[Gloriano]

Originally posted by Rictor
The death toll is set to approach the 50,000 mark.

I can hardly believe this is happening.

so terriple:sigh:

[diamondgeezer]

I really can't stand religion

Sarnie, I take it the whole 'Allah is some kind of demon' thing was an attempt at, I dunno, sarcasm or something. Cos I feel the need right now to bring certain Muslim aquaintances of mine in here to verbally ***** slap you.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by aldo_14
God is subjective.... who's to say that Christians, Jews (these 2 are pretty obvious), Muslims, Sikhs, etc aren't worshipping the same god, but interpreted in different ways?  Even the multi-diety religions could be said to be interpreting the actions of a single god as being different parts - i.e. the vengerful & merciful sides as different gods.

Err, no.

I never understood this need people have to avoid the concept that there might be a group of people who are either wrong, deceived, or both.

Without getting into a "Christianity's right - Islam's wrong" / "Islam's right - Christianity's wrong" debate here, realize one thing. The deity figure of Judeo-Christianity is not the deity figure of Islam. They are different no matter how you look at them. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't know what he's talking about, and should read through the Koran and the Bible before continuing to prove his/her ignorance.

And it's not merely a matter of the difference in behavior between a vengeful god and a merciful god. If that were the case, then not only would the "Vengeful and Warmongering" God of the Old Testament be different from the "Loving and Merciful" God of the New Testament, but even in the same Testaments, you'd have to have seperate "Gods". If you don't believe me, read Jeremiah 31 and Revelation 19:11-21 - both are great examples.

But anyway, what I'm saying is that Allah is not the same as Jesus, who is not the same as Zeus/Shiva/what-have-you. Why is this so hard to believe?

Originally posted by aldo_14
If a Christian fundamentalist* nation such as the US...

*based on Bush's aggressive 'hit first' foreign policy in particular

How does the fundamental Christian ideology of turning the other cheek equate in your brain to "aggressive 'hit first' ... policy"? I'm quite unable to comprehend this one.

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Sarnie, I take it the whole 'Allah is some kind of demon' thing was an attempt at, I dunno, sarcasm or something. Cos I feel the need right now to bring certain Muslim aquaintances of mine in here to verbally ***** slap you.

Not really, no. I meant what I said, as harsh as it may be. I personally view Islam as a one big deception. But I have nothing against Muslims at all (as long a they aren't trying to kill me, but that goes for anyone, Christians included). It's Islam I have problems with.

Look, I've said any number of times - I'm not one of those people who will go around trying to convert and evangelize people. But I am also not the kind of person who will tell a diluted version of what they hold as true simply because the "complete and unabridged edition" might offend someone's sensitivities.

I'm not telling anyone here "This is truth." I'm saying what I believe, and giving the reasons for those beliefs. If it perks your interest and brings about a change of mind, fine. And if not - that's fine, too.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Err, no.

I never understood this need people have to avoid the concept that there might be a group of people who are either wrong, deceived, or both.

Without getting into a "Christianity's right - Islam's wrong" / "Islam's right - Christianity's wrong" debate here, realize one thing. The deity figure of Judeo-Christianity is not the deity figure of Islam. They are different no matter how you look at them. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't know what he's talking about, and should read through the Koran and the Bible before continuing to prove his/her ignorance.

And it's not merely a matter of the difference in behavior between a vengeful god and a merciful god. If that were the case, then not only would the "Vengeful and Warmongering" God of the Old Testament be different from the "Loving and Merciful" God of the New Testament, but even in the same Testaments, you'd have to have seperate "Gods". If you don't believe me, read Jeremiah 31 and Revelation 19:11-21 - both are great examples.

But anyway, what I'm saying is that Allah is not the same as Jesus, who is not the same as Zeus/Shiva/what-have-you. Why is this so hard to believe?
 

Nooo.... I'm talking about God /Allah / Shivan /etc being the same deity interpreted in different ways.  It's obvious how the meaning of a holy book such as the Bible or Koran can & is interpreted in vastly different ways, and these books themselves are all written by men.

I'm not just talking about the books themselves, I'm talking about events.  Just look at Judaism / Christianity - one sees Jesus as the son of Go, the other doesn't.  Based on the same (presumably) historical event.

