Research on Belief in God

[Luke Schmid]

which is one of my issues. I believe that all men and women are equal, regardless of race, religion, sexual preference etc. Christians do not, while some other religions do. And why should someone be welcomed into the "kingdom of heaven" if they have lived a life based on hate and intollerance despite it being in line with "gods words"

God hates sin.
God wants his followers to hate sin and abstain from doing it.
Hating something that is sin is not wrong.
Telling someone that what they are doing is sin is not wrong as long as it is done to help them stop doing the sin, not to condemn them for doing that sin.

 

[The Hitch]

You might as well close it now, then. People are inevitably going to get upset.

Which brings me to one of my points, which Richard Dawkins so often makes too. Why is religion worthy of so much respect? Why is it ok to bash politicians because of their positions, writers because of their novels, filmmakers because of their films, but it's not ok to criticise religion or their principles?

In this same forum there are dozens of threads on politics. Quite clearly, people get upset there every day. Are those threads closed because of that?

When people get upset on account of religion matters, it is most usually their choice and theirs only to get upset. I say let us have a sensible, constructive debate. Let us be polite in a democratic way. But as long as we do it this way, let us express our views freely too, without fear of upsetting other people's ideals.

+1.

It is what I was going to say other than that I wouldn't credit Dawkins with the argument.

 

[The Hitch]

I'm a Catholic.

Thats the Polish in you

 

[just some guy]

I believe in me - John Lennon.

Anyway before this thing explodes

They is 2 separate issues

Some believe in Religion - which they believe makes them believe in God. But Religion was created by man to control others

Some believe in a supreme power.

These 2 things are not the same.

 

[Nastyy]

Okay, that post isn't true. As an Indian and a close follower of politics, I know that the second half of the statement is false. Every party has made its mistakes and the BJP and the rioters made the most fatal of mistake in 2002. To generalise it to such simplistic terms is dumbing down both the country and around 20% of its electorate. I know a lot of tolerant and secular people who support the party. I purposely avoided posting examples of the negatives in my first post, to avoid offence (for the record 2002 was one of the first on the list).

Okay I generalised there quite a bit but BJP is still an example that Hindus aren't all that tolerant and peaceful.

 

[The Hitch]

FWIW i beleive that probably the most tolerant and peaceful religion is Hinduism closely followed by Islam. But of course, many christians beleive that Muslims are all heathen extremist terrorists..

Islam tollerant religion? I think you might be confusing it with the Amish or something.

And obviously Christians think Muslims are heathen. Thats like saying that they think wheels are round.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

yes, but it's not Johnny Hoogerland

 

[Luke Schmid]

I believe in me - John Lennon.

Anyway before this thing explodes

They is 2 separate issues

Some believe in Religion - which they believe makes them believe in God. But Religion was created by man to control others

Some believe in a supreme power.

These 2 things are not the same.

The Bibles definition of religion is, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

Religion should not be about an organisation that controls things.

 

[thirteen]

You can't believe in One God only and be tolerant at the same time.

huh?

that is actually quite an intolerant statement and yet you say you don't believe in god.

using your own logic, are you a secret believer?

 

[ramjambunath]

Okay I generalised there quite a bit but BJP is still an example that Hindus aren't all that tolerant and peaceful.

Some MPs and MLAs of the BJP are, as you say, intolerant. I won't disagree with that. Most aren't, but that's the case with all parties (there are examples as well).

I also won't disagree with you on your point that all Hindus aren't tolerant. Some definitely aren't.

Then again, can any religion be fully tolerant? There will always be someone who takes it too far.

 

[Descender]

The first part of the bold was quoting Kvinto. The part about that being the line not to be crossed was my belief. I don't mind anyone stating his case, and strongly too, but I won't want him to criticise me just because I hold an opposite view. The same applies to myself when trying put my case forward.

I'd like to think of it as respect to someone who doesn't share your views.

Oh but I am not criticising them, I am criticising their view. Once again, there is a clear difference.

 

[slim charles]

huh?

that is actually quite an intolerant statement and yet you say you don't believe in god.

using your own logic, are you a secret believer?

You lost me here, how does that work?

Fact is, most of the religions believe their god is the only one, which means that other religion's god doesn't exist.

