Jump to content
AdrenalinDragon

Are You Religious?

Are you religious?  

33 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you religious?

    • Yes
      18
    • No
      15


Recommended Posts

Word.

 

And having an argument for something you already believe is called "apologetics". I'm not terribly good at it, but the point of apologetics is not to explain your beliefs, but to show that they are reasonable. Very few people, if any, are converted this way.

 

You belief system is based on feelings, not on logic. Even if you show people that there is logical inconsistency in their belief system (and they all have some), it's unlikely to convince them to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm...I said "nothing existed before the big bang"...which is not inconsistent.

 

Unless you are referring to a different post....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All religious belief systems have some inconsistencies or unknowns (the unknowns are, in fact, required in any logical system.) I'll give you four from Christianity just for example:

 

1. The law (somewhere in Leviticus or Dueteronomy) says you should not marry your sister. However Sarah was Abraham's sister (probably half-sister.)

2. The law says you should not marry a woman and then marry her sister as a rival wife, yet that's what Jacob did.

 

Now, those two can be explained away since they happened BEFORE the law was given, but what about:

 

3. The law says that if a Moabite marries a Jew, their offspring are not Jewish for four generations. But David's great-grandmother Ruth was a Moabite -- so was David, or Jesse, not Jewish? How does that impact Jesus' heritage as king of the Jews.

 

and of course the old stand-by:

 

4. The book of Acts and the gospels disagree on how exactly Judas died.

 

 

These questions (and many others) DO NOT make me question my faith, but they do keep me from being a Biblical literalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you can explain away any contradiction or perceived inconsistency in any given text, provided that you're sufficiently motivated and creative enough (you can witness this when it comes to the Bible or the Star Wars prequels). That said, I still question why it makes sense to trust the Bible if you don't take it literally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...well, I'm still not entirely convinced that it's an "argument"...it just seems to come across as more of an explanation for something you've already bought into, but then, maybe that's just me. :)

 

Also:

 

44352486-conspiracy-keanu-what-if-god-created-the-big-bang.jpg

 

LOL, this.(Y)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, understand what is meant by "literally". The Bible, for example, refers to a locust chewing its cud. Locusts don't do this. The Bible is not a reliable scientific document.

 

However, it was never INTENDED to be a scientific document. The idea of science (at least in our known history) is newer than the Bible, so of course that was not the intent. The Bible is a compilation of tradition, eyewitness accounts, preaching and poetry. It is supposed to encompass the faith, not define science.

 

I know that there are plenty of people out there who insist that you have to take everything in the Bible literally or you have to throw the whole thing out. That's INSANE. Okay, not insane, but also not logically valid. If there's a little mold on your cheese you don't have to throw it all out. [That's a terrible analogy, but you get what I mean.]

 

In case you aren't aware of this, the Roman Catholic bible has more books in it than the protestant bible. Protestants don't consider those books to be inspired, so they just pulled them out. The bible is not one big, monolithic work. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the history of the faith (and most people don't.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm usually fine with religion, and while I don't follow any of the major religions I am spiritual myself.

 

But there's one thing that bugs me to no end, and if you know me well you'll understand why I am asking this:

 

Why do religious people tend to think they need to convince other people that what they think is the only thing that can be right? Is it a lack of confidance in their own belief, or some belief that they must have a moral high ground? Or a third option? I'm aware religious people are not the only ones guilty of it and may not even be the worst offenders, but it is most obvious when they do it and religion is what this thread is about.

 

As an extension of this, what gives religions the right to discriminate against and hate people and in doing so say things and commit actions that no other group would be able to get away with? Don't hand waive this with the Word of God, because the terrorists on 9/11 few those airplanes into those buildings in the name of their god, and that being done in the name of god doesn't make that ok. Dispicable actions are dispicable no matter what, and should not be acceptable or allowed no matter what the excuse is or whos word they say or think they're trying to fufill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible is not a reliable scientific document.

