According to the Bible, everything not according to the Bible is not okay.

[Womi]

Oui?

[RestLess-BoTics]

Wrong.

 

Not according to the bible, but according to the leaders of the early church.

 

There isn't a single place in the bible where it states, "there are absolutely no errors in this writings, therefore you must believe all of it."

 

Faith is what you make it, and what matters most is not how you approach the details of religion, but what you get out of the simple truths it has to offer.

[Womi]

Then go spread it.

[RestLess-BoTics]

Then go spread it.

 

I'm too lazy, and people are too stubborn.

[Dr. Cakey]

Wrong.

 

Not according to the bible, but according to the leaders of the early church.

 

There isn't a single place in the bible where it states, "there are absolutely no errors in this writings, therefore you must believe all of it."

 

Faith is what you make it, and what matters most is not how you approach the details of religion, but what you get out of the simple truths it has to offer.

As long as you get the right simple truths. Because if you interpret it in a different way, you're a heretic.

[Dark]

There isn't a single place in the bible where it states, "there are absolutely no errors in this writings, therefore you must believe all of it."

 

The Bible is apparently the word of God, God is apparently omniscient, and as such the Bible apparently has no errors.

 

Good game, good sir.

[Womi]

So we get....

*points to topic title*

[Yasu]

Bible shouldn't be taken literal, unless you're using it for trolling porpoises or you're retarded.

[RestLess-BoTics]

There isn't a single place in the bible where it states, "there are absolutely no errors in this writings, therefore you must believe all of it."

 

The Bible is apparently the word of God, God is apparently omniscient, and as such the Bible apparently has no errors.

 

Good game, good sir.

 

Damn, someone doesn't have any knowledge about this topic.

 

The bible is the 'Word of God', but that doesn't mean God wrote it himself. Under his influence, people wrote the sacred writings. Last time I checked, people aren't perfect.

 

Read up, before you post.

[Dark]

Right, people had some wet dreams about a supreme being, who then gave them revelations or some crap, and then they wrote down the Bible with what he told them.

 

So either God is a complete idiot and can't get his ideas across whatsoever, or he "wrote" it himself.

[RestLess-BoTics]

Right, people had some wet dreams about a supreme being, who then gave them revelations or some crap, and then they wrote down the Bible with what he told them.

 

So either God is a complete idiot and can't get his ideas across whatsoever, or he "wrote" it himself.

 

It all comes to down whether you believe it or not.

 

So, when I die... and I happen to be wrong about everything (the existence of God, heaven, hell) - it's all good. I'll be fine with it. Doesn't hurt to actually believe in something, y'know?

[The Dark One]

It all comes to down whether you believe it or not.

 

So, when I die... and I happen to be wrong about everything (the existence of God, heaven, hell) - it's all good. I'll be fine with it. Doesn't hurt to actually believe in something, y'know?

And when I die.... and happen to be right about everything (when I die I rot) - it's all good. I'll be fine with it. Doesn't hurt to actually be realistic, y'know?

 

Seriously though, once you get over the initial fear of nothingness or whatever, it's not so bad to not believe in God. I don't believe for a second that religious people are any happier than the rest of us mortals because of their beliefs.

[RestLess-BoTics]

And when I die.... and happen to be right about everything (when I die I rot) - it's all good. I'll be fine with it. Doesn't hurt to actually be realistic, y'know?

 

...and when you're wrong?

 

On the latter:

 

"once you get over the initial fear of nothingness or whatever,"

 

There's no 'initial fear of nothingness or whatever'. My faith is a decision that I committed myself to. There shouldn't be any fear at all when you're having faith in something.

 

it's not so bad to not believe in God.

 

When you're stating an opinion, it either IS or it ISN'T. Your point collapsed once I read 'it's not so bad'.

 

I don't believe for a second that religious people are any happier than the rest of us mortals because of their beliefs.

