Religion: What it means to you

I grow tired of religion. Every year, I become more and more annoyed with the premise of it. Its all nonsense. The concept of God is flawed, therefore God is flawed. Any God that would sit back and allow followers to decimate those with difference of opinion, isn't a God, but a politician.

I HATE politicians. They are liars. A God would have no need to lie or to kill for self gain. A God trifles not with these things.

In losing my sense of religion, I lament God's death, but I lament the death of my fellow man to a much greater extent.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

So, you have a grasp on what it is to have the mindset of a god, do you? Look, I'm anti-religion, as big a skeptic as they come (lol deni's fat), but that's just fucking asinine.

I was a devoted member of Christianity for about 18 years of my life. No I cannot claim to know what it is to be a God, but through my experiences with the Church and the teachings which explain God's 'position' and 'viewpoints', I can infer a great deal about this particular "God" and also infer the same to be generally true of all Gods. It is comparitive in an equal sense because it exists in every manifestation of every bible, of every religion. The main theme of God, through most explanations, is a being which exerts force over mankinds potential to control himself. It becomes a question of manipulation.

The ideal of a monotheistic God is surprisingly unchanging from one religion to another. For the purposes of Christianity, it is a God who is vengeful, sadistic but also loving? God is in a perpetual contradictory phase. Perhaps IT is bi polar. I may be wrong with my assumptions, but I don't think any God would be flawed enough to require mankind to carry out HIS/HERS/THEIR work. That is what is asinine.

A true God couldn't be disproven. That is the point I was trying to make.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

For someone who was a christian for 18 years, you should have picked up on the fact that God is always vengeful. New Testament has Jesus as a buffer between him and humanity, remember?

No, what I am saying is that the God of Old Testament to New Testament were very nearly, different God's entirely.
That is, God seems to have had a change of heart to better reconcile his image with the changing of times. There was an uncut seam, so to speak. Yes, that annoys me. I am sorry that it seems to have touched a hairy spot with you. ...Does this make sense to you, or are you going to continue to encourage a sense of 'wrongness' within the scope of my viewpoint's?

Quote:

Also, really NOT remotely true about all religions being the same. Allah, God, Yaweh... sure, they're pretty much the same, as they're all based on the judeo-christian roots, but to clame that Amon-Ra and Zeus are in the same boat? Come on. How about Shiva? Odin? They don't really fit your little mold. I get it, you don't like Christianity. Stick to the one religion though, stop acting like you know some greater truth on a universal scale. You're being an ethnocentric prick, here.

I was referring to aspects of God which carry over from religion to religion. I am NOT saying all religions are the same. Sense of tradition is really what separates them. I know this because I have studied them. I don't feel that I am ethnocentric in any sense, religion included so bugger off! Granted I am no scholar but I especially love it when people put words in my mouth to prove your apparition of a point...which is?

...and am accused of being a prick in the process. To be sure, I may be a prick, but I am an open minded prick.

I have seen consistencies from the "different" manifestations of God from religion to religion. I have studied God extensively, not only in the realm of Christian dogma. What about my understanding appears to be so unreasonable? I have done my work in religious examination. What I am saying is that my image of God from religion to religion is very similar. My image of God in the Christian manifestation is similar to the God's that appear in the Talmud and the Q'uran and in other religions as well. Do you want a list? Are you in fact just trying to get a rise out of me?

As for Zeus, sorry I have to spell it out, but I refer primarily to God's represented in major religions of the monotheistic variety. In the end, its all mythology. IN MY EYES, of course.

I see that you are an anthropology student. I have taken some course work in anthropology. I think that was a crucial process in helping me define my sense of God, and religion.

Let me ask you this...what is your take on God?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

("positive outlook", excessive pride, low opinion of other views, violent reactions)

That about sums up my thoughts on Catholicism.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

Technically speaking we should all remain agnostic about the God hypothesis until all of the evidence is in. In the same manner that we should also technically remain agnostic towards fairies and leprechauns and goblins and unicorns. Since we cannot disprove any of these things we have to instead measure their likeliness of existence on a scale of probability. So although an atheist may simplify the language and "reject" or "deny" God altogether, the atheist in this case is more accurately describing God's existence as being "highly improbable". It its current form this is the best Atheism can achieve. In the real world however, I do not think many people would seriously advance an argument of agnostism towards fairies. I think most people would quite happily deny their existence. In this way, I think the same can apply for God. Hence we have atheism and the "stronger" version antitheism.