Whereas Christianity, etc, presumes there is one God, and that He is capable of both mercy & wrath, another religion (i.e. hinduism) may interpret these actions as being of 2 Gods.  

Religions are founded, created by men.  Men are fallible.  Thus, so is religion.

Originally posted by Sandwich

How does the fundamental Christian ideology of turning the other cheek equate in your brain to "aggressive 'hit first' ... policy"? I'm quite unable to comprehend this one.
 

Probably the wrong use case, in retrospect.  what i mean is using religion as a justification - i.e. that God is on his side, and thus he's doing the right thing.  I have deep suspicion of anyone using that sort of language.........

I should say i have a deep mistrust of organized religion.  I don't see a real point of them behind enforcing a moral code in some way (with the prospect of a reward - heaven, paradise, etc) - I don't see why a benevolent, non-interventionist and above-all omnipotent God would feel a need to be worshipped.

Basically, I expect to be judged on my actions, not my beliefs.  You can use that as a context for what i've posted earlier.... i'm not going to argue with anyone about their beliefs, though - it would be grossly hypocritical to do so.

[Ace]

Originally posted by aldo_14
I don't see why a benevolent, non-interventionist and above-all omnipotent God would feel a need to be worshipped.

That's my take on it too. However the "modern services" that are being done in the US claim it isn't worship but praise and love of God. However, there is no true reason why a omnipotent, benevolent being would require such an active form of praise, especially when it leads to conflict over doctrines of that praise, an act that is exactly the opposite of the nature of a benevolent God.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sandwich
I never understood this need people have to avoid the concept that there might be a group of people who are either wrong, deceived, or both.

What I never understand is that people believe that a god would create all of humanity and then invent false religions with the same amount of empirical evidence as the real one. In fact I've never understood how people can believe in an omniscient God and then claim to know what he was thinking about anything.

Seriously what evidence can you present that Christianity is correct and everyone else is wrong? None. There is no actual evidence, you can only point at your holy books or the way your religion feels correct to you. A muslim can give exactly the same answer you do when asked that question so who is correct?

[castor]

The story isn't important, the teachings are.
Problem solved

[Beowulf]

I'm going to have to agree with Sandwich here.

As to moral code.... there is NO moral code without a god. For instance, without gods, men would have own individual codes that they each believed in. Who's to say that these are correct or incorrect? If someone murders, who's to say that this is wrong?

Organized religions are necessary for moral codes and laws. Without them, one does not have an absolute to test against. The idea is the same in law. Laws are absolute tests against legality.

So for agument, lets say democracy picks a moral code. This would change depending on people's whims. This in not absolute. How then could anyone every be just when governing to this code? It is impossible. Organized religions are necessary to the survival of civilization.

For what it's worth, I am a Christian Objectivist. If you can believe it.


~Beowulf

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by karajorma


What I never understand is that people believe that a god would create all of humanity and then invent false religions with the same amount of empirical evidence as the real one. In fact I've never understood how people can believe in an omniscient God and then claim to know what he was thinking about anything.

Seriously what evidence can you present that Christianity is correct and everyone else is wrong? None. There is no actual evidence, you can only point at your holy books or the way your religion feels correct to you. A muslim can give exactly the same answer you do when asked that question so who is correct?

Shortened and very much condensed:

Reason. Reason and Logic. It is only LOGICAL that god exists. He absolutely has to. I am not speaking of my own personal need, but of science's need. Science cannot explain the creation of the universe, the creation of a cell, science can hardly explain anything of the physical/animal/natural world.

Looking at everything, there are only two solutions.

(1) God exists
(2) God does not exist

We cannot prove that God does not exist, therefore, he must exist.

[Kamikaze]

Lack of proof does not equate to proof to the contrary.

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by Kamikaze
Lack of proof does not equate to proof to the contrary.

Usually, however in this case one of these needs to be true.

[Odyssey]

[color=cc9900]Beowulf, that's really twisted logic. Think of it this way:

• We can't explain how the Universe came about.
• Therefore, people invent something else called God.
• When questioned about where God came from, people claim that God always existed.

Since when did that make sense?
Make as few unbased assumptions as possible. If you think something can always exist, apply it to the Universe, not something else.[/color]

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Beowulf
I'm going to have to agree with Sandwich here.

