Religion is anti-truth: yes or no

[Saru Inc]

So you trust that God will send you to heaven without knowing if he exists?

Not at all. What I am saying is that if I don't know all the little itty bitty parts, even for someone as OCD as me, it's ok.

But only if you defy the good spirits then it becomes sin, right?

Well, why not? What are you asking here? I mean thats kind of what I just said, and I must say.... "good spirits?"


If sin is just defiance of the good spirits then sin is the structure of your soul that make it possible to defy them. It is not a spiritual liquid but a soul shape.

This isn't really saying anything, it's just assuming knowledge which can't exist. Sin is in the core of our beings, known as 'Original Sin,' which is why we need Jesus.

Being that you already implied that sin is a soul shape and not a spiritual liquid I don't see how that is possible.
It matters because Jesus suffered a horrible death when there might have been no need for it to happen.

No, you stated it was a soul shape. I implied no shape or form, nor a spiritual liquid, which is a contradiction in terms. And a child in Africa is right now dying in a hut due to Aids, and no one cares about him. (No one in his village) due to the evilness of man, great tragedies will occur. Also, Jesus had to die that way, thats why he did. And actually, Jesus died the average death of a criminal, everyone was crucified back in the day, the politicians might have had a more graceful execution. But the common criminals? Crucify them.

I defiantly had faith that I was going to hell. Looking at Christianity from an agnostics perspective gave me a chance to shed my fears and actually look at it with new eyes.

You defiantly had faith that you were going to hell? What does this sentence mean? That in order to rebel against Christianity, you stated no matter what you were going to hell, that way you could drop the religion and live your care free life? Seems counter intuitive and self destructive, in my opinion.

I have read some of the bible. But I don't think it will help me any if my soul shape is wrong. I believe I am a good person and if God thinks that is defiance then I suppose I am going to hell no matter how genuinely I help and care for others. Thats the Christianity I was raised with by my religious figures.

Dude, why are you bring up a soul shape? It doesn't exist. If you are imply that sin is shaping your soul, (which is different...) then you're exactly right, you are going to hell. I mean, you just admitted it yourself. Being a good person doesn't mean shit, pardon the language. Because you still sin, and you need Jesus, everyone does. If mother Teresa wasn't a Christian, she would still go to hell. Going to heaven and going to hell are not determined by your physical life on Earth, its more of are you committed to God, and do you believe He died for you, and without him you would go to hell? And you seem to have already made up your mind, you don't like religion. Doesn't have to be logical, you just don't want to like it. And... well... then there's no point in even asking those questions.

.

 

[The Jester]

Dude, why are you bring up a soul shape? It doesn't exist. If you are imply that sin is shaping your soul, (which is different...) then you're exactly right, you are going to hell. I mean, you just admitted it yourself. Being a good person doesn't mean shit, pardon the language. Because you still sin, and you need Jesus, everyone does. If mother Teresa wasn't a Christian, she would still go to hell. Going to heaven and going to hell are not determined by your physical life on Earth, its more of are you committed to God, and do you believe He died for you, and without him you would go to hell?

That's why I dislike christianity.
It doesn't matter if you're good or not, it only matters that you praise that omniscient being you believe in.

Quite a narcissist, that god of yours.

 

[Saru Inc]

That's why I dislike christianity.
It doesn't matter if you're good or not, it only matters that you praise that omniscient being you believe in.

Quite a narcissist, that god of yours.

Hmmmm. Not really. Narcissism is a human fault, not a Godly one. If we praise God its because praise is due. He doesn't have a self esteem problem or something. It's quite simple, in order to get to Heaven you must be completely sin free. And since we all sin, *no matter how good we are* we cannot get into heaven.

 

[shannishannon]

FWIW, religion only exists in the presence of faith of its believers. There is often no historical, proven fact of the existence of much that exists in the religious texts of Judeo-Christian, and other Eastern religions. Much of natural pagan religion is passed down through oral tradition, ie songs, poems, personal journals. There isn't physical, empirical proof of God or intelligent creationism a la Stephen Hawking. The attachment to one's religion is dependent upon the benefit one accrues from it-ie belonging, comfort, safety from enemies, or in the case of its leaders, perhaps power and influence. Religious zealousness is similar to the psychological states of delusion and denial of facts. For the record, I am Wiccan. At least I can see and feel nature all around me. And that is all I will say on the matter. You're welcome.

