Research on Belief in God

[Havetts]

If I would have to choose the most peacefull religion, I'd have to say Buddhism and not Hinduism. In fact, Hinduism might be one of the most if not the most (with all due respect and no offenses meant) discriminating religion of all. The Caste system is something that rules the way India lives, if you are in the Brahman caste you are treated as a living God, but if you are a pariah you are not even worth a penny.

 

[Amsterhammer]

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.

This.....and.....

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.

...that are both very articulate expressions of what I might have to say on this topic, but I'll just refer y'all to the bold part of TFF's text above.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

Ok I wish I would have joined the debate earlier. Firstly, I am a non-denominational christian, very devout. In fact my life centers around it. I spent much of my life totally unconcerned with faith, then became an aetheist, then an agnostic before I finally realized, I personally couldn't deny the existance of a very real God anymore. I'm not a Bible thumping, judgemental legalist either. I try to be very respectful and not push my faith where I know it's not wanted. I do not hate anyone nor am I intolerant of anyone. In fact, I would say I love more and accept (not tolerate) more than before I came to Christ. Anyway, I don't need to get into a testimony, but there are a few comments I respectfully take issue with. Maybe you will learn more about me through my responses.

Most Christians i have encountered are the most intolerant and unchristian people I have ever met.

If we were to ever meet, I would hope to change that impression.

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.

Agreed. I just wanted to put your statements in Biblical terms.
John 3:17:

God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.

John 12:47"

As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it

Galatians 6:1

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.

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

That's an unfair generalization. A very dear friend mine from college is a muslim. She is one of the sweetest people I ever met. We've learned a lot from one another about faith and life. Even prior to that, I had no problems with Muslims. What I do have a problem with are extremists and radicals; that goes for Christians as well.

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)

The Bible doesn't say you have to throw rocks at homosexuals. That's old testament law. From John 8:

Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.

Christ introduced a new covenant. The Old Testament God is not all of a sudden a new God in the New Testament; the difference is the presence of Christ. God offered his son as the ultimate sin offereing; his blood replaced ours, so Old Testament law is obsolete. Stoning is not necessary because Christ already paid for our collective sins. Several times throughout the Gospels, Christ says, "you have heard it said, but I say..." Christ changed the law.

 

[El Pistolero]

Ok I wish I would have joined the debate earlier. Firstly, I am a non-denominational christian, very devout. In fact my life centers around it. I spent much of my life totally unconcerned with faith, then became an aetheist, then an agnostic before I finally realized, I personally couldn't deny the existance of a very real God anymore. I'm not a Bible thumping, judgemental legalist either. I try to be very respectful and not push my faith where I know it's not wanted. I do not hate anyone nor am I intolerant of anyone. In fact, I would say I love more and accept (not tolerate) more than before I came to Christ. Anyway, I don't need to get into a testimony, but there are a few comments I respectfully take issue with. Maybe you will learn more about me through my responses.



If we were to ever meet, I would hope to change that impression.


Agreed. I just wanted to put your statements in Biblical terms.
John 3:17:

John 12:47"

Galatians 6:1


That's an unfair generalization. A very dear friend mine from college is a muslim. She is one of the sweetest people I ever met. We've learned a lot from one another about faith and life. Even prior to that, I had no problems with Muslims. What I do have a problem with are extremists and radicals; that goes for Christians as well.


The Bible doesn't say you have to throw rocks at homosexuals. That's old testament law. From John 8:


Christ introduced a new covenant. The Old Testament God is not all of a sudden a new God in the New Testament; the difference is the presence of Christ. God offered his son as the ultimate sin offereing; his blood replaced ours, so Old Testament law is obsolete. Stoning is not necessary because Christ already paid for our collective sins. Several times throughout the Gospels, Christ says, "you have heard it said, but I say..." Christ changed the law.

The Old Testament and New Testament are radically different that no sane person could say it's about the same God. The Bible includes the Old Testament therefore it does say you have to throw rocks at homosexuals. The fact that in this day and age homosexuals are still viewed as being wrong by a relatively large proportion of the society is mostly because of Christianity in Europe. In Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome this hate for homosexuals did simply not exist.

 

[slowoldman]

I am an athoogerland in that I can assure you there is no Johnny Hoogerland.

There are rumours and sightings that suggest that he did walk the earth in the past.
He was persecuted by an errant journalist, struck by a moving transporting device and hung up on a throne of barbed wire. Seemingly dead was Hoogerland but his spirit is back amongst us and he can be regularly seen riding a 2 wheeled contraption and wearing a cloak of white lycra adorned with red polka dots.

