If there is really a God then why do people NEED a book to tell them what is right and wrong

[6StringSamurai]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6StringSamurai

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6StringSamurai

Originally posted by: Vic
That is what the OP is asking. However, I think you should try reading it once in your life.

Reread my post a few posts above yours.

So you went from one form of literal interpretation to another, and still miss the point. Can't help you there.

Sigh. You miss the point that you are making assumptions about my knowledge of religion and the bible. Unlike you, I will not attempt to guage your level of knowledge over an internet forum. However, you have lost your credibility. If you truly believed in your religion of choice, you would not have to assume a condescending tone with those that differ in opinion. Have a wonderful day.

Ah... did I rain on your little hate parade?

FYI: I already made it clear that I am not religious. So I'm not sure what credibility of my "religion of choice" I am supposed to have lost. As to my condescending tone, you jumped into this thread with spam about the obvious (that the Bible is inconsistent, as though no one knew that) and then ranted your personal anecdote about how terrible religion has been in your life as though we should care. All you did was reveal your own personal bitterness and hate, so I just shoved a mirror in front of your face.

LoL

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: 6StringSamurai
No, I do not believe that every single one of those 700 are inconsistencies. The majority are inconsitencies with the way it is taught.

That's quite a big distinguishment.

I am simply saying that, I can respect anyones decision to believe in god, hell my parents are fanatics, and we can still get along fine. I do expect to be able to say though, that the bible is not the word of god, and whether someone believes it or not, respect my opinion and debate civily. (not saying you didn't but in general )

Meh, so we agree. :beer: Even though I don't drink.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Canai
Lots of people don't listen to their hearts.

"Just listen to your heart, that's what I do."

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: SaltBoy

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I'm debating this with my own kids. Christianity is a choice. How can I put my kids in classes on Sunday morning that make it all seem like unquestioned fact? That's indoctrination, not salvation. And they may very well end up resenting it as they get older like these countless rebel wankers like Marilyn Manson.

I think the thing that is missing from children such as these is the principle of faith.

Right. But faith can't be taught or learned.

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: 6StringSamurai

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: 6StringSamurai
Here is a list of over 700 inconsitencies in the bible.

I went through the first 40 or so before stopping. Those aren't inconsistencies to anybody with at least half a brain. Or you'd have to be one stubborn, prejudiced, closed minded person WANTING to see them as inconsistencies.

Case in point. How much time have you spent actually reading or learning what the bible says compared to googling for anti-bible links?

Funny, I spent the first 21 years of my life in church minimum 3x a week, bible camps, and parents that are childrens church teachers. Care to question my credentials?

That's got absolutely nothing to do with reading or learning what the Bible says. In some ways church is a horrible place for a kid to do so.

One quick question before we agree to disagree. Do you really believe those are all inconsistencies?

How can a church be considered a bad place for learning/interpreting the bible?

I didn't say it always was, but that in some ways it can be.

But Ill tell you this, kids grow up hearing the stories of the Bible like nursery rhyms and they end up totally desensitized to it. They turn incredibly powerful messages into games, and, ya, the kids KNOW it all, but they don't UNDERSTAND or feel it. And then, sure enough, time comes for flexing your independence fro your parents later in life and the first thing to get the axe is all that church stuff that mommy and daddy "made" you absorb.

I'm debating this with my own kids. Christianity is a choice. How can I put my kids in classes on Sunday morning that make it all seem like unquestioned fact? That's indoctrination, not salvation. And they may very well end up resenting it as they get older like these countless rebel wankers like Marilyn Manson.

I think the church aspect is fine, it's the CCD classes and such that can inhibit a kid. When I was a kid, it wasn't a "cool" thing to really go in-depth with the lessons and teachings during CCD. Especially when there's 20-30 kids in a class. It just turns into, sad to say, another class where people goof off. That portion of the faith could use some retooling. I think that's where it becomes vital that the parents play a lead role in the development of their child's faith. Promote the values of the religion and let them exercise them in their daily life.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Ryan
IMHO - the mere fact that there is no constant in religion is proof that religion is nothing more than a tool to control the masses - everyone is selective in choosing what they want to believe and follow from their religion. There are thousands of sects of christianity - each one professing to know the real "truth", each using the same book and interpretation to support their viewpoints.

