discussion that took place there (although my reasoning was slightly different to yours).
Also, people using Pascal's wager as a basis for believing.
in what way
what about people who never had a chance to even hear the names yahweh and jesus? do they have a choice or were they doomed from birth?
The bullshit reasoning is that due to original sin, us humans all deserve to suffer for eternity in hell. Those who follow Jesus are simply lucky due to his grace, and God should be praised for saving a few of the damned.
It disgusts me that otherwise rational people can follow such a fecked up reasoning, fecked up God.
Jesus Christ (staying in theme)
What about all of the contradictions in the bible?
And their reasoning for believing in such nonsense is "just because". If you are going to make a claim about how the universe was created or what happens to us when we die, you better have damned good evidence for it. Because it's what my ancestors believed, is not a good reason.
What if they don't believe but do good things otherwise, is that considered evil?
Started reading that first thread, that's a doozy
Really enjoy reading about our brains and the leaps it makes so that the world around us makes sense. Pretty amazing what you begin to pickup when you are aware of just how many gaps your brain fills in for you and you try to analyze things a bit more.
Your thinking is definitely sound in regards to us filling in the gaps with religion. I find it a bit odd that we classify people as paranoid schizophrenics because they think the government is after them, which there is actually some decent evidence for (maybe not evidence that the gov't is after a particular individual but evidence that the gov't is sometimes working against the interests of the average person) but someone that believes in something as ground shaking as an omnipotent being that created us based upon a book that is a couple millenia old is considered completely sound of mind. Relates to what you were saying about our brains making connections and goes to show that religion even influences our take on mental illness from a medical standpoint. Lots of power there.
I really think a large part of religions staying power relates to mortality, people are afraid to face death without the safety net of the afterlife. It can be tough at times to think of our lives as a finite thing that will one day be over and there may be absolutely nothing after that.
I don't believe in any religion, I was winding people up
a believer would probably tell you that those contradictions are the result of an imperfect tool (man) recording the holy scripture.Having had a quick look at that first thread I found it slightly amusing that you straight away said you found agnosticism to be a 'cop out term' because that was part of a disagreement I had on here recently - 11 years after the discussion that took place there (although my reasoning was slightly different to yours).
Also, people using Pascal's wager as a basis for believing.
I find that most people who call themselves agnostics are really atheists who either can't be bothered to think about it too much or are just hedging their bets. That annoys me.
Not half as annoying as "I don't believe in a god but I do believe in something. I'm just not sure what".
Would you count people like myself that aren't really sure as agnostic or atheist? I feel like I fall within the description of agnosticism, I think there could be something. I don't actively believe there is a higher power because there is no proof but I don't completely discount the possibility because I don't know what precedes birth or what follows death. With that being said I also don't completely discount the flying spaghetti monster however unlikely.
Not really a cop out on my part either as it is not because of fear but due to the fact that I won't know for sure until I'm dead. Even then I might not "know"...
If you genuinely aren't sure then you are agnostic. However, I have yet to meet a genuine agnostic (not that I don't think they exist). Most are atheists who then fall into the fallacy of thinking that they can't be 100% sure about anything therefore that makes them an agnostic. Such reasoning would make most people an agnostic about gravity and the tides if applied equally.
My view, and of course it is just my view, is that I use the same reasoning that I use to decide if anything exists or doesn't. Lets say Unicorns, the Easter Bunny or the Loch Ness Monster. There is no credible evidence for any of them. Until there is they don't exist as far as I am concerned and to operate any other way would be paralysing as it would be impossible to decide anything as it is as logical to think that things that do exists don't as it is to think that things that don't exist do. You would fear jumping "down" the steps and falling upwards into space. You wouldn't know if you should eat a steak or a vial of cyanide. God falls into the same category for me. No evidence = doesn't exists, end of story. And it isn't as if a huge amount of effort has been made to find evidence. It is only a confronting way to think (and may sound like I'm taking the piss) if you fear being wrong and as far as I'm concerned there is nothing to be afraid of. In the incredibly unlikely event that when I die there turns out to be a big invisible bearded bloke judging me then TBH I want no part of anyone who allows what goes on down here to happen.
My view, and of course it is just my view, is that I use the same reasoning that I use to decide if anything exists or doesn't. Lets say Unicorns, the Easter Bunny or the Loch Ness Monster. There is no credible evidence for any of them. Until there is they don't exist as far as I am concerned and to operate any other way would be paralysing as it would be impossible to decide anything as it is as logical to think that things that do exists don't as it is to think that things that don't exist do. You would fear jumping "down" the steps and falling upwards into space. You wouldn't know if you should eat a steak or a vial of cyanide. God falls into the same category for me. No evidence = doesn't exists, end of story. And it isn't as if a huge amount of effort has been made to find evidence. It is only a confronting way to think (and may sound like I'm taking the piss) if you fear being wrong and as far as I'm concerned there is nothing to be afraid of. In the incredibly unlikely event that when I die there turns out to be a big invisible bearded bloke judging me then TBH I want no part of anyone who allows what goes on down here to happen.
Last edited:
no.
no one is damned from birth. All are saved. Each of us has a choice to do good or evil.