The 2 best posts of the thread.

I am a born again Christian.

My experience in the cycling world would lead me to believe the majority of this demographic would lean toward agnostic or anti-theistic.

I share with people when they ask. I try to lead with actions and not words, people have more respect for that.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

If I would have to choose the most peacefull religion, I'd have to say Buddhism and not Hinduism. In fact, Hinduism might be one of the most if not the most (with all due respect and no offenses meant) discriminating religion of all. The Caste system is something that rules the way India lives, if you are in the Brahman caste you are treated as a living God, but if you are a pariah you are not even worth a penny.

+ a million, hitchy was right havetts does make good point.

 

[Michielveedeebee]

That post is again such rubbish. Talk about ridiculous generalisations. I know many Christians and would say the statements you have made are totally absurd and show you as being prejudicial. I am little shocked reading this post from someone like you who I have the up most respect for.

Can I ask did you seriously read those books or are you saying that you read them even though you didn't so your point of view looks more valid? I am seriously starting to wonder this after this post.

I know a lot of Christians, and a couple of Muslims that have no problem whatsoever with gay people(which is what Jesus preached in the bible -tolerance and so-) etc... But I do know some that actually believe that it's a disease, and that HIV is a punishment from God.

And also, after seeing some of these fragments out of Fox News, I wouldn't even be slightly amazed if a lot of American 'Christians' feared every single Muslim to be a terrorist.

 

[Michielveedeebee]

(actually had a very good discussion with them, the mormons are very open to talking to people who dont beleive as their idea is more that you use the bible as a guide to how to live, not as a definative set of instructions).


there are some good lessons in the bible or similar books on which to base your beliefs in life. Treating others as you would wish to be treated, practising kindess etc, but I dont need a church to tell me how to be a good person, and in many ways I feel I am more tolerant than many religions suggest you should be.


Can you offer any specific examples of how Hinduism and Islam are not peaceful cultures.

We had some mormons coming over to our house 2 years ago, they came a couple of times, and I must admit I indeed had some good discussions with them they accepted what I thought and explained their beliefs. It was nice actually

Agree with the first bolded part as well

Well, Jihad.... but the same could be said about the Crusades or the Old Testament(because God is one hell of a jerk in the Old Testament )

 

[VeloCity]

Atheist. IMO the world would be a far better place if people would stop believing in 2000-year-old fairy tales and fighting over whether my invisible friend is better than yours. Not that religion could ever be severed from culture, but one can dream.

 

[The Hitch]

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).

Obviously there is someone I would credit ahead of Harris and Dawkins. Harris is way better than Dawkins though. Dawkins advances the argument through science as he is one of the best scientists around, but when moving away from the lab, he can be a bit of an idiot, as shown by his attempts to call atheists "brights"- as in - we are brighter than you.

 

[ElChingon]

 

[Descender]

Obviously there is someone I would credit ahead of Harris and Dawkins. Harris is way better than Dawkins though. Dawkins advances the argument through science as he is one of the best scientists around, but when moving away from the lab, he can be a bit of an idiot, as shown by his attempts to call atheists "brights"- as in - we are brighter than you.

Do you have any direct quote? I'm interested.

Perhaps he's basing his statements in the several studies that have shown that atheists have, on average, a higher IQ than believers.

Both of them are great. Hitchens is also good, but not nearly as good as Harris, Dawkins or Dennett.

 

[ElChingon]

First meeting:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival

2nd Meeting:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-enlightenment-2-0

 

[The Hitch]

Previously I would say I'm Agnostic, but these days I do not believe a deity exists. I try not to associate myself with Atheism, it seems like far too much anti-theism rather than no-theism. I respect other people's choice in their beliefs - I will not try and force my views onto others, providing they treat me the same way.

On the other hand I'm strongly opposed to religious institutions.

This - Atherism = evil little people trying to convert the world idea is a myth spread by the Religious.

The term agnostic for one is false, as it suggests that atheism is like a religion which it is not. Atheism is already uncertainty. It is the belief that one does not know what happened.

Theism on the other hand is the certainty in 1 god.

Its ironic because the main charge against atheism is that atheists dont have an answer but the religious do. They are nihilists.

But when they see people attacking religion for being intolerant, suddenly they argue that atheists are fundamentalist afterall and retreat to this term agnostic to describe what atheists would be like if they were well, atheists

 

[Kvinto]

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.