What's really scary is that you are so confident while also being so ignorant.....the heart of a closed mind. But I tend to think your ignorance is self-chosen so as to best suit what's most convenient for you and, hell, I'm not gonna bother trying to change your mind while that's the case as it would be futile.

I'm not a closed mind - I just see nothing in any form of Christianity that is of value to my life. I'm still capable of loving people, I'm still capable of sharing intimate bonds, I'm still capable of working, etc, etc, WITH A PURPOSE that fulfills me.

I find it funny that your claims of my ignorance can only be supported by your Christian belief system - which suggests that it is your mind that is closed, as to protect the walls of religion you have erected from crumbling.

 

[6StringSamurai]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: 6StringSamurai
No, I do not believe that every single one of those 700 are inconsistencies. The majority are inconsitencies with the way it is taught.

That's quite a big distinguishment.

I am simply saying that, I can respect anyones decision to believe in god, hell my parents are fanatics, and we can still get along fine. I do expect to be able to say though, that the bible is not the word of god, and whether someone believes it or not, respect my opinion and debate civily. (not saying you didn't but in general )

Meh, so we agree. :beer: Even though I don't drink.

Thats ok, I will drink 1 for you and 1 for me Respect for opposed opinions is a beautiful thing.

 

[kinev]

Originally posted by: Ryan
there is no singular, universal "TRUTH". There are no constant ideals

Originally posted by: Ryan
that is the only constant and true thing

??


To answer the OP, we do have answers in our hearts. It's called our conscience. Say what you like about society, but almost 100% of civilizations have had rules about not killing, not taking from others, etc. All the way back, the moral conducts of different societies have been strikingly similar.

Sure, there are exceptions, just like today. We, as humans, are often pretty good at ignoring our conscience. We make decisions that we know are wrong, but do it for selfish reasons. As we repeatedly ignore our conscience, it gets easier and easier to ignore it until we can do things that are wrong without any pause.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 6StringSamurai

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: 6StringSamurai
No, I do not believe that every single one of those 700 are inconsistencies. The majority are inconsitencies with the way it is taught.

That's quite a big distinguishment.

I am simply saying that, I can respect anyones decision to believe in god, hell my parents are fanatics, and we can still get along fine. I do expect to be able to say though, that the bible is not the word of god, and whether someone believes it or not, respect my opinion and debate civily. (not saying you didn't but in general )

Meh, so we agree. :beer: Even though I don't drink.

Thats ok, I will drink 1 for you and 1 for me Respect for opposed opinions is a beautiful thing.

Your "opposed opinions" seem to have an awful lot in common.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SaltBoy

Originally posted by: Vic
Of course they do. It's just that the God they believe in has very little to do with their fighting. It just provides them with one more excuse among many to hate each other. All war is large scale armed robbery and nothing else.
Anyone who thinks that wars would disappear if religion disappeared is pretty much a clueless idiot and/or a bigot obsessed with controlling the beliefs of others (i.e., religion = crimethink).

Good point, but I don't see religion going away any time soon, and I *DO* see religion as arguably the biggest influence on war. If you want religion in general to go away because you're an agnostic/atheist, then your pushing your agnostic/atheist religion on others who have a more concrete faith.

Religion didn't cause any of the wars that America has fought. War is fought for power and resources.

I don't understand your comment about a "more concrete faith." An atheist can be just as zealous in their faith as a nun if they want to be.

Religion doesn't cause wars because religion isn't a singular object. Religion is a belief system, and that belief system dictates people's actions.

 

[LegendKiller]

The book is a farce. God isn't in a church or a book. Let people believe what, when, and how they want and let God sort it out when they die. We are not the right hand of God and we cannot decide for him who follows him or not.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SaltBoy

Originally posted by: Vic
Of course they do. It's just that the God they believe in has very little to do with their fighting. It just provides them with one more excuse among many to hate each other. All war is large scale armed robbery and nothing else.
Anyone who thinks that wars would disappear if religion disappeared is pretty much a clueless idiot and/or a bigot obsessed with controlling the beliefs of others (i.e., religion = crimethink).

