105 replies to this topic

[markdohle]

itsnotoutthere, on 01 July 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

"Christians believe that the universe was created by an invisible almighty being who inhabits a place called 'heaven'. He looks just like us because he created his ultimate beings - us - in his own image and he sits on a big throne looking down on us as his cherished species.

He created the world just a few thousand years ago in just seven days by the strength of his own will, placing dinosaur bones and other ancient relics on earth just to test our faith.

He allowed us free will - just so we shouldn't expect him to intervene when we screw up. But if we do manage to kill each other then that is OK because he offers us eternal life with him in heaven. Unless of course we are really bad people in which case he sentences us to eternal torment in another place called 'hell'.

And because we are sinful, two thousand years ago he impregnated a married virgin called Mary so she could give birth to his only son to preach his word and absolve us of our sins.

The word of God is passed down to us in a book called 'The Bible' which contains gospels telling the true story of the life of his son, Jesus and how he was crucified and rose again before ascending to heaven to sit at his fathers right hand with another invisible being called 'the Holy Ghost'. And in another test of faith, we must believe that the gospels weren't really written by people who weren't around at the same time that Jesus was alive.

In order to make sure that his word is accepted, he gave us the Holy Catholic Church of Rome which has it's headquarters in the Vatican - an independant city state answerable to nobody but a man called the Pope who is God's representative on Earth and who is officially infallible.

The Pope is very powerful and the Vatican is very, very rich. It acquired all its wealth because Christian believers gave them lots of money so they could prove that they were really, really good Christians and so that God would know they are good people and they shouldn't be sent to hell.

And, to make sure that everyone agrees with them, Christians held things called 'crusades' which are like wars only they don't count because they only kill people who aren't Christians and therefore do not violate the word of God which says 'Thou shalt not kill'. These crusades should not be confused with jihads, because whilst jihads look like crusades, they don't count because they are being perpetrated by non-Christians on Christians instead of the other way around and this is really, really wicked and not allowed at all.

In fact God laid down ten rules which all Christians must follow, but the infallible Pope says that if you do break the rules, then it's OK because as long as you tell a priest that you are really, really sorry then he will forgive you on God's behalf."

Have i missed anything?

You have got to be kidding.

[MacksPower]

The op is a strawman created to justify an opposing belief by creating a caricature or stereotype which only serves to validate his opposed position. It is a false dichotomy and a shallow way of dealing with the search for truth, one that is all too common today in a multitude of forms such as dehumanizing others, stereotyping people and belief divorced from reason. My view is that everyone is responsible for their own independent search for truth and that that is an inescapable fact. We choose what we believe even if that choice is to relegate the authority to someone else or rely on false dichotomies to bolster our position, there is no way of getting away from the inevitability of choosing what one believes. Some people choose to not choose neglecting the fact that that is still a choice or they pass it over to "consensus", whether religious or scientific, neglecting the fact that "consensus" is shown to be wrong constantly throughout history. In my view the most important thing a person can gain is a framework for how to think, one that avoids the pitfalls of dogma and indoctrination, again whether scientific or religious, and gain the ability to simplify to the point where truth becomes separable from fiction. Under those circumstances all would necessarily come to the same conclusions if there is an objective truth. That is a pipe dream though because there is no way to agree on that framework and an attempt to create a framework to find the best framework will just lead to an infinite regress but in my view it is a worthy dream to aim for. So far the average human tendency is to do the opposite and give up personal responsibility and dive into collectivism and groupthink, especially when it is organized in a top down fashion originating in some "authority". To me that seems completely upside down.

[ranrod]

MacksPower, on 05 July 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

The op is a strawman created to justify an opposing belief by creating a caricature or stereotype which only serves to validate his opposed position. It is a false dichotomy and a shallow way of dealing with the search for truth, one that is all too common today in a multitude of forms such as dehumanizing others, stereotyping people and belief divorced from reason. My view is that everyone is responsible for their own independent search for truth and that that is an inescapable fact. We choose what we believe even if that choice is to relegate the authority to someone else or rely on false dichotomies to bolster our position, there is no way of getting away from the inevitability of choosing what one believes. Some people choose to not choose neglecting the fact that that is still a choice or they pass it over to "consensus", whether religious or scientific, neglecting the fact that "consensus" is shown to be wrong constantly throughout history. In my view the most important thing a person can gain is a framework for how to think, one that avoids the pitfalls of dogma and indoctrination, again whether scientific or religious, and gain the ability to simplify to the point where truth becomes separable from fiction. Under those circumstances all would necessarily come to the same conclusions if there is an objective truth. That is a pipe dream though because there is no way to agree on that framework and an attempt to create a framework to find the best framework will just lead to an infinite regress but in my view it is a worthy dream to aim for. So far the average human tendency is to do the opposite and give up personal responsibility and dive into collectivism and groupthink, especially when it is organized in a top down fashion originating in some "authority". To me that seems completely upside down.