 

That's exactly like saying: 'I don't believe that people with many investments are any happier than people who don't have any investments at all'. Think about monks/nuns/priests/clergy/etc. They dedicate their lives to God, by secluding themselves from their families and friends. Don't you think they'll get lonely? Of course. Who's to say they're happier than a wealthy CEO, who happens to be an atheist? See what I'm getting at?

 

All in all, no one's forcing anyone to believe anything. I'm not getting in your face, forcing down your throat to believe in everything I believe in. Through my own experiences, I've come to the conclusion that this is my faith.

 

And atheists/agnostics/non-believers aren't horrible people. That's what they've chose to do with their lives, and I respect that.

 

As long as you're not hurting anyone, you have the right to choose what you wish to believe in.

[The Dark One]

...and when you're wrong?

 

And when I'm wrong, that means that there is an infinite possible number of combinations of God or gods with an infinite possible number of true moral guidelines, meaning that I am probably f***ed. But no less f***ed than anyone else.

 

But I'm confident I'm right, so irrelevant. ^.^

 

On the latter:

 

"once you get over the initial fear of nothingness or whatever,"

 

There's no 'initial fear of nothingness or whatever'. My faith is a decision that I committed myself to. There shouldn't be any fear at all when you're having faith in something.

 

That wasn't a shot aimed at your beliefs. When I was younger and first questioning my own beliefs, the thought of nothing after death terrified me. I would be afraid to go to sleep at night, but still wishing I could, because then I would have to think about it. It was sort of a mini depression for a few weeks. That fear caused me to try to find excuses for religion etc. I tried to believe, because it was easier than not believing. Eventually though, it all just didn't bother me anymore, and I realized that religion still didn't make any sense to me.

 

it's not so bad to not believe in God.

 

When you're stating an opinion, it either IS or it ISN'T. Your point collapsed once I read 'it's not so bad'.

 

That's a figure of speech there, loaded with irony, you big dunderhead you! ^.^

 

I don't believe for a second that religious people are any happier than the rest of us mortals because of their beliefs.

 

That's exactly like saying: 'I don't believe that people with many investments are any happier than people who don't have any investments at all'. Think about monks/nuns/priests/clergy/etc. They dedicate their lives to God, by secluding themselves from their families and friends. Don't you think they'll get lonely? Of course. Who's to say they're happier than a wealthy CEO, who happens to be an atheist? See what I'm getting at?

 

All in all, no one's forcing anyone to believe anything. I'm not getting in your face, forcing down your throat to believe in everything I believe in. Through my own experiences, I've come to the conclusion that this is my faith.

 

And atheists/agnostics/non-believers aren't horrible people. That's what they've chose to do with their lives, and I respect that.

 

I was actually responding to a common tenet of religion that belief somehow makes you happier or better than anybody else. It was evoked by your statement of "it doesn't hurt to believe in something" which seemed to me to suggest that, regardless of whether your beliefs are true, they have made you happier than someone without them. A point which I would contest.

 

As long as you're not hurting anyone, you have the right to choose what you wish to believe in.

 

Well duh! Glad to see you've got some common sense in ya! ^.^

[JG.]

Continueing Glasstin: "There is no faith but what we make." Sure, mildly edited, but same thing =P

[Dark]

Religious people (or rather, overly religious people) cause more greif to soceity than atheists do. We mind our own business, while preists go to Uganda and try to persecute gays because "the Bible said so". Maybe if your people weren't so horribly stupid, the world would be a better place. Maybe my hopes are too high, I don't know.

 

So, when I die... and I happen to be wrong about everything (the existence of God, heaven, hell) - it's all good. I'll be fine with it. Doesn't hurt to actually believe in something, y'know?

 

Pascal's Wager, much? You didn't quote it exactly, nor did you fully paraphrase it, but you were getting there. Let's just say that a god does exist, and you believe in your own God. And let's also say that the god that does exist is not the god you believed in. That completely nullifies Pascal's Wager. Also, Pascal's Wager assumes that believing in a god does not take effort, or in a sense, does not hurt you. Wrong. You spend money going to church (or whatever, paying a tithe), you spend time praying to your dude, et cetera. And if a god does not exist, that is money and time wasted. So yes, you are being hurt if you are wrong.