In cases like these, we should use Occams razor. As humans, shouldn't we probably instead focus upon tangibles? That seems prudent to me, as we ourselves are tangible forms. That is, is it truly necessary to create unnecessary principles out of thin air and half believe in them, half not?

We can't assume that anything/everything is possible simply because it hasn't/can't be disproven. As sentient beings, we are ignorant by design. We are no less so by maintaining a middle ground position. There is more of a case, it would seem to me, to not believe in something, than to believe in something unnecessarily.

The problem is that in order to disprove something, it has to exist in some form, therein lies the rub. If it isn't tangible in any way, than there is no measure in finding out the probabilities. Anything existing beyond our space and our time, would be unfathomable to us in the first place and rather untestable. A God that exists in this realm would be without ability for any of us to interpret let alone record as a historical figure. So how then do we know claim to know so much about this God, if he exists beyond space and time?

I am sure it is in uncovering questions like these where the idea of faith holds most precedence in theological 'proofs'. Faith is believing in a principle that doesn't exist. Why are we asked to do this? This isn't fair to humans. It disregards the capacity for their potential and writes off an explanation for their impending sense of failure, doom and immiment dissolution from an otherwise tangible landscape. The merits of anything's existence, whatever it is we are discussing, should stem from its existence, not the possibility of its existence.

That being said, I can't call myself a true atheist.

Quote:

:edit:
For those interested I recommend listening to Colin Mcginn a british philosopher talk about atheism. He has some interesting opinions. In fact for those of you that have a few hours of spare time I recommend watching the entire series. A 3 part BBC program on the history of atheism.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v305743JaZKNJTT

Interesting! I will be sure to check this out when I have some time.

I was speaking idiomatically.

^^^Which is exactly why threads like this are doomed from the beginning.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

True we are divided but not because of the bible. The book calls for unity

Unity with compromise, isn't really unity.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Capo

I still don't see how asking for help from some god you don't even know exists is going to help matters. Seems like a bit of a cop-out, actually.

I agree completely, except for the bit part. It seems completely irresponsible to place ones own future in some make believe entities incapable hands. At the very best, if God exists, we slip through his fingers regardless...so whats the point in believing something just for the hell of it?

So yea I agree.

God exists to deny and deprive people of any sense of responsibility.
Thats a HUGE cop-out.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Interrobang

Atheists put forth the idea that God does not exist. Where is the evidence for this assertion?

Well lets see...common sense perhaps? Refer to Occham's razor. DO NOT UNNECESSARILY PROMOTE THE IDEAL OF GOD WITHOUT PROBABLE FUCKING CAUSE. Do you see God? Cuz I must admit, I sure as fuck don't.

There. Is that plain enough for you? Yes. Common sense > God.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Capo

The evidence for a god is about as strong as the evidence proving there is no god. It's a personal choice; please treat it as such.

It's also a personal choice to believe in the tooth fairy. I think you well enough understand that some 'personal choices' are more feasible than others based upon the specifics of reality. Of course we can't disprove God, but only b/c it probably doesn't exist in the first place. Therein lies the rub.

If there is no way to prove or disprove something, how can we determine its legitimacy? In my eyes, its just as valid to believe in the tooth fairy as it is to believe in a supreme being.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

While that may seem to be true or at least reasonable, it can be fairly misleading. Why is that? B/c it only accounts for the infinite possibilities of the imagination, not something that tangibly exists in any empirical sense.

By all definitions, God is beyond the reach of our presence and therefore indefinable and incalculable.

If something doesn't exist and there is no evidence supporting that it ever did, then clearly the material probability, in this case God, is 'in absence'. So I am not quite sure how to take your comment...

If you are referring to dissolution of evidence due to erosion of artifacts over long stretches of time, and the confusion that it presents in determining historical credibility on things such as the FORMER presence and customs of ancient civilization, then I would agree. Of course, this is easier to consider by the fact that many aspects of civilization are inherent and on-going, such as a belief in deities.