 

[El Pistolero]

huh?

that is actually quite an intolerant statement and yet you say you don't believe in god.

using your own logic, are you a secret believer?

What kind of twisted logic is that? I never said only religious people are intolerant.

Take a look at the early history of the Christendom and you'll see what I mean by that statement. Or do you think Paganism went down quietly and because Christianity was a better religion?

 

[rhubroma]

I have made it known before that I don't believe in God, that I find in the 21st century no need to do so and that, while religion may have served a historical purpose in dictating a moral code - which had a legitimacy only in so far as it was handed down to the realm of mere mortals by a "higher power" - we as a species have evolved and gone beyond such superstitious constructions.

Reason, philosophy and the law may not hold all the answers (but neither does religion), nor do they provide that mystical and transcendental belief system religion does most human beings seem incapable of living without; however, they are sufficient to give us a rather more contemporary (for example in not denouncing homosexuality as against Nature, God and hence sinful), rational and nuanced sense of right and wrong than do the completely irrational faith systems. They also spare us today from past idiotic debates such as whether or not the female sex was endowed by the Creater with a soul.

While I can't comprehend, today, why so many people still feel that they have found all the answers in one book.

Then I find the ceremony and conduct codes of religion to be among the worst forms of mass conformism, which, at times, can even by socially and civilly dangerous.

At the same time I realize that so many people just can't live without religion.

 

[Kvinto]

Thats the Polish in you

you do have a fixed idea of making a Pole of me
in fact i'm a Greek Catholic which is more concerned to the Ukrainian population of Galicia, the term Catholic is more common so i used it

 

[Anonymous]

I think this will be the last time I post or visit this thread. Do me a favor guys, if you get the conflict between religion and religion or religion and atheism or spirituality and religion or spirituality and atheism or religion+ Spirituality against atheism, or religion against atheism + agnosticism or ...well, there are a few more combinations, but if you guys ever solve one of them or someone provides proof that a god exists or proof that no god exists, then do me a favor, post it in a new thread, because I don't want to have to waste my time wading through a debate that isn't any different now than ever was.

 

[Descender]

And I have the right to say that no belief is bs, and round and round we go, swing your partner to an fro, now dossey doe...

You do have right to say that, of course.

I use that point of view only to religious stuff: the main point for me is not to insult and not to be insulted, but denying somebody's religious beliefs is a straight way to do this. And i hope there is no religion that says that chewing mint leaves can help with a cancer because i disagree
I think i understand what you are talking about. There will always be things acceptable and things unacceptable. For me proving wrong in the case of mint leaves/cancer is acceptable but "You are fool because you believe in God" is unacceptable.



fully agree

I make the distinction again between bashing a person for holding a belief and bashing that belief.

And once again, I fail to see why denying someone's religious beliefs should be a straight insult.

interesting that you used that as an example... talk, like that, when it comes to religion is exactly what turns me off.

when my grandmother was dying, i was told she must accept Jesus Christ into her life or she would ho to hell.

me, i could care less, but don't you dare say that about my grandmother!

the friend, by the way, was trying to prevent an "undesirable" outcome

I'm not sure I'm following you here.

+1.

It is what I was going to say other than that I wouldn't credit Dawkins with the argument.

Oh I'm not giving credit to Dawkins for that argument, many people made it before him. He has been the one popularising it in recent times though (together with Sam Harris, but he is less prominent).

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Islam tollerant religion? I think you might be confusing it with the Amish or something.

And obviously Christians think Muslims are heathen. Thats like saying that they think wheels are round.

You will find many that think that way, but most Christians I know realize God loves everyone first and foremost. Muslims included. And that dictates how Christians feel about other groups.

 

[El Pistolero]

You will find many that think that way, but most Christians I know realize God loves everyone first and foremost. Muslims included. And that dictates how Christians feel about other groups.

If God loves everyone then why does the Bible say I have to throw rocks at homosexuals?

Is the God from the Old Testament all of a sudden a different God then the one from the New Testament(there were in fact some Christian sects that believed that, but they were all prosecuted by the Church of course)

 

[thirteen]

What kind of twisted logic is that? I never said only religious people are intolerant.

Take a look at the early history of the Christendom and you'll see what I mean by that statement.

that was the answer i wanted.

but, i don't think that all people who only believe in one god are intolerant any more than i think that atheists or agnostics are all tolerant.

i do not judge people on their beliefs or faith (or lack thereof) unless they try to foist it on others and/or it goes to the extreme and persecutes non-believers.