[Dad]

Religious people (or rather, overly religious people) cause more greif to soceity than atheists do. We mind our own business, while preists go to Uganda and try to persecute gays because "the Bible said so". Maybe if your people weren't so horribly stupid, the world would be a better place. Maybe my hopes are too high, I don't know.

 

Wrong. It is the choices they make that affect the world and the people around them. Their beliefs play an influence on their decisions, but the belief itself is not to blame. It is the decision.

 

 

So, when I die... and I happen to be wrong about everything (the existence of God, heaven, hell) - it's all good. I'll be fine with it. Doesn't hurt to actually believe in something, y'know?

 

Pascal's Wager, much? You didn't quote it exactly, nor did you fully paraphrase it, but you were getting there. Let's just say that a god does exist, and you believe in your own God. And let's also say that the god that does exist is not the god you believed in. That completely nullifies Pascal's Wager. Also, Pascal's Wager assumes that believing in a god does not take effort, or in a sense, does not hurt you. Wrong. You spend money going to church (or whatever, paying a tithe), you spend time praying to your dude, et cetera. And if a god does not exist, that is money and time wasted. So yes, you are being hurt if you are wrong.

 

When you die, the money and time you spent on Earth doesn't mean a damn thing. So where are you going with this?

[Dark]

Pascal's Wager (which is what I think Glasstin was indirectly paraphrasing) states that it is beneficial to believe in a god, as it requires no effort. If a god exists, then you receive infinite benefits via heaven. If a god doesn't exist, you lose nothing. However, if a god does not exist, you are wasting money and time, contradicting the "you lose nothing" aspect of the philosophy. When you die, sure, money and time don't mean a thing. But while you are living, and if a god doesn't exist, there is no afterlife, and you'd want to spend the time here to the best of your ability, since you'll rot in the ground afterwards. If you are spending money donating to the church and time praying to god, when a god does not exist, you are losing a lot in the only life you have.

 

Wrong. It is the choices they make that affect the world and the people around them. Their beliefs play an influence on their decisions, but the belief itself is not to blame. It is the decision.

 

No, I agree entirely, to a certain degree. I've stated many times that I like what religion does; it gives people a reason to do good, whether it be by fear or whatever. While that was a good tactic earlier, I don't feel it is as potent now, but whatever. Beliefs do nothing by themselves, just like a gun can do nothing by itself. Once a person adopts those beliefs, or once a person picks up a gun, bad things can happen, but may not. Once that gun is fired, however, that is where beliefs become detrimental to society. If someone were to say ,"y'know, I don't really feel that homosexuality is that moral", while they don't have much logic behind that statement, it's generally fine. It doesn't affect society, and they are entitled to their partially-homophobic beliefs. When someone says, "y'know, the Bible doesn't approve homosexuality, so I believe they should all be put to death", that is when ones' beliefs affect the rest of soceity. If religious people would keep their beliefs to themselves (ie, not claim abortion/homosexuality/atheism to be a sin, when there is no logic for punitive actions to be taken against any), then beliefs would be comparable to a gun without one to fire it. But because religious people (or rather, overly religious people) are pure idiots, it's basically like giving a crazy man a gun.

[Dad]

Pascal's Wager (which is what I think Glasstin was indirectly paraphrasing) states that it is beneficial to believe in a god, as it requires no effort. If a god exists, then you receive infinite benefits via heaven. If a god doesn't exist, you lose nothing. However, if a god does not exist, you are wasting money and time, contradicting the "you lose nothing" aspect of the philosophy. When you die, sure, money and time don't mean a thing. But while you are living, and if a god doesn't exist, there is no afterlife, and you'd want to spend the time here to the best of your ability, since you'll rot in the ground afterwards. If you are spending money donating to the church and time praying to god, when a god does not exist, you are losing a lot in the only life you have.