 

[Saru Inc]

FWIW, religion only exists in the presence of faith of its believers. There is often no historical, proven fact of the existence of much that exists in the religious texts of Judeo-Christian, and other Eastern religions. Much of natural pagan religion is passed down through oral tradition, ie songs, poems, personal journals. There isn't physical, empirical proof of God or intelligent creationism a la Stephen Hawking. The attachment to one's religion is dependent upon the benefit one accrues from it-ie belonging, comfort, safety from enemies, or in the case of its leaders, perhaps power and influence. Religious zealousness is similar to the psychological states of delusion and denial of facts. For the record, I am Wiccan. At least I can see and feel nature all around me. And that is all I will say on the matter. You're welcome.

What what do you think about "Creationistic science" ?

 

[shannishannon]

You mean Christians who reinterpret Genesis in terms of scientific theory? I thought the Word of God as expressed in the Bible was to be taken on faith. If that can be reinterpreted, the rest of the Bible can be reinterpreted to mean whatever you want.

 

[Saru Inc]

No, that there is scientific proof of Creationism.

 

[The Jester]

Hmmmm. Not really. Narcissism is a human fault, not a Godly one. If we praise God its because praise is due. He doesn't have a self esteem problem or something. It's quite simple, in order to get to Heaven you must be completely sin free. And since we all sin, *no matter how good we are* we cannot get into heaven.

Lulz, why would god have created a species that is faulty?
Because god itself is faulty.
He is a narcissist for wanting to be praised.
Or perhaps a bit insecure.

Come on big guy, we love you, but you're too needy.

 

[shannishannon]

No, that there is scientific proof of Creationism.

Verifiable sources, please.

 

[Saru Inc]

Verifiable sources, please.

No, I said what do you think of. I wanted your opinion.

 

[The Jester]

No, I said what do you think of. I wanted your opinion.

You use the argument that there are scientific proofs for creatonism, and when asked about it, you fail to deliver.
The argument is therefore worthless.

 

[Saru Inc]

You use the argument that there are scientific proofs for creatonism, and when asked about it, you fail to deliver.
The argument is therefore worthless.

Incorrect. I asked for her opinion, I never stated it held any validity. I think it does on my part, but again I'm not asking what I believe. Does Shannon think they are all kooks? What exactly?

And Jester, anyone who would disrespect someone's religion in such a way, hardly deserves any respect themselves.

 

[shannishannon]

Ah. I misunderstood. Creationistic science is simply the response of Christians to the rise of Science. It is really a
religious mode of inquiry, not scientific.

 

[The Jester]

And Jester, anyone who would disrespect someone's religion in such a way, hardly deserves any respect themselves.

Luckily I do not need your respect.

 

[Lerxst]

You may want to read up on Ken Wilbur or The Integral Institute. Basically, there are certain levels of development people and entire cultures, towns and countries can fall into. Appealing to a higher authority for life decisions is one of them.

As for Buddhism, there is no single God (Buddha was a person, not God). According to most definitions it's considered Atheist because of that one detail.

 

[Morpheus]

I don't think religion is, by its nature, anti-truth, though people often act that way in its name. Religion propably originated as a way of trying to comprehend the world without the means to do so: it fundamentally wants to answer the question of "why". In that sense it is very much pro-truth. But as a tool for comprehending the natural world, it is now obsolete. As a source of spirituality it is not, but neither is it nescessary: one could (and I would) even argue that it is somewhat corrupt for that purpose, for the most part. Intelligent people can filter the filth off religion, keeping the good parts, and I have no problem against that. But they do have the capacity to find meaning elsewhere.

Given that God established our nature, as its creator, it seems consistent that God should command nothing which is inconsistent with our nature. Indeed, St Thomas Aquinas notes that the moral precepts contained in the Ten Commandments can be known through the philosophical sciences alone. Incidentally, the moral teachings of the Catholic Church are very consistent with those of the ancient Western philosophers.

Aquinas then asks, why should God command, what can be known by study? His answer is that God commands us to live in a way consistent with our nature so that we may attain the fullfilment of our nature and reach happiness. But since very few have the time, leisure, ability, or disposition to pursue thourough philosophical studies, and even then, there is much scope for error - it is fitting that God should command/reveal the natural law as commandments, so that all (the simple, the busy, etc.) should attain beatitude safely.

I have the time, the leisure, the ability and the disposition to pursue philosophical studies. And I have pursued them. I believe myself to be what you would call a moral person, a good person. I don't act against my nature. I look around me with an open mind.