 

However, it was never INTENDED to be a scientific document. The idea of science (at least in our known history) is newer than the Bible, so of course that was not the intent. The Bible is a compilation of tradition, eyewitness accounts, preaching and poetry. It is supposed to encompass the faith, not define science.

 

I get that. However, given that it's allegedly the word of God, and given that God was bound to know that science was going to eventually have a greater place in society, it might have been nice to throw in a few mentions of science...heck, a few suggestions re: medicine, mathematics, etc. might have been useful in a practical sense, not to mention a means of giving more validity to the text.

 

 

I know that there are plenty of people out there who insist that you have to take everything in the Bible literally or you have to throw the whole thing out. That's INSANE. Okay, not insane, but also not logically valid. If there's a little mold on your cheese you don't have to throw it all out. [That's a terrible analogy, but you get what I mean.]

 

But see, with the moldy cheese, it's easy to tell which parts are "bad" and which are "good" (unless you're dealing with pepper jack). When it comes to a text which describes things that you can't prove either way, you don't have that luxury. Sure, you can "cut out" the parts that are obviously untrue, but what about the rest>

 

 

In case you aren't aware of this, the Roman Catholic bible has more books in it than the protestant bible. Protestants don't consider those books to be inspired, so they just pulled them out. The bible is not one big, monolithic work. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the history of the faith (and most people don't.)

 

...and then you get into conspiracy theories and the Dead Sea Scrolls and various translations, etc.

 

 

 

 

Why do religious people tend to think they need to convince other people that what they think is the only thing that can be right?

 

I believe it's because some people interpret the Bible in such a means that they feel obligated, as Christians, to spread the "word of God."

 

 

As an extension of this, what gives religions the right to discriminate against and hate people and in doing so say things and commit actions that no other group would be able to get away with?

 

Our own compliance gives them that right. We let them "get away" with it.

 

 

 

Dispicable actions are dispicable no matter what, and should not be acceptable or allowed no matter what the excuse is or whos word they say or think they're trying to fufill.

 

But what makes an action good or bad? Some people would say that abortion is wrong. Some would say that it's not.

 

Heck, some people think that 9/11 was not a despicable action. We, of course, think that it was. But then we (as a community, as a whole) don't have quite the same revulsion when it's us doing the killing.

 

I remember the way people partied in the streets when Bin Laden was killed. I was sickened, not because I had any real sympathy for the man, but because I don't think that the death of another human being is ever anything to be celebrated. Was it despicable to kill him? Well, I think we'd be getting into a capital punishment argument here...let's just say that I don't believe in the death penalty under any circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what makes an action good or bad? Some people would say that abortion is wrong. Some would say that it's not.

 

Heck, some people think that 9/11 was not a despicable action. We, of course, think that it was. But then we (as a community, as a whole) don't have quite the same revulsion when it's us doing the killing.

 

I remember the way people partied in the streets when Bin Laden was killed. I was sickened, not because I had any real sympathy for the man, but because I don't think that the death of another human being is ever anything to be celebrated. Was it despicable to kill him? Well, I think we'd be getting into a capital punishment argument here...let's just say that I don't believe in the death penalty under any circumstances.

 

ANY time you are hurting or repressing another population group short of an enemy trying to make war on you with bombs and tanks you have a serious problem. This includes discrimination.

 

I also think anyone who has gone out of their way to kill civillians as an act of war has forfieted their right to life. I'll shed no tears for bin ladin, thanks. Mind you, this thinking also extends to our own military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think anyone who has gone out of their way to kill civillians as an act of war has forfieted their right to life. I'll shed no tears for bin ladin, thanks.

 

But if Bin Laden is truly sorry and asks your God for forgiveness, wouldn't he be allowed into heaven? Who knows, you might be insulting a man who God thinks is a good man and is in heaven right now.

I find it hard to take anyone who believes the bible word for word seriously. It is a book of poems, myths and stories. FFS, it says bats are birds! I doubt there is a single book that is completely factual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if Bin Laden is truly sorry and asks your God for forgiveness, wouldn't he be allowed into heaven? Who knows, you might be insulting a man who God thinks is a good man and is in heaven right now.