 

I see I misunderstood. Glad you cleared that up.

 

Wrong. It is the choices they make that affect the world and the people around them. Their beliefs play an influence on their decisions, but the belief itself is not to blame. It is the decision.

 

No, I agree entirely, to a certain degree. I've stated many times that I like what religion does; it gives people a reason to do good, whether it be by fear or whatever. While that was a good tactic earlier, I don't feel it is as potent now, but whatever. Beliefs do nothing by themselves, just like a gun can do nothing by itself. Once a person adopts those beliefs, or once a person picks up a gun, bad things can happen, but may not. Once that gun is fired, however, that is where beliefs become detrimental to society. If someone were to say ,"y'know, I don't really feel that homosexuality is that moral", while they don't have much logic behind that statement, it's generally fine. It doesn't affect society, and they are entitled to their partially-homophobic beliefs. When someone says, "y'know, the Bible doesn't approve homosexuality, so I believe they should all be put to death", that is when ones' beliefs affect the rest of soceity. If religious people would keep their beliefs to themselves (ie, not claim abortion/homosexuality/atheism to be a sin, when there is no logic for punitive actions to be taken against any), then beliefs would be comparable to a gun without one to fire it. But because religious people (or rather, overly religious people) are pure idiots, it's basically like giving a crazy man a gun.

 

Some people of my church would say, "there is a difference between being a radical for your faith, and being unreasonable". I guess that's what this situation sort of applies to. But when you take the people who think "the flag of Iceland is evil, it is an upside-down cross" and separate them from the "you have your beliefs and I have mine", it's not hard to see the difference.

[Dark]

Please note that my posts in this thread refer to religious people that directly cause a detriment to society. I am talking about people who try to force their beliefs unto others (for example, a preist in Uganda trying to put homosexuals to death, or religious activists who try to ban abortion on no logical ground). If I come across a person who says, "I don't like the idea of abortion, but it is useful in some scenarios", then I know they have a bit of logic behind them, and are not complete retards. Do not think I am talking about every single person who is not an atheist/agnostic when I say "religious person", as, in this thread, it is simply a term to shorten up "religious person who tries to force their beliefs unto others".

 

 

[The Dark One]

Pascal's Wager (which is what I think Glasstin was indirectly paraphrasing) states that it is beneficial to believe in a god, as it requires no effort. If a god exists, then you receive infinite benefits via heaven. If a god doesn't exist, you lose nothing. However, if a god does not exist, you are wasting money and time, contradicting the "you lose nothing" aspect of the philosophy. When you die, sure, money and time don't mean a thing. But while you are living, and if a god doesn't exist, there is no afterlife, and you'd want to spend the time here to the best of your ability, since you'll rot in the ground afterwards. If you are spending money donating to the church and time praying to god, when a god does not exist, you are losing a lot in the only life you have.

 

Wrong. It is the choices they make that affect the world and the people around them. Their beliefs play an influence on their decisions, but the belief itself is not to blame. It is the decision.

 

No, I agree entirely, to a certain degree. I've stated many times that I like what religion does; it gives people a reason to do good, whether it be by fear or whatever. While that was a good tactic earlier, I don't feel it is as potent now, but whatever. Beliefs do nothing by themselves, just like a gun can do nothing by itself. Once a person adopts those beliefs, or once a person picks up a gun, bad things can happen, but may not. Once that gun is fired, however, that is where beliefs become detrimental to society. If someone were to say ,"y'know, I don't really feel that homosexuality is that moral", while they don't have much logic behind that statement, it's generally fine. It doesn't affect society, and they are entitled to their partially-homophobic beliefs. When someone says, "y'know, the Bible doesn't approve homosexuality, so I believe they should all be put to death", that is when ones' beliefs affect the rest of soceity. If religious people would keep their beliefs to themselves (ie, not claim abortion/homosexuality/atheism to be a sin, when there is no logic for punitive actions to be taken against any), then beliefs would be comparable to a gun without one to fire it. But because religious people (or rather, overly religious people) are pure idiots, it's basically like giving a crazy man a gun.