Even making a distinction between these terms, they are still relative, the belief can't exist without a holder (holders) and bashing that belief may bash a person who holds it as well. A random belief can include controversial points (actually a lot of), totally unacceptable in the modern world but a random holder of that belief can be into it (belief) due to the other points which noone would criticize but in the end those negative points make the negative impression about all holders of the belief. The same happens when a random holder of the belief impressed by negative points of it does unacceptable deeds.
So as a holder of the Christianity I don’t want to look responsible (in someone’s eyes) for every wrong word written in the Bible or every crime made by the Church.
I hope you understand my reasons and I can leave this thread for good

 

[ElChingon]

 

[RedheadDane]

Christian girl. Believing very strongly in the religion is a private matter and there is no 'universally true' religion.
My opinion on the matter is "I promise I won't try to convert you, but then I also expect you to not try and convert me!"

Have to say though; being a liberal Christian who believes in evolution it sometimes seems like I can't make anyone happy. With the fundi-Christians going "How can you call yourself a Christian when you believe in evolution? The Bible is 100% true and to be read litterally!!!" While to fundi-Atheists yes! I believe Atheists can be fundementalistic too. go "Are you stupid or something?? Believing in invissible men in the sky!!"

 

[Merckx index]

Originally Posted by Thoughtforfood

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.

One of the most original and penetrating discussions of this I have ever seen is Quentin Meillassoux’s After Finitude. Meillassoux, a French philosopher, starts with the premise that postmodern philosophy, which denies an absolute, is incompatible with the scientific belief in an objective world that exists apart from observing subjects. It might surprise a lot of people on both sides here, but science’s belief in an objective world derives from Descartes, who began his meditations by “proving” that God exists, and from there to the notion—essential to the scientific method-- that we can have certainty about what we observe around us. The postmodern, by denying this, and also denying Kant’s unknowable things-in-themselves, also denies the existence of an objective world, which leads to some very disturbing conclusions about science.

Meillassoux is intent on rescuing science from this problem, which he believes has created an atmosphere where anyone can postulate any absolute, since it remains outside the bounds of discussion and therefore can’t be proven false (the problem of moral equivalence). In Chapter 3 of this relatively short but very intensely argued monograph, he imagines a conversation between a believer in God, an atheist, an agnostic, a Kantian, and finally a postmodern sceptic. If you think you know what it really means to believe in God, or to be an agnostic, or an atheist, you might get some of your beliefs punctured by his arguments. He is very, very sharp. IMO, this is philosophy at its best.

 

[The Hitch]

Do you have any direct quote? I'm interested.

Perhaps he's basing his statements in the several studies that have shown that atheists have, on average, a higher IQ than believers.

Both of them are great. Hitchens is also good, but not nearly as good as Harris, Dawkins or Dennett.

Dawkins doesnt agree

He has himself admitted that he would lose a debate to Hitchens, should they ever meet on opposite sides, and wrote that the first time he saw Hitchens (when they were made to join debate against some religious people) he was astounded at what he saw.

Ill get you the video clip where Dawkis says the first bit, later. It will take me a while to find it.

Which is logical as Hitchens comes from the pen and microphone, Dawkins comes from the bunsen burner.

Dawkins is atheism for the simple. He repeats the same easy arguments, uses the word science and scientists 100 times a minute. His book was quite well challenged by Allistair Mcgrath.

From the biology angle he is unsurpassed but when arguing in person, well Dawkins is weak Imo.

In the book department Dawkins was by far the easiest. One that parents could give to their 10 year olds. One can predict what is going to say before he says it as all the arguments are all well known. Other than the 1 or 2 chapters on his specialised subject.

Hitchens was next. Though he is called an author it is on the podium not on the page that his talents come out. Its a good read, more complex than Dawkins but seems to me, a way to get in on the atheist market.

Harrises book was by far the most complex. Im talking about The End of Faith, not Letter to a Christian nation

I have yet to read breaking the spell.

As a debater, which is what I believe is the most important, and the one i spend most time on, Dawkins is very weak though, and its not his fault, its because he has no experience in the field.

He is never able to get over his shock at the fact that the person he is talking with actually believes in religion. Never. He is unable to hammer home and ends up repeating the same arguments.

Sam Harris rarely if ever does debates, but when he does, its on theory.

Hitchens. As the comments from opponents saying they wish he was on his side, demonstrate, is who the faithful dont want to debate against.

He also doesnt tell them they are deluded either

I need to go now. More to come later.

 

[Tank Engine]

I'll have check up on Hitchens. I work in a scientific, rather than humanities, environment. As such I am familiar with Dawkins work. As Hitch says, he knows his biology (but is definitely a populist). However, he definitely does not understand the mindset of a religious person. I remember one programme on TV where he was looking at political situation in the middle east. He said that he was going to meet a Jew who converted to Islam (as I remember, it could have possibly been vice versa) and so should get a balanced view on the situation and was shocked that the guy's political opinions where those of a political conservative from the Islamic community. Got to go. I'll read more later.