Good point, but I don't see religion going away any time soon, and I *DO* see religion as arguably the biggest influence on war. If you want religion in general to go away because you're an agnostic/atheist, then your pushing your agnostic/atheist religion on others who have a more concrete faith.

Religion didn't cause any of the wars that America has fought. War is fought for power and resources.

I don't understand your comment about a "more concrete faith." An atheist can be just as zealous in their faith as a nun if they want to be.

Religion doesn't cause wars because religion isn't a singular object. Religion is a belief system, and that belief system dictates people's actions.

Okay. Name a war where religious belief systems were the primary cause of the war, and provide us with background on that cause.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: kinev

Originally posted by: Ryan
there is no singular, universal "TRUTH". There are no constant ideals

Originally posted by: Ryan
that is the only constant and true thing

??
t are wrong without any pause.

I can understand your confusion, as my wording isn't the best. I don't think there are universal truths or belief systems - Christianity, Budhism, etc, etc - there is no concrete belief. But - but believing that there is no concrete belief, I have come to understant that there is indeed ONE concrete thing is the world - that everything is always changing, and that there is no "real" truth.

 

[Oblivionaire]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Ryan
IMHO - the mere fact that there is no constant in religion is proof that religion is nothing more than a tool to control the masses - everyone is selective in choosing what they want to believe and follow from their religion. There are thousands of sects of christianity - each one professing to know the real "truth", each using the same book and interpretation to support their viewpoints.

The mere existance of thousands of different religions tells me on thing - there is no singular, universal "TRUTH". There are no constant ideals, there is no heaven, no hell, no god - NOTHING. Life is change - that is the only constant and true thing. Accept that fact, and you will be a better person, and live a better life instead of convincing yourself that life continues after death.

I was with you until you drew the absurd conclusion that your belief system will result in being a better person/living a better life

Oh dear! There are billions of paths and they all lead nowhere. That is the reason to take a path that has a heart. There is only love and love is only in being.

:heart: - Exactly what I was thinking

Aww isn't that cute? The heterophobic confused sad pathetic pair agreeing on throwing a veiled attempt at a hissy fit against organized religion because they see them as an abomination.

 

[6StringSamurai]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6StringSamurai

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: 6StringSamurai
No, I do not believe that every single one of those 700 are inconsistencies. The majority are inconsitencies with the way it is taught.

That's quite a big distinguishment.

I am simply saying that, I can respect anyones decision to believe in god, hell my parents are fanatics, and we can still get along fine. I do expect to be able to say though, that the bible is not the word of god, and whether someone believes it or not, respect my opinion and debate civily. (not saying you didn't but in general )

Meh, so we agree. :beer: Even though I don't drink.

Thats ok, I will drink 1 for you and 1 for me Respect for opposed opinions is a beautiful thing.

Your "opposed opinions" seem to have an awful lot in common.

How so? I gather that he believes in god and the bible. I do not on both counts. How are opinions aligned?

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SaltBoy

Originally posted by: Vic
Of course they do. It's just that the God they believe in has very little to do with their fighting. It just provides them with one more excuse among many to hate each other. All war is large scale armed robbery and nothing else.
Anyone who thinks that wars would disappear if religion disappeared is pretty much a clueless idiot and/or a bigot obsessed with controlling the beliefs of others (i.e., religion = crimethink).

Good point, but I don't see religion going away any time soon, and I *DO* see religion as arguably the biggest influence on war. If you want religion in general to go away because you're an agnostic/atheist, then your pushing your agnostic/atheist religion on others who have a more concrete faith.

Religion didn't cause any of the wars that America has fought. War is fought for power and resources.

I don't understand your comment about a "more concrete faith." An atheist can be just as zealous in their faith as a nun if they want to be.

Religion doesn't cause wars because religion isn't a singular object. Religion is a belief system, and that belief system dictates people's actions.