I actually sort of disagree with your argument here Dark. You're making a contrast between zealously religious people and nonreligious people by saying that the zealous hurt people with their beliefs while the nonreligious do not.

 

But... Communist Russia? China? There are plenty of examples of oppressively athiest regimes. Sure, their athiesm is not what makes them evil, but the fact that the regime is athiest does mean that religious people within the country come to harm.

 

That's the same string of logic that follows from an oppressively religious regime. Islam is not what makes Iran evil, but the fact that Iran is Muslim does mean that non-Muslims within the country come to harm. Christianity does not have to equate to sexual discrimination, but if the American people were athiests, or belonging to a religious system where discrimination against homosexuals was less clearly established, than chances are that gay marriage would be legal in more places than it is in our present state.

 

What this all comes out to is this: Athiesm is in and of itself not the moral superior to any belief system. Bad people will turn against those that do not share their beliefs, and athiesm is no exception. I would attribute any increased tolerance among athiests not to the fact that they are athiests but to the aspects of their personality that led them to be athiests in the first place. They may be supremely logical, or they may be rebellious (and therefore more likely to identify with other ostracized groups.), etc.

 

The ONE primary difference that I believe can be drawn between athiests and those who have a belief system is this: No central authority exists from which the athiest can draw his views. They are not a part of an institution. This means that the athiest is inherently more individualistic than the theist. There is more variety within the group.

[Dark]

I actually sort of disagree with your argument here Dark. You're making a contrast between zealously religious people and nonreligious people by saying that the zealous hurt people with their beliefs while the nonreligious do not.

 

I'm saying that overly religious people, when trying to impose their beliefs upon the rest of soceity, are detrimental as a whole. Is that such an incorrect argument? :/

 

But... Communist Russia? China? There are plenty of examples of oppressively athiest regimes. Sure, their athiesm is not what makes them evil, but the fact that the regime is athiest does mean that religious people within the country come to harm.

 

Okay, fair enough. Your argument is sound there, although I don't know enough to confirm that religious people are harmed in atheistic countires. Would you like to generalize the last bolded statement by saying that anyone who imposes beliefs upon others is detrimental? Not only would this include religious nutheads trying to kill homosexuals, but it would also include atheists (as depicted) trying to harm religious people.

 

That's the same string of logic that follows from an oppressively religious regime. Islam is not what makes Iran evil, but the fact that Iran is Muslim does mean that non-Muslims within the country come to harm. Christianity does not have to equate to sexual discrimination, but if the American people were athiests, or belonging to a religious system where discrimination against homosexuals was less clearly established, than chances are that gay marriage would be legal in more places than it is in our present state.

 

I'm fairly sure you are taking my point out of context. I am not talking about other people coming to harm, as it is often for a governmental body based on a religion to discriminate against people not of that religion. That is not a problem in America as we don't have a declared religion. My point was that people trying to impose beliefs on others are detrimental.

 

What this all comes out to is this: Athiesm is in and of itself not the moral superior to any belief system. Bad people will turn against those that do not share their beliefs, and athiesm is no exception. I would attribute any increased tolerance among athiests not to the fact that they are athiests but to the aspects of their personality that led them to be athiests in the first place. They may be supremely logical, or they may be rebellious (and therefore more likely to identify with other ostracized groups.), etc.

 

No one said it was superior to anything. Or at the very least, I sure as hell didn't. Again, for the third time, my point was that people who impose their beliefs unto others (like one trying to kill homosexuals with no logical reason, or one trying to ban abortion for no logical reason) are detrimental to society, as they are bringing their beliefs into a world where other people could potentially be harmed. It is like giving a crazy man a gun.

 

The ONE primary difference that I believe can be drawn between athiests and those who have a belief system is this: No central authority exists from which the athiest can draw his views. They are not a part of an institution. This means that the athiest is inherently more individualistic than the theist. There is more variety within the group.