 

[Descender]

Even making a distinction between these terms, they are still relative, the belief can't exist without a holder (holders) and bashing that belief may bash a person who holds it as well. A random belief can include controversial points (actually a lot of), totally unacceptable in the modern world but a random holder of that belief can be into it (belief) due to the other points which noone would criticize but in the end those negative points make the negative impression about all holders of the belief. The same happens when a random holder of the belief impressed by negative points of it does unacceptable deeds.
So as a holder of the Christianity I don’t want to look responsible (in someone’s eyes) for every wrong word written in the Bible or every crime made by the Church.
I hope you understand my reasons and I can leave this thread for good

I understand your point, but can't agree with it.

 

[Descender]

Dawkins doesnt agree

He has himself admitted that he would lose a debate to Hitchens, should they ever meet on opposite sides, and wrote that the first time he saw Hitchens (when they were made to join debate against some religious people) he was astounded at what he saw.

Ill get you the video clip where Dawkis says the first bit, later. It will take me a while to find it.

Which is logical as Hitchens comes from the pen and microphone, Dawkins comes from the bunsen burner.

Dawkins is atheism for the simple. He repeats the same easy arguments, uses the word science and scientists 100 times a minute. His book was quite well challenged by Allistair Mcgrath.

From the biology angle he is unsurpassed but when arguing in person, well Dawkins is weak Imo.

In the book department Dawkins was by far the easiest. One that parents could give to their 10 year olds. One can predict what is going to say before he says it as all the arguments are all well known. Other than the 1 or 2 chapters on his specialised subject.

Hitchens was next. Though he is called an author it is on the podium not on the page that his talents come out. Its a good read, more complex than Dawkins but seems to me, a way to get in on the atheist market.

Harrises book was by far the most complex. Im talking about The End of Faith, not Letter to a Christian nation

I have yet to read breaking the spell.

As a debater, which is what I believe is the most important, and the one i spend most time on, Dawkins is very weak though, and its not his fault, its because he has no experience in the field.

He is never able to get over his shock at the fact that the person he is talking with actually believes in religion. Never. He is unable to hammer home and ends up repeating the same arguments.

Sam Harris rarely if ever does debates, but when he does, its on theory.

Hitchens. As the comments from opponents saying they wish he was on his side, demonstrate, is who the faithful dont want to debate against.

He also doesnt tell them they are deluded either

I need to go now. More to come later.

Well I respectfully disagree. I find Dawkins to be the best of them all. His arguments might be repetitive, but that is because their opponents' arguments are repetitive too. And Hitchens is also repetitive himself.

Hitchens is witty and funny, he is an actor and a master of the crowds. If he can't be erect, then at least he can be upright. But I have seen him fare astonishingly poorly in some debates, notably the first one with Craig.

McGrath challenging Dawkins's book? Please... McGrath is a bad farce. In every single Dawkins debate I've seen, he ends up not only winning, but flat-out destroying his opponents. It is really something to see.

Harris is very articulate and is versed on neurological matters, and it shows. I fully recommend his latest book, The Moral Landscape.

It's extremely invigorating to watch debates from these four, with Dennett bringing in the philosophical perspective. They are so different, come from such different backgrounds, and yet have so much in common.

 

[ChrisE]

My god is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by his noodly appendage. Amen.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

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)

question#1: Good question, but I have never heard or read a verse that says that. Here's my reference (John 8:3-9, NIV), which I will let speak for itself:

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.

If you have a reference or version that says differently, I'd like to see it.


question#2: Same God.

 

[rhubroma]

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.

- Albert Einstein

"The melancholy of the antique world seems to me more profound than that of the moderns, all of whom more or less imply that beyond the dark void lies immortality. But for the ancients that "black hole" is infinity itself; their dreams loom and vanish against a background of immutable ebony. No crying out, no convulsions - nothing but the fixity of a pensive gaze. Just when the gods had ceased to be and the Christ had not yet come, there was a unique moment in history, between Cicero and Marcus Aurelius, when man stood alone. Nowhere else do I find that particular grandeur."

- Flaubert, undated letter to Madame Roger des Genettes

I now give the divine that is in me, back to the divine that is in everything.

- Plotina (III century Neoplatonic philosopher), supposedly at the moment before his death

These three sentiments are, I think, enough to keep me silently wondering for the next 40 years or so; and about which, naturally, I will never have any understanding.