I find it hard to take anyone who believes the bible word for word seriously. It is a book of poems, myths and stories. FFS, it says bats are birds! I doubt there is a single book that is completely factual.

 

No, I do not believe he'd be forgiven for what he's done.

 

Also, you're right, it is not factual. That's why it irritates me so much when people act based on its word.

 

If I picked a random book and did the same thing and ended up doing something bad I'd be locked up in an assylum, not called religious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ANY time you are hurting or repressing another population group short of an enemy trying to make war on you with bombs and tanks you have a serious problem. This includes discrimination.

 

Personally, I agree. Still, I have no illusions about this being some sort of inherent universal truth.

 

 

I also think anyone who has gone out of their way to kill civillians as an act of war has forfieted their right to life.

 

Perhaps...but I'm not convinced that this means that we should go out and kill them in return.

 

 

But if Bin Laden is truly sorry and asks your God for forgiveness, wouldn't he be allowed into heaven?

 

Yes, but then all the unconverted Jewish, atheist, etc. people who died in the 9/11 attacks will perish in Hell for eternity.

 

 

If I picked a random book and did the same thing and ended up doing something bad I'd be locked up in an assylum, not called religious.

 

...just like Jesus would have been considered totally nuts if he was alive now and talking about being the son of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, I don't have the patience (Read: haven't been taking my ADHD meds) to read all of the long posts in this thread, but I'll tell you what I have as my recently-updated "religious views" on Facebook:

I believe that every living thing is valuable and goes to Heaven, but that's about the extent of what I've figured out.

There's more to me than that, but that's where I stand in relation to Christian beliefs, and most of my offline friends are Catholic (because I go to a Catholic college), so that's what I wrote my "religious views" relative to for the purposes of Facebook.

 

If you want to know more specifics or where my views came from, add me as a friend on Facebook and PM me (be sure tell me how you know me or I won't accept).

 

EDIT: Another reason I don't have patience is because it's 4:11 AM where I live...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bumping an old chat just for the lolz.

I'm agnostic - for two reasons.
Firstly, I believe it is likely that there is some type of deity, whether it be one who currently controls the world or one who created the world and then left it be, however I do not believe in any specific Holy Book. I try to please God, even though I can't decide whether I believe in Him.

Secondly, I hate being classified as an atheist, as that gives the connotation of someone who goes around shouting an religious people "There is no God, the Bible is bulls**t!" I don't want to have the connotation that I don't like religious people - some of the nicest people I know are religious - my girlfriend went to Catholic school (even though she's agnostic now) - and some of the people I hate the most are atheists. I don't want to be classified as one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUMP!!! lolz

 

I personally classify myself as Atheist, as I am a non-believer. But I also strongly believe that a lot of Atheists are extremist and have given the "group" a bad reputation. My belief is that religion has done more good than it has done bad for the world, as it has taught many people throughout history moral principles to live by. However, it also causes social division (believers vs non-believers, Christian vs. Jewish, etc.) which leads to a wide range of conflict such as arguments and wars when people are unable to respect differences. As such I simply believe that all groups must be respected equally, and just like I wouldn't want a monotheist trying to force God on me, I won't try to call "BS" when someone else mentions God. This was something I struggled with before, and the dirty looks I got from it taught me that "calling BS" wouldn't be a good idea.

 

My main issue with believing in a God or higher power(s) is that it means I lose all of my personal privacy, especially at times in which I want to be alone. The idea of an "eye in the sky" watching my every move, even when I'm in a room alone with no security cameras, kind of creeps me out to be honest.  :) Feel free to disagree.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely with your first point - what I believe is that the Bible was written not only to answer questions about the world, but also to teach people how to be good - I mean, if you had the threat of spending eternity in hell with Satan, then you'd be much less inclined to beat that guy up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main issue with believing in a God or higher power(s) is that it means I lose all of my personal privacy, especially at times in which I want to be alone. The idea of an "eye in the sky" watching my every move, even when I'm in a room alone with no security cameras, kind of creeps me out to be honest.