Every once in a while, it is useful to look at the big picture of something we're expected to believe.  A lot of beliefs are spoon fed one little bit at a time, to avoid overwhelming you.

[Mr Right Wing]

itsnotoutthere, on 01 July 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

"Christians believe that the universe was created by an invisible almighty being who inhabits a place called 'heaven'. He looks just like us because he created his ultimate beings - us - in his own image and he sits on a big throne looking down on us as his cherished species.

He created the world just a few thousand years ago in just seven days by the strength of his own will, placing dinosaur bones and other ancient relics on earth just to test our faith.

He allowed us free will - just so we shouldn't expect him to intervene when we screw up. But if we do manage to kill each other then that is OK because he offers us eternal life with him in heaven. Unless of course we are really bad people in which case he sentences us to eternal torment in another place called 'hell'.

And because we are sinful, two thousand years ago he impregnated a married virgin called Mary so she could give birth to his only son to preach his word and absolve us of our sins.

The word of God is passed down to us in a book called 'The Bible' which contains gospels telling the true story of the life of his son, Jesus and how he was crucified and rose again before ascending to heaven to sit at his fathers right hand with another invisible being called 'the Holy Ghost'. And in another test of faith, we must believe that the gospels weren't really written by people who weren't around at the same time that Jesus was alive.

In order to make sure that his word is accepted, he gave us the Holy Catholic Church of Rome which has it's headquarters in the Vatican - an independant city state answerable to nobody but a man called the Pope who is God's representative on Earth and who is officially infallible.

The Pope is very powerful and the Vatican is very, very rich. It acquired all its wealth because Christian believers gave them lots of money so they could prove that they were really, really good Christians and so that God would know they are good people and they shouldn't be sent to hell.

And, to make sure that everyone agrees with them, Christians held things called 'crusades' which are like wars only they don't count because they only kill people who aren't Christians and therefore do not violate the word of God which says 'Thou shalt not kill'. These crusades should not be confused with jihads, because whilst jihads look like crusades, they don't count because they are being perpetrated by non-Christians on Christians instead of the other way around and this is really, really wicked and not allowed at all.

In fact God laid down ten rules which all Christians must follow, but the infallible Pope says that if you do break the rules, then it's OK because as long as you tell a priest that you are really, really sorry then he will forgive you on God's behalf."

Have i missed anything?

Sigmund Freud would say that those who hate God actually hate themselves.

Classic case of transference.

[ranrod]

Mr Right Wing, on 05 July 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Sigmund Freud would say that those who hate God actually hate themselves.

Classic case of transference.

Is it possible to hate what you can't define?  The Flying Spaghetti Monster in his full noodly glory is just as likely to exist as the bible God?  Or the greek gods, or the egyptian gods, or scientology, or that we're in the Matrix, or an infinite number of alternate things.

Sigmund Freud also talked about denial.

[MacksPower]

ranrod, on 06 July 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

Is it possible to hate what you can't define?  The Flying Spaghetti Monster in his full noodly glory is just as likely to exist as the bible God?  Or the greek gods, or the egyptian gods, or scientology, or that we're in the Matrix, or an infinite number of alternate things.

Sigmund Freud also talked about denial.