Still, I am something you could describe as an atheist or a pantheist (though I don't like to think of it that way: art and curiosity are my religion). I don't believe in sin. I don't believe Jesus is a messiah. I don't believe in any god who is less than the universe.

Yet I am happy. I exist in harmony with the world, myself and the people around me. There is no hole, no void in my soul.

Am I, in your opinion, in error? Acting against God and by extension my own nature? Am I damned to hell? Do I deserve hell?

 

[Saru Inc]

Ah. I misunderstood. Creationistic science is simply the response of Christians to the rise of Science. It is really a
religious mode of inquiry, not scientific.

Ok.

In my opinion, I believe God started the big bang. It makes perfect sense, every miracle God has ever done can be explained scientifically. (Well I mean, not rising from the Dead, but it has happened in other places obviously.) So you could take two sides of the issue, one being mine: That this is no exception, Science proves that planets are shooting outwards in space as we speak, such as from an explosion, God said let there be light. EDIT lol forgot to put the opposing side to that belief. Or my mom's saying that the birth of life is a miracle that cannot be explained for a reason. But I'm assuming when he said let there be light, there was a vast amount of light coming from the Big Bang, and with Adam being created on the last day fits in even with Evolutionary standards. (That being Humans were one of the last species to evolve.) Where I differ is how he actually came to be. I'm not one of those people who say "lulz we dun c any half man monkeighs L" or, "lmao why dun we seh diffurent kinds of humans." However, I have reviewed the science of evolution, and I simply do not agree. I am not ignoring the facts, though I can see exactly why it may seem like that.

But yeah, Creationism science is basically along the lines of "God turned water into wine, here is the scientific process of how it is:" Or "God made the Earth stand still for 3 days, here's proof that it is:" (Both miracles were proven, I think they somehow proved the Red Sea miracle as well.)

Luckily I do not need your respect.

Luckily, I was not referring to the need for my respect.

You may want to read up on Ken Wilbur or The Integral Institute. Basically, there are certain levels of development people and entire cultures, towns and countries can fall into. Appealing to a higher authority for life decisions is one of them.

As for Buddhism, there is no single God (Buddha was a person, not God). According to most definitions it's considered Atheist because of that one detail.

Yea, Buddhism isn't a theistic religion, I like to say

Now a good question, even if Off-Topic: Is Atheism a religion? Yes, no?

I say yes it is. Because despite the lack of belief of a God, you are putting faith into the belief there is no God. There is no proof that God doesn't exist, so you are believing without proof that God doesn't exist. Which is exactly what Christians do, simply the exact opposite.

 

[Morpheus]

Now a good question, even if Off-Topic: Is Atheism a religion? Yes, no?

I say yes it is. Because despite the lack of belief of a God, you are putting faith into the belief there is no God. There is no proof that God doesn't exist, so you are believing without proof that God doesn't exist. Which is exactly what Christians do, simply the exact opposite.

Go read about a concept called the burden of proof. And stop reciting ancient arguments, it's tiresome. They have been gone over a million times already, and by people far better qualified than any of us.

 

[Saru Inc]

Go read about a concept called the burden of proof. And stop reciting ancient arguments, it's tiresome. They have been gone over a million times already, and by people far better qualified than any of us.

That seems a bit out of place, I merely posed a question. And when you answer in such a vehement manner, it begs the question.


And I am completely aware of the burden of proof, however, you actually just committed the red herring fallacy. So.... where do we go from here?

 

[Morpheus]

That seems a bit out of place, I merely posed a question. And when you answer in such a vehement manner, it begs the question.


And I am completely aware of the burden of proof, however, you actually just committed the red herring fallacy. So.... where do we go from here?

Yes, you asked a question. The thing is: the question you asked is like the most common argument theists have against atheists. I have encountered it and the discussion surrounding it way too often, and there is never anything new or interesting to it. I am sorry if it came out a little rude. I'm just kind of tired of the whole god-debate because both sides look at the question so narrow-mindedly.

Basically it boils down to this: which of the following is the positive claim (positive claims need proof (or personal belief, which also needs a reason), otherwise negatives are assumed true.): A) there is a god, B) there is no god. To me the answer seems to be obviously A. You apparently disagree. I don't know how you do it without being maimed by a severe case of Occam's Razor.

Is it a religion not to believe that Reindeer can't fly? That's an over-simplification, and I do admit there are atheists who can almost be classified as religious people.