 

Again, the point was that religion in general, when misused (and often it is), is detrimental to society, along with the people that use it. Let's assume that everyone in the world had rational, logical arguments for their beliefs. If a belief does not have a rational, logical argument, no one in the world would have that belief. I can assure you that gay marriages would be legal, abortion would not be frowned upon, and the world itself would be more intelligent. That is not meaning to say a god does or does not exist. That is simply saying that people who have irrational arguments, and subsequently try to force their beliefs unto others in soceity, should be considered detrimental.

[RestLess-BoTics]

What in the world are the sources for your argument, Dark?

 

Catholics don't kill homosexuals.

 

Catholics don't force their beliefs unto others...

 

>.<

[The Dark One]

What in the world are the sources for your argument, Dark?

 

Catholics don't kill homosexuals.

 

Catholics don't force their beliefs unto others...

 

>.<

Coming from a person with a Catholic family and who goes to a Catholic school: Yeah they sort of do....

 

No they don't kill homosexuals, but let's not be reductive here. The strong majority of Catholics loudly oppose gay marriage which means that they vote for anti-gay congressmen and, when the issue comes to the ballot, vote against gay marriage. It means that gays are often uncomfortable in their presence (a gay kid committed suicide at my high school a while ago, and left a note attributing it to the behaviors of his classmates.), etc etc.

 

And coming from an athiest in that Catholic school: yeah, they do tend to push their beliefs. Obviously they can't force me to believe anything, and much of it is good natured. I really can't say that it bothers me. But the fact is that they make religious differences a topic of discussion far more than other groups, and the strong majority of those discussions revolve around the words "you should convert" or "if you really tried to believe" or "f***ing athiest" (meant jokingly of course, admittedly).

 

 

The fact is that Catholics aren't evil. Dark's view of them is rather skewed. But his opinions aren't baseless either, so don't be so quick to dismiss them, at least for that reason.

[Dark]

What in the world are the sources for your argument, Dark?

 

Catholics don't kill homosexuals.

 

Catholics don't force their beliefs unto others...

 

>.<

 

Please, please tell me you are trolling right now? If you aren't, I have nothing else to believe except that you are a complete idiot. Never mind, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You didn't read my post. Let me summarize.

 

I DO NOT DISLIKE CATHOLICS IN GENERAL. I DO NOT FEEL THAT CATHOLICS ARE A DETRIMENT TO OUR SOCIETY. I FEEL THAT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE (GENERALLY) WHO TRY TO FORCE THEIR BELIEFS UNTO OTHERS (BY MEANS OF ILLOGICALLY PUTTING HOMOSEXUALS TO DEATH OR BANNING ABORTION) ARE A DETRIMENT TO SOCIETY. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINION, BUT IT SHOULD NOT AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE IN A NEGATIVE ASPECT. IN MOST SCENARIOS, RELIGIOUS CHRISTIAN AND CATHOLIC PEOPLE CAUSE THESE PROBLEMS (ALTHOUGH OTHER RELIGIONS ALSO ARE INCLUDED), AS SHOWN BY THE STORY OF THE PREIST (OF SOME RANDOM CHRISTIAN-SECT RELIGION) WHO TRIED TO GO TO UGANDA AND IMPOSE LAWS TO PUT HOMOSEXUALS TO DEATH. I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION, NOR DO I HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST RELIGIOUS PEOPLE IN GENERAL, AS THEY ARE ALLOWED TO BELIEVE WHATEVER THE BLOODY HELL THEY WANT. BUT WHEN THEY TRY TO FORCE THEIR ILLOGICAL BELIEFS ONTO THE REST OF SOCIETY, THAT IS WHERE IT BECOMES A PROBLEM. WHAT IS WORSE IS THAT I NEVER MENTIONED CATHOLOCISM IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD, NOR IS THE TOPIC STILL ABOUT HOW THINGS NOT ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE ARE SINS.