However, if we have absolutely no tangible evidence of something (and I don't rightly believe that God's introduction in the 'old testament' is an irrefutable source of evidence to draw upon), it makes the argument in favour of it a lot less convincing.

If something does not manifest in the here and now, then it clearly does not exist in the here and now. That is not to say that it didn't exist at one time...

That being sad, the idea that God exists/has existed/will exist seems HIGHLY unlikely and furthers itself to the principle that God isn't an invention of himself but conveniently enough, mankind.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Capo

Jesus H. Christ you're dense.

You, on the other hand, are brilliant. I've always said so to everybody I know and now is no different. Kudos to you.

While I am inclined to just go ahead and believe anything you say, perhaps you would care to elaborate? What part of my statement were you unable to come to grips with?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by koifox

Absence of evidence is invitation to crackpot conspiracy theories, more like.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Smelnick

The whole F**ing thing you douche. RainMan, I've read through most of your comments, and it seems to me like you aren't even debating anymore. Your just trying to get shits and giggles about playing the devil's advocate to anything anyone says. It's to the point where you're coming off as a complete idiot. How about just shutting up for awhile until you have something intelligent to say.

Really? No need to be bitter when I bring up a decent point. Contrary to your OPINION, I am debating. You just don't like an argument which challenges you.
Before you go off assuming that I haven't examined the aspect of God from multiple angles, I tried to believe in God for a number of years and I am apparently still fairly angry at being deceived by the church after coming to the conclusion that IT simply doesn't exist.

In any event, you shouldn't feel that my opinions cancel yours out. It seems like you feel threatened...

If something I say seems biting towards the idea of faith substantiating a claim over reasonable cause, well I won't feel the need to apologize.

Quote:

There is as much evidence proving that there is a god as there is evidence proving that there is NO god. Neither sets of evidence are 100% concrete. So why continue arguing?

because thats the point of debate. If you don't like thinking about this discussion, and wish to only converse with like minded fellows that substantiate your own beliefs, then get the hell out of this thread.

I am not going to stop talking about these things simply because you threaten to soil yourself.

Quote:

Whatever argument you think your partaking in isn't winnable.

Then why are you so angry?

Quote:

No amount of stupidity uttered from your mouth will make anyone go "Hey RainMan, you know what?! You're absolutely right. You win!"

I realize that. However, it seems your taking all of my 'stupid comments' dreadfully serious. Quit being so defensive.

I have a feeling that you are getting dangerously close to questioning yourself because of some previous comments...god forbid that I should bring up a point which turns your world upside down. :roll:

Its one thing if you are annoyed. You could simply leave it at that, but you have revealed your immaturity in the fear of having your own principles turned on their head and now you feel that you need to defend yourself by going on the offensive. I don't know what to say to you other than, "Sorry. I do not care."

Quote:

So just stop being such a douche. We understand, you don't believe in God, you find him to be a waste of time and a cop out.

Uh, what? I suggest you take your own advice. Quit making it look as if your side of the debate is without flaw because your shit DOES in fact stink.
If your argument for God is so good, why does it fail everytime in lieu of common sense? That is why you're really upset, isn't it?

Quote:

Well, thats enough of my rant. Also RainMan, God could kick the tooth fairy's ass any day.

Bullshit!

Quote:

More and more scientists, although they still reject intelligent design, are leaning away from the theory of evolution as well.

WHA? Why the hell would they need to do that? Because evolution interferes with the fragile teachings of the bible? LOL. Some scientists don't need such distractions.

Do you actually think intelligent design is going to gain wider prominence as time unravels?

I am sorry dude, you aren't looking real smart.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by The_Melomane

Hey, Rainman! This isn't a place to debate about your religious beliefs.

Then why is the name of the thread Religion: 'what it means to you'? I feel that I've made this quite clear. I understand where you are coming from but kindly lay off of me, or don't. I simply don't care.

I didn't aim for this last page and a half to become so full of rage, but its an easy thing to have happen when it comes to religion.

Quote:

To suggest that I'm worried about anything you have to say changing my beliefs is to suggest that I'm an idiot.

No, you were already an idiot to begin with. Speaking of Darwin...