How about the totality of all existence? Including, obviously, the organizing forces underlying the modern theories of science? Fits all the standard traits that are espoused, omniscience (the interaction of energy which is the source of all information), omnipresence (infinity or everything that has, does or will exist as a unified whole), omnipotence (the original and continuing cause(s) and self caused cause of the totality). A concept that works much better than the typical spaghetti monster straw man, which, incidentally, would also be included within God as the totality of existence, as a concept. Many of the arguments atheists use against there being a God can be used to argue there is no proof consciousness exists, objectively. Outside of our subjective experiences and the ambiguous effects of consciousness, brainwaves etc.., there is no way to objectively prove consciousness exists and it is also hard to even define, as you state about God, we just assume it exists because we can empathize with other actors and know we are conscious. To me the parallels between consciousness and God is strong enough, the former being the only causal organizing force we KNOW exists and intrinsically understand through experience, that it is premature and presumptuous to dismiss God before the causes of consciousness are clearly elucidated.

[Leave Britney alone!]

ranrod, on 06 July 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

Is it possible to hate what you can't define?  The Flying Spaghetti Monster in his full noodly glory is just as likely to exist as the bible God?  Or the greek gods, or the egyptian gods, or scientology, or that we're in the Matrix, or an infinite number of alternate things.

Sigmund Freud also talked about denial.

People believe in democracy or the republic. It exists even if not in the exact form they understand. Likewise gods exist on this level, not as a provable entity but a social construct.

Some people believe in anarcy but as we know as official forms of government go that more democracies than anarchies exist. Anarchy itself seems a mock concept of what government is.

God has more cultural cachet than the spaghetti monster which is just a mock concept that no one honestly believes in.

I can understand the reason why a mock concept of God was needed but to only compare both and claim neither exists is a view but one that disregards the social aspects that make what we believe in a social concept.

Many people don't vote, many don't believe in God, but few want to fight the government or God and I know it seems unlikely but most non-believers, the largest growing category in America, are simply not militant atheists but only lack religiosity.

[Mr Right Wing]

ranrod, on 06 July 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

Is it possible to hate what you can't define?  The Flying Spaghetti Monster in his full noodly glory is just as likely to exist as the bible God?  Or the greek gods, or the egyptian gods, or scientology, or that we're in the Matrix, or an infinite number of alternate things.

Sigmund Freud also talked about denial.

If you cant define something then how can you hate it? (Religion is usually defined in a book)

Atheists hate themselves which is psychologically unacceptable to them. Therefore the hate is surpressed into their unconscious and is instead applied to religion through transference. The result is someone who deludes themselve into hating God instead of resolving their supressed conflicts.

Usually in childhood someone made them hate themselves with religion being involved. The ego cant cope with hating oneself so the hate was transferred to religion instead of dealing with the feelings like an adult (not meant to sound partronising as they were kids afterall).

[KLOSR]

Beckys_Mom, on 03 July 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

I can never understand why Christianity  has to have so many branches  within it.. It tells me that  they all cannot agree with each other.. Its a mess..  And why do so many think they can speak for God? If no man can comprehend God, then what makes them think they can answer for God and tell you what God wants?   Yet these same people will claim  other religious figures can talk for God   lol.. Irony sheer irony !

We don't understand things like other understand...
If you read the Bible like you read any other book you'll understand it in a certain way. The wrong.

We can comprehend God but the way we explain our understanding differs but we can know The Truth if we find the good sources.

[KLOSR]

shadowhive, on 03 July 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

It sounds 'simple and infantile' but that's exactly what the christian god does. 'You have all your lifetime to truly accept god and change' and if you don't god will kill you/torture you forever. Christians seem to have a habit of glossing over that or rationalising it away, even when confronted by how horrible the implications actually are.

That's a tired arguement, one that you (and other christians) use to make you and your god sound better than the god hates fags crowd. The kicker is, though, in practice it doesn't work. God hates homosexuals because they are homosexual. He doesn't 'love' them unless they become hetrosexual. As long as they are homosexual, that love doesn't exist.

No. Your sentence was like "God kills those He doesn't like".

The "doesn't like" is infantile.

God punishes people that rejected Him. Not because He "don't like them".

You say that there's no love for homosexuals but that's absolutely false.

Does this mean that my parents didn't loved me when I was doing bad things ?

No. They didn't said "Leave the house !".

God loves homosexuals because He gave them The Way to repent, change... and He still give them this way. This is His love.

[Beckys_Mom]

KLOSR, on 06 July 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

We don't understand things like other understand...
If you read the Bible like you read any other book you'll understand it in a certain way. The wrong.

We can comprehend God but the way we explain our understanding differs but we can know The Truth if we find the good sources.