Okay. Name a war where religious belief systems were the primary cause of the war, and provide us with background on that cause.

There is no primary cause behind any conflict - it's an accumulation of many things.

Hitler used his religious beliefs as a root justification for his actions in WW2. Americans used god, and the twisted notion of manifest destiny, to justify occupying this continent, wars with indians, and even our very own Revolutionary war. Religion alone doesn't cause these events - it's our own interpretation of "truth", and how we want to use that interpretation to justify our actions.

Hell - Our own Commander and Chief, George Bush, believes that God is guiding his forays with war in the middle east.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Oblivionaire

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Ryan
IMHO - the mere fact that there is no constant in religion is proof that religion is nothing more than a tool to control the masses - everyone is selective in choosing what they want to believe and follow from their religion. There are thousands of sects of christianity - each one professing to know the real "truth", each using the same book and interpretation to support their viewpoints.

The mere existance of thousands of different religions tells me on thing - there is no singular, universal "TRUTH". There are no constant ideals, there is no heaven, no hell, no god - NOTHING. Life is change - that is the only constant and true thing. Accept that fact, and you will be a better person, and live a better life instead of convincing yourself that life continues after death.

I was with you until you drew the absurd conclusion that your belief system will result in being a better person/living a better life

Oh dear! There are billions of paths and they all lead nowhere. That is the reason to take a path that has a heart. There is only love and love is only in being.

:heart: - Exactly what I was thinking

Aww isn't that cute? The heterophobic confused sad pathetic pair agreeing on throwing a veiled attempt at a hissy fit against organized religion because they see them as an abomination.

I don't see then as an abomination - just as a tool people use to to find some security in their lives. In organized groups, religion is a tool to control power.

Also - what does sexuality have to do with this, and on what grounds do you justify the words you're writing? Something is fishy here, seeing as you seem to have quite a collective of knowledge for a member who joined but not three months ago.......

 

[6StringSamurai]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SaltBoy

Originally posted by: Vic
Of course they do. It's just that the God they believe in has very little to do with their fighting. It just provides them with one more excuse among many to hate each other. All war is large scale armed robbery and nothing else.
Anyone who thinks that wars would disappear if religion disappeared is pretty much a clueless idiot and/or a bigot obsessed with controlling the beliefs of others (i.e., religion = crimethink).

Good point, but I don't see religion going away any time soon, and I *DO* see religion as arguably the biggest influence on war. If you want religion in general to go away because you're an agnostic/atheist, then your pushing your agnostic/atheist religion on others who have a more concrete faith.

Religion didn't cause any of the wars that America has fought. War is fought for power and resources.

I don't understand your comment about a "more concrete faith." An atheist can be just as zealous in their faith as a nun if they want to be.

Religion doesn't cause wars because religion isn't a singular object. Religion is a belief system, and that belief system dictates people's actions.

Okay. Name a war where religious belief systems were the primary cause of the war, and provide us with background on that cause.

Maybe? not vouching for the content, just food for thought or fuel to the fire.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Ah, I see. To answer: a disbelief is a belief unto itself.

That isn't true, and I've shown you why before.

For the lookers-on, consider a simple example. Suppose I have a number of paper clips in my pocket (which may also be zero), and I asked you to describe your belief about the number that are in my pocket.

Vic would have us believe that we could infer your belief that there is some other number of paper clips in my pocket from the fact that you admittedly do not believe there are 12 or 15 or 2 paper clips. "Oh, you don't believe there are 1, 2, 3, or 5 paper clips? Then you must believe there are 4." Sorry, it doesn't workt that way.

Logically speaking, one cannot derive "I believe not-X" from "I do not believe X."

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Ah, I see. To answer: a disbelief is a belief unto itself.

That isn't true, and I've shown you why before.

For the lookers-on, consider a simple example. Suppose I have a number of paper clips in my pocket (which may also be zero), and I asked you to describe your belief about the number that are in my pocket.