(Darwin Awards 2006)

Quote:

(August 2006, Libreville, Gabon) In August, a congregation's 35-year old pastor insisted one could literally walk on water, if one only had enough faith. Big and bold was his speech. He extolled the heavenly power possessed by a faithful man with such force that he may well have convinced himself. Whether or not he believed in his heart, his sermons left room for only shame should he leave his own faith untested. Thus, the pastor set out to walk across a major estuary, the path of a 20-minute ferry ride. But the man could not swim.

Trust your faith if you will.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

Religion is nothing more than spiritual fast food for the undereducated and credulous. It could just as easily adopt the slogan, Your Way Right Away!

I couldn't agree more. I feel that this an important undercurrent to all modern religion and a reason why quite a lot of it pisses me off. Its anthropomorphized hogwash to coincide with man's limited ego and hopes for immortality. It offers him NOTHING that he wouldn't be able to find himself. Morever, it gives people a drug that they become dependent upon.

Even in the Mesopotamian religion began the time when 'blessings' could be bought from the church, for a price. Things such as fertility of women, land and welfare were things that the church had 'jurisdiction' over...but it only worked out through monetary compensation. Funny how that works out.

As George Carlin so eloquently describes God and the despicable materialistic nature of religion:

Quote:

He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!

George Carlin - Celebrity Atheist List

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Smelnick

What is the whole passage saying, not the itty bitty little sentences within.

Thats nearly impossible to do. The average religious follower won't look at the bible in its entirety for the fact that much of the teachings seem to run against each other or out of laziness. Much of the bible wasn't meant to be taken literally and thats where the problem of misperception becomes widespread. This leads to HUGE problems in ideological cohesion.

Much of the bible is contradictory, and leads people to believe that they need to both suffer and allow others to suffer in God's name to truly be "saved", hence the 'holy warrior' or one who struggles in the name of God.

However, there are people that well enough understand the teachings in the bible and make a point to slander it to gain control of others. Such as this fella.

http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/ge...tml#post501001

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by GhaleonQ

RainMan and Sassafrass, this is just a reminder not to be too overzealous about your knowledge of the Bible, religious history, and Christian theology. It makes you look as silly as I do when I try to grasp dynamics.

You have a good point though I am merely making general statements indicating how problems arise in the berth of a document which was constructed over the course of thousands of years. There is bound to be a point where old world views meet current world views and its a rather violent clash of idealogies, at times. Even more confounding as some 'impertinent' information is dropped to make way for modernity creating large gaps in the text.

No document is perfect and that someone should look at the bible as flawlessly constructed and therefore refuse to think outside of the document, perplexes me a great deal. I think I am zealous. Its definitely not a strong point but I still stand by my previous statements.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

The Christian is called to stand up against the pressure of others to conform (Romans 12:2).

But see, this is exactly what I am talking about. This contradicts the hell out of itself. It is trying to promote a system of thought and living through uniformity. It encourages Christians to convert others into its own principle, en masse. This IS idealogical conformity for the masses, in its most pure form. Does anyone else see how this contradicts itself?

Quote:

My religion is backed by centuries of researchable facts of its benefits to humanity.

These FACTS change considerably with the changing of times. For instance, people were burned at the stake for saying the world was not the center of the universe in the sixteenth century. Though this isn't the case nowadays (thankfully), the fact that the bible was crafted through trial and error means that its anything BUT 'god's breath'.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by GhaleonQ

Yes, but if we're aiming at the discovery of truth here and Lord'sSword has found his in a conservative (however much that may be), closed reading of the text

If I've been brusque with my comments, then I do feel a bit bad. As I've mentioned previously, religion is a touchy subject. As far as 'truth' goes, what is that exactly? I just don't like someone else implying that truth is an absolute term that isn't defined in the mind of the individual.

Originally Posted by GhaleonQ

I feel like you're just being unnecessarily specific and harsh here without being productive.

No, I am not being specific at all. If anything, I am being far too general...but I think I understand what you mean. As far as being productive goes, I don't really see how your comments are productive. LordSword continually makes his own comments and doesn't need you to poorly defend him without offering additional commentary.

Quote:

Maybe it's throwing off the topic? I don't know. That's how it strikes me, no offense.