As to moral code.... there is NO moral code without a god. For instance, without gods, men would have own individual codes that they each believed in. Who's to say that these are correct or incorrect? If someone murders, who's to say that this is wrong?

Organized religions are necessary for moral codes and laws. Without them, one does not have an absolute to test against. The idea is the same in law. Laws are absolute tests against legality.

So for agument, lets say democracy picks a moral code. This would change depending on people's whims. This in not absolute. How then could anyone every be just when governing to this code? It is impossible. Organized religions are necessary to the survival of civilization.

The rules of religion are still the word of God written by man.  Who's to say it's correct?

Besides which, civillisation requires morality - on the most basic level, a family has to take care of its offspring to continue the species (so to speak).  Thus, there is an inbuilt moral duty for parents to care for their children.

By extension, society develops it's own morality.  True, this is often based on religion, but it's also a survival necessity.  Humans are a social animal, and this means the group mentality dictates how the members act.  In the beginning, it was tribes.  Now, it's countries or even races of people.

Human behaviour is dictated by the survival instinct... i suspect so were the laws set down in religious codes.  Organized religion has probably done as much to hurt as help civillisation... think of all the wars that have been waged in the past over who's God is the right one.

I have no religion.  I have never read the bible, nor any other religious book.  But I turned out, IMHO, ok.

Originally posted by Beowulf

Looking at everything, there are only two solutions.

(1) God exists
(2) God does not exist

We cannot prove that God does not exist, therefore, he must exist.

You cannot prove God exists either, and therefore he does not.  It works both ways, and says nothing.  the argument that there are things that science can;t explain is pretty irrelevant - human science is only, what, a few thousand years old?  That's not a long time, certainly not enough to explain the world, let alone the universe.

The whole purpose of religion is belief, anyway.  Proveability is unimportant.

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by aldo_14


The rules of religion are still the word of God written by man.  Who's to say it's correct?

Besides which, civillisation requires morality - on the most basic level, a family has to take care of its offspring to continue the species (so to speak).  Thus, there is an inbuilt moral duty for parents to care for their children.

By extension, society develops it's own morality.  True, this is often based on religion, but it's also a survival necessity.  Humans are a social animal, and this means the group mentality dictates how the members act.  In the beginning, it was tribes.  Now, it's countries or even races of people.

Human behaviour is dictated by the survival instinct... i suspect so were the laws set down in religious codes.  Organized religion has probably done as much to hurt as help civillisation... think of all the wars that have been waged in the past over who's God is the right one.

I have no religion.  I have never read the bible, nor any other religious book.  But I turned out, IMHO, ok.



You cannot prove God exists either, and therefore he does not.  It works both ways, and says nothing.  the argument that there are things that science can;t explain is pretty irrelevant - human science is only, what, a few thousand years old?  That's not a long time, certainly not enough to explain the world, let alone the universe.

The whole purpose of religion is belief, anyway.  Proveability is unimportant.

Listen, I know exactly what you mean about morality. The problem with your reasoning is that there is no absolute. Hence, there is no truth. And if there is no truth, by my last statement, it's not true.

The problem with my statement working the other way (as all other similar reasonings WOULD) is that science CANNOT explain god. God can explain all science.

[Odyssey]

[color=cc9900]So, God explains all science. Please then explain God.[/color]

[Ace]

Originally posted by aldo_14
- human science is only, what, a few thousand years old?

I'd honestly say that the real scientific method is only a few hundred years old. Greek 'science' was more akin to a forum discussion such as this, (including familiar topics like the whole Ra is a false god because Zeus said so, Pericles faked the moon landing, etc.) with observations being used merely as leverage in the arguements.

[Bobboau]

but it was the begining of people thinking

here is an interesting thought, a topic about an earthquake in Iran has turned into a religus debate over the exsistance of god.
I'm not sure if that's evidence for or aganst it.

[an0n]

Morales and ethics can be decided thusly: It's wrong because I said it's wrong.

There is a God, but not in any sense that you people would understand or currently hold to be true.

Argument settled; **** off.

[Kamikaze]

I blame an0n.

[an0n]

*hides divine powers*