Vic would have us believe that we could infer your belief that there is some other number of paper clips in my pocket from the fact that you admittedly do not believe there are 12 or 15 or 2 paper clips. "Oh, you don't believe there are 1, 2, 3, or 5 paper clips? Then you must believe there are 4." Sorry, it doesn't workt that way.

Logically speaking, one cannot derive "I believe not-X" from "I do not believe X."

Your argument and analogy doesn't apply here. "I do not believe X" is agnosticism, i.e. not holding a belief in an unprovable unknown. "I believe not-X" is atheism, i.e. actually holding a belief in an unprovable unknown. In other words, you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 6StringSamurai

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SaltBoy

Originally posted by: Vic
Of course they do. It's just that the God they believe in has very little to do with their fighting. It just provides them with one more excuse among many to hate each other. All war is large scale armed robbery and nothing else.
Anyone who thinks that wars would disappear if religion disappeared is pretty much a clueless idiot and/or a bigot obsessed with controlling the beliefs of others (i.e., religion = crimethink).

Good point, but I don't see religion going away any time soon, and I *DO* see religion as arguably the biggest influence on war. If you want religion in general to go away because you're an agnostic/atheist, then your pushing your agnostic/atheist religion on others who have a more concrete faith.

Religion didn't cause any of the wars that America has fought. War is fought for power and resources.

I don't understand your comment about a "more concrete faith." An atheist can be just as zealous in their faith as a nun if they want to be.

Religion doesn't cause wars because religion isn't a singular object. Religion is a belief system, and that belief system dictates people's actions.

Okay. Name a war where religious belief systems were the primary cause of the war, and provide us with background on that cause.

Maybe? not vouching for the content, just food for thought or fuel to the fire.

Democrats and Republicans both adhere to different belief systems and are currently fighting over control of the US. Is that a religious war too then?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic
"I do not believe X" is agnosticism, i.e. not holding a belief in an unprovable unknown. "I believe not-X" is atheism, i.e. actually holding a belief in an unprovable unknown. In other words, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Not exaclty, but at this point we're arguing over definitions which can be rather fruitless.

Strictly speaking, however, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. It is coherent to talk about agnostic atheists and (the more rare) gnostic atheists. The dichotomies between gnosticism/agnosticism and theism/atheism are orthogonal, and they are true dichotomies. There does not exsit a trilemma among theism, agnosticism, and atheism.

I realize this is incongruent with the casual usages of those terms, but it is more useful because it is more accurately descriptive and consistent with the words' etymologies.

 

[Oblivionaire]

Really it's simple. Religion is simply a way for man to try to understand that which he does not yet understand.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic
"I do not believe X" is agnosticism, i.e. not holding a belief in an unprovable unknown. "I believe not-X" is atheism, i.e. actually holding a belief in an unprovable unknown. In other words, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Not exaclty, but at this point we're arguing over definitions which can be rather fruitless.

Strictly speaking, however, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. It is coherent to talk about agnostic atheists and (the more rare) gnostic atheists. The dichotomies between gnosticism/agnosticism and theism/atheism are orthogonal, and they are true dichotomies. There does not exsit a trilemma among theism, agnosticism, and atheism.

I realize this is incongruent with the casual usages of those terms, but it is more useful because it is more accurately descriptive and consistent with the words' etymologies.

I see. My argument, however, was that "I believe not-X" and "I believe X," where in both cases X is an unprovable unknown, require similar belief forms, i.e. faith.
OTOH "I do not believe X" is different insofar as it does not require holding a belief at all, X or not-X.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

I see. My argument, however, was that "I believe not-X" and "I believe X," where in both cases X is an unprovable unknown, require similar belief forms, i.e. faith.
OTOH "I do not believe X" is different insofar as it does not require holding a belief at all, X or not-X.

Agreed. Frankly, if there are people that I would call atheists but that you would call agnostics and NOT atheists, then so be it. We can still agree on what form their belief or disbelief takes.

It's just always bothered me that so many people seem to shy away from the label "atheist" for what appears to be little more than a misunderstanding of what it means (or more importantly, what it does not necessarily mean) to be an atheist. That's why I interject with points like the one I made above.