No offense taken. However, it seems a bit presumptuous of you to keep chiming into this thread without offering any fodder for this discussion. If you have an argument, please feel free to contribute. Otherwise, pipe down.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Interesting point Smelnick. Imagination is a very powerful thing sometimes. When I was a child, my imagination was vast and God flourished in my mind's eye. As time went on, I simply couldn't keep keep pretending.

I don't want to be an atheist either. I'd love if God existed and it was irrefutable.

Quote:

I've been finding both cliques of people to be equally annoying as of late.

Agreed. Sometimes I wonder what life would be like without the suggestion of God. Would it better, worse?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

You are not going to convince anyone LordSword. There is no reason to fight a war for God when nobody cares.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

By changing our perception of our circumstances we can become greater than the reality that is presented to us by others. (1 Samuel 17 & Ephesians 6:10-19)

You cannot distance yourself from other components of mankind, nor reality. Thats just plain foolish and dangerous.
We, as people, are all of the same matter and no amount of writing on a 2000 year old tablet can change that. That is, your reality and my reality are the exact same. However, whereas you are trying to cover reality with false hope, I believe that discontent leads to a large capacity for improvement.

Mankind can not exist apart from reality. When he tries, it proves to his own detriment. Religion encourages living in a vacuous bubble where every day is sunshine...regardless of whether or not its raining. This forecast is ALWAYS WRONG.

You don't have the capacity to see how this way of thinking is causing rather large fundamental problems in the world, which is sad. The only way that man can improve his situation is to acknowledge reality, no matter how terrible it is. The only way mankind can change reality, is to bear the responsibility of living himself.

Quote:

my breast burned with pride as we stood shoulder to shoulder in prayer and clashed with the issues at hand with a unified front.

Have you never heard that pride is a most dangerous sin?

You've only convinced others that you have some serious psychological issues and are at the very least, a zealot. Nothing beyond that. An overbearing christian is a difficult, nigh impossible person to reason with for the idea that the object of his affection requires faith above reason.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Consider Stephen Hawking or any other diasbled person that does great things despite the "reality" that they live in.

I like how you determine that the reality of others is automatically shit and in need of God.

Quote:

Religion isn't always the stregnth that heroic people draw from but it provides a guide for those who don't know where to start.

Ah, but what about those who DO know where to start? Should they have to go through the trouble of having everything read to them?

Quote:

Thats the intent of the Christian faith, its a guide for us when we realize our crippled condition.

Yes, its a guide and its only meant to cover up our crippled condition, not change it for the better.

Quote:

Sassafrass told me that there is no real ultimate authority for direction, but your statements sound much like his.

What does that have to do with anything?

Quote:

What is the source for this insight that provides direction? Have you checked the source? Why do you trust statements like the one you typed if you don't know the source?

I don't require a booklet to tell me how to live my life. I regard day to day life as a general means to understand my existence.

Quote:

Can you say the same about your source?

My source is reality so I think its a bit foolhardy of you to continue trying to preach your points on which is a more formidable moral compass. You know little of my sources and in the end YOU are the one who requires sources, not I.

Quote:

Pride a sin? If you believe what the bible teaches in this area, why don't you be on my team? You would do great.

Sure thing. You still didn't answer my question.

Quote:

ALL of us can't be wacked in the head.

No, but you certainly appear to be.

Quote:

My hope is in the power that has changed my life and the lives of some of my friends and family.

That only serves your self interest. Your hope that others are influenced because of you is nothing short of selfishness. CHANGE for its own benefit, or to create the illusion of power, is not a very positive influence at all.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Token

Something that I heard from a friend that I never confirmed- supposedly thier is a site called God-tube, a spoof of youtube, and porntube, which proves that god exists by use of a bannana...

Oh God. (You had to bring that up.) However, since it pretty much makes argument in favour of God "all the more convincing", I don't see why I shouldn't post it.

Bananas: Proof that God exists....

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Pangalin

I expect LS is getting away with being called "smart" for no other reason than that he doesn't lose his temper. You can say some incredibly banal shit, and it'll still sound a little profound if you act like you're handing down wisdom from the mount.

I just hope he doesn't fall off his horse anytime soon. Its a long way down.

Jam it back in, in the dark.