 

The question of "does (a) God exist?" is entirely separate from "do I want (a) God to exist?". Just because you don't want there to be an "eye in the sky" doesn't mean that one does not exist.

 

[this is not a religious apologetic argument; I'm an atheist, as should be obvious from the previous pages, and often an anti-theist]

Edited by James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I self-identify as an atheist. I'd never tell you that in person unless you asked, or if it's relevant to the discussion. It's not so much an unwillingness to discuss the matter as it is simply my personality.
 

I personally classify myself as Atheist, as I am a non-believer. But I also strongly believe that a lot of Atheists are extremist and have given the "group" a bad reputation.

 
My sister recently showed me this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/02/atheism-study-authors-congratulations-non-believers-youre-just-like-everybody-else/. I don't like the title, though: it's like saying, "Congratulations, black people, your race is not inferior."
 

My belief is that religion has done more good than it has done bad for the world, as it has taught many people throughout history moral principles to live by.

 
I disagree. Most moral principles taught by religion actually predate religion (some of which can be found in other animals); the rest i generally find repulsive. I do believe religion did serve some purpose near the infancy of civilization, but that purpose is now obsolete.
 
I agree with the rest of what you wrote, though. Just because i don't like another person's beliefs doesn't mean i should pester that person with mine until (s)he converts (not to mention how hypocritical that would be).
 
And while we're bumping old discussions:
 

cience evolves, religious dogma (for the most part) does not.

 

Actually, religions do evolve, and it's fairly significant, to say the least. Most adherents either don't know or just don't want to admit it. :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of "does (a) God exist?" is entirely separate from "do I want (a) God to exist?". Just because you don't want there to be an "eye in the sky" doesn't mean that one does not exist.

 

[this is not a religious apologetic argument; I'm an atheist, as should be obvious from the previous pages, and often an anti-theist]

 

Well my reasoning here is that if I acknowledge even the possibility of such an eye in the sky, it would make life much harder for me, so I like to believe that there isn't one and it is a risk I am willing to accept. If there is one, I assume that it would be supportive of my decisions as long as I don't go killing or hurting anyone, but I'm not exactly interested in adhering to "what you can and can't do while alone in a room with a closed door with no Internet access or surveillance cameras" when it has no influence on the outside world. I have nothing against people who choose to control their actions even when in a room with a closed door, but if (hypothetically) I were to wake up one morning and pursue monotheism, I would certainly try to believe that I would be supported and loved either way.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a Christian. A sane one, though.

 

Also if you respect my opinion and won't rub yours in my face, I do not mind. But if you don't respect my opinion or rub it in my face (or both) I would want you to please go away for a bit.

 

But... If you are an athiest who thinks all christians are like Westoboro Baptist Church, be aware that I can AND WILL go SkiFree Yeti and Old Frog's Fusion Dance Baby on you! (Not really, but you really should stop).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. I don't even think the insane so-called "Christians" such as those from Westboro Baptist are even proper Christians. They are just hypocrites looking for excuses to control people and make a ridiculous scene out of it. True Christians preach love and positivity, not hate.

 

In much a similar way, I think that many Athiests who keep yelling at religious people for believing in a God are not proper Athiests, they are also selfish hypocrites. It's too bad that both religious people and Atheists have earned a bad reputation (among their opposing sides) for their extreme ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah (catholic) but I don't really go to church or anything. Plus certain song lyrics don't affect me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. I don't even think the insane so-called "Christians" such as those from Westboro Baptist are even proper Christians. They are just hypocrites looking for excuses to control people and make a ridiculous scene out of it. True Christians preach love and positivity, not hate.

 

In much a similar way, I think that many Athiests who keep yelling at religious people for believing in a God are not proper Athiests, they are also selfish hypocrites. It's too bad that both religious people and Atheists have earned a bad reputation (among their opposing sides) for their extreme ends.

No, WBC is legit. They're just very dumb, to the point I kinda feel bad that they were that stupid... As for your athiest thing, THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...