Have read it many times and I disagree  we cannot begin to comprehend what God really is and how God thinks and all God does.. No man can ..Yea sure we can all come up with assumptions and claim to have experiences.. but it boils down to belief  and northing else ...  I believe that we are meant to seek God for ourselves and no adopt other peoples beliefs and experiences as our own...If we have an experience,  it is due to what we decide  it was..leading to what we want to believe ...but in no way does it mean we can comprehend God .. Reading other peoples claims of experiences doesn't mean they comprehend God ..it only means they believe they had a god experience ..all down to belief .. if you feel it is God then it is a belief you hold.. To add.. no man has a right to speak on Gods behalf ...Just as  no man has a right to judge.. Only God can do that ..but somehow mankind seems to think we can !

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 06 July 2012 - 11:40 AM.

[Beckys_Mom]

KLOSR, on 06 July 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

God loves homosexuals because He gave them The Way to repent, change... and He still give them this way. This is His love.

God created  homosexual feelings.. he created the sexuality  just in the same way he created  heterosexuality  ...You are born that way.. and you cannot ever  imagine why you are straight or gay.. you just know that is who you are... A good few pastors, priests and ministers over time were gay too..  I did not chose my sexuality to be straight.. I cannot explain what and why I was attracted to the opposite sex...all I know is I was born that way...same for gays ..Ancient man in the days of the bible  did not understand it.. therefore feared what they didn't understand..so one decided to claim it was sinful...That does not mean it really is sinful, all you are doing is adopting some ancient man's word  for it ..all belief  You have nothing to back  their claims up with  ..all you can do is put in faith and run with it...all linked to a mere choice you make ..No facts are required ..just faith that it is true..  Read a story... believe or not believe.. all up to the person reading it and how it can appeal to them

Hypothetically - If you were to suggest God did not create it all,   and suggest that God only gives use a choice whether to  use it or not..  then you have stripped God from being all powerful and not  the full creator of all that makes us human

To add... God already  knows exactly what we will do, when we will do it and  what our outcome is...therefore there is no real need for God to test or see how we pan out... he already knows in advance... If you say he doesn't.. again you strip him from what makes him almighty ..

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 06 July 2012 - 11:54 AM.

[Mr Right Wing]

Beckys_Mom, on 06 July 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

God created  homosexual feelings.. he created the sexuality  just in the same way he created  heterosexuality  ...You are born that way.. and you cannot ever  imagine why you are straight or gay.. you just know that is who you are... A good few pastors, priests and ministers over time were gay too..  I did not chose my sexuality to be straight.. I cannot explain what and why I was attracted to the opposite sex...all I know is I was born that way...same for gays ..Ancient man in the days of the bible  did not understand it.. therefore feared what they didn't understand..so one decided to claim it was sinful...That does not mean it really is sinful, all you are doing is adopting some ancient man's word  for it ..all belief  You have nothing to back  their claims up with  ..all you can do is put in faith and run with it...all linked to a mere choice you make ..No facts are required ..just faith that it is true..  Read a story... believe or not believe.. all up to the person reading it and how it can appeal to them

Hypothetically - If you were to suggest God did not create it all,   and suggest that God only gives use a choice whether to  use it or not..  then you have stripped God from being all powerful and not  the full creator of all that makes us human

To add... God already  knows exactly what we will do, when we will do it and  what our outcome is...therefore there is no real need for God to test or see how we pan out... he already knows in advance... If you say he doesn't.. again you strip him from what makes him almighty ..

I dont agee with that.

Sigmund Freud says we are born without a gender identity. Those that correctly develop their gender identity during childhood turn out hetrosexual. Those that dont develop one at all turn out bisexual. Those who have a neurotic injury caused by the opposite sex parent turn out gay.

[KLOSR]

I said we can comprehend God. I didn't said everything.

[Setton]

Mr Right Wing, on 06 July 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

I dont agee with that.

Sigmund Freud says we are born without a gender identity. Those that correctly develop their gender identity during childhood turn out hetrosexual. Those that dont develop one at all turn out bisexual. Those who have a neurotic injury caused by the opposite sex parent turn out gay.

And while some of his theories still prove useful, Freud died over 70 years ago. His research is hardly current. More recent analysis using actual measurable data has supported the idea that our sexuality is something we are born with not a choice/due to environment.