 

[Nastyy]

I have made it known before that I don't believe in God, that I find in the 21st century no need to do so and that, while religion may have served a historical purpose in dictating a moral code - which had a legitimacy only in so far as it was handed down to the realm of mere mortals by a "higher power" - we as a species have evolved and gone beyond such superstitious constructions.

Reason, philosophy and the law may not hold all the answers (but neither does religion), nor do they provide that mystical and transcendental belief system religion does most human beings seem incapable of living without; however, they are sufficient to give us a rather more contemporary (for example in not denouncing homosexuality as against Nature, God and hence sinful), rational and nuanced sense of right and wrong than do the completely irrational faith systems. They also spare us today from past idiotic debates such as whether or not the female sex was endowed by the Creater with a soul.

While I can't comprehend, today, why so many people still feel that they have found all the answers in one book.

Then I find the ceremony and conduct codes of religion to be among the worst forms of mass conformism, which, at times, can even by socially and civilly dangerous.

At the same time I realize that so many people just can't live without religion.

Best post here so far.

 

[Anonymous]

If God loves everyone then why does the Bible say I have to throw rocks at homosexuals?

Is the God from the Old Testament all of a sudden a different God then the one from the New Testament(there were in fact some Christian sects that believed that, but they were all prosecuted by the Church of course)

you have to view it a bit like lance.. The old testement was the old god, the new testement is the clean comeback god.

and besides, you dont throw all the rocks at the homosexuals. Only the ones that miss the theives, the adulterers and the moslims

 

[ramjambunath]

Oh but I am not criticising them, I am criticising their view. Once again, there is a clear difference.

Well, criticising someone over something that one holds so very close to his/her heart (as religion or lack of always is) always leads to offending someone and arguments and over the top reactions, very similar to my ott reaction to Nastyy's comment (to whom I apologise for bursting out, it wasn't for the religion bit btw).

Also, being something spiritual and completely individualistic I find it less hassle and less offensive to point out why I would be correct than why another is wrong.

Rhubroma, very good post as always, especially the bit about religion giving some moral fiber to society.

 

[Descender]

Well, criticising someone over something that one holds so very close to his/her heart (as religion or lack of always is) always leads to offending someone and arguments and over the top reactions, very similar to my ott reaction to Nastyy's comment (to whom I apologise for bursting out, it wasn't for the religion bit btw).

By questioning a belief (just as by questioning a political stance) I do not wish to offend anyone or throw over the top reactions. However, if someone is keen to feel offended, I can't do anything about it. It is their prerogative.

Also, being something spiritual and completely individualistic I find it less hassle and less offensive to point out why I would be correct than why another is wrong.

In this respect, they are all and the same thing.

 

[El Pistolero]

I have made it known before that I don't believe in God, that I find in the 21st century no need to do so and that, while religion may have served a historical purpose in dictating a moral code - which had a legitimacy only in so far as it was handed down to the realm of mere mortals by a "higher power" - we as a species have evolved and gone beyond such superstitious constructions.

Reason, philosophy and the law may not hold all the answers (but neither does religion), nor do they provide that mystical and transcendental belief system religion does most human beings seem incapable of living without; however, they are sufficient to give us a rather more contemporary (for example in not denouncing homosexuality as against Nature, God and hence sinful), rational and nuanced sense of right and wrong than do the completely irrational faith systems. They also spare us today from past idiotic debates such as whether or not the female sex was endowed by the Creater with a soul.

While I can't comprehend, today, why so many people still feel that they have found all the answers in one book.

Then I find the ceremony and conduct codes of religion to be among the worst forms of mass conformism, which, at times, can even by socially and civilly dangerous.

At the same time I realize that so many people just can't live without religion.

Without religion there would never have been big states. The first big religions coincide with the first big states. It was necessary for many people to live together in the same city/state to have a similar religion. Therefore without religion humankind would have been nowhere. Just like agriculture(the step to agriculture makes no sense as diseases became more wide spread, living standards went backwards, you had to work a lot harder for the same food and you died a lot younger around the time of the first agricultural communities, it's one of the mysteries of life.), religion was/is a double edged sword for the human race.