Random theological stuff - moved from Q about God

[monoxide_child]

okay i know i'm coming into this a bit late, but, my answer to the orignal question is this. The actual fallacy lies in the myth of god or gods itself. Being as most if not all religious texts and/or teachings are obviously and insultingly contradicting, not even to other but in it self. Therefore people who cling to only certain parts of any religious guidline in an attempt to make it seem more sensical, are really only confusing it more, since not following guidlines surely, in religion means that they will be punished by there respective deity. So, in short, my opinion is that any attempt to make reason out of something which has no reason will fail.

this is why i am not monotheistic

 

[monoxide_child]

Who says morality is always in the best interests of a whole society though?

isn't this the definition of morality?
screwing over yourself in the best intrest of the society

 

[Blowtus]

I guess that's the idea in some very vague sense, but 'very vague idea' doesn't really translate to 'actual effect'. If morality were always in the best interests of a whole society then it would never need to change

 

[monoxide_child]

I guess that's the idea in some very vague sense, but 'very vague idea' doesn't really translate to 'actual effect'. If morality were always in the best interests of a whole society then it would never need to change

if you're saying that society needs to change, then yes i agree with you

 

[Blowtus]

If you think part of that needed change is moral change, then you disagree with your earlier statement that morality is what is best for society

 

[derek]

Indeed.

 

[XxSNAPxX]

I've posed this question is such forums before but never here. I'm eager to know what will come of it. Why is it, that a christian person who breaks laws, both religious and otherwise, can tell me that even though i live a highly moral life i'll go to hell simply becuase my logic will not allow to believe the myth of religion. This wouldnt bother coming from one person, but it has came from many. So MANY people feel this way. I'm fine with being told i'll go to hell, BUT at least admit when you will too.....you know?

 

[derek]

The inherent hypocrisy of their situation is manifest in everything they say.

Don't let it get to you.

 

[hexwind]

I've posed this question is such forums before but never here. I'm eager to know what will come of it. Why is it, that a christian person who breaks laws, both religious and otherwise, can tell me that even though i live a highly moral life i'll go to hell simply becuase my logic will not allow to believe the myth of religion. This wouldnt bother coming from one person, but it has came from many. So MANY people feel this way. I'm fine with being told i'll go to hell, BUT at least admit when you will too.....you know?

If you don't believe in a religion.. then you don't believe in heaven in hell right? so why do you consider what they tell you and worry about it?

Religious people are always like that, they just see other's mistakes and not theirs. And usually, blame people who do the very same mistakes as they do, coz they can't blame themselves.

 

[monoxide_child]

If you think part of that needed change is moral change, then you disagree with your earlier statement that morality is what is best for society

apparently i was getting the word "morality" mixed up with the word "altruism"

 

[SLUTOPSY]

If God is almighty and capable of doing and controlling everything, is he able to create a world that he cannot control?

But what proof is there that a) there's a God ... And b) if there is a God, he's not in control?


Holy father? More like dead beat dad!

 

[hexwind]

^ First off, welcome on board.
Secondly, if you are giving your views about God, could you tell us first about your concept of God? Cause everyone is talking about a God and never stop arguing but everyone has a different concept of God, and whenever they falsify others' ideas about him, they are just contradicting each other's concepts.

 

[monoxide_child]

I've posed this question is such forums before but never here. I'm eager to know what will come of it. Why is it, that a christian person who breaks laws, both religious and otherwise, can tell me that even though i live a highly moral life i'll go to hell simply becuase my logic will not allow to believe the myth of religion. This wouldnt bother coming from one person, but it has came from many. So MANY people feel this way. I'm fine with being told i'll go to hell, BUT at least admit when you will too.....you know?

i am a spaz i somehow didn't read this post untill just now
and i totally agree with you

the people who act the most horribly think that they can go to "heaven" just because they go to "church" and think that "jesus" will "forgive" their "sins"

and then the people that actually act altruistically are supposedly going to "hell" if they are any kind of "pagan" or atheistic

this really would be totally fine if i'm just merely looking at somebody who believes this, i could think that they've gone crazy and get on with my day, but i'm living in the "bible belt" where the christians try to shove christianity down my throat and that's the part that really pisses me off

there's a verse in the book of Mathew (i think it's in chapter 28) where jesus tells all the christians to go out and convert the whole world to christianity, but the people here take that verse way too seriously, where they insist on converting the specific people that have absolutely no interest in becoming christian

 

[Badbird]

Interesting topic!Is there any proof that god was real anyone?

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Well, that's just the thing about imperialism... it works.

If you compare the population sizes of imperialistic religions to the populations of non-imperialistic ones, there is a huge disperity between the two. I think about 60% or more of the world's population is either Christian or Muslim, while the remainder are predominantly Hindu or Buddhist. Obviously there are other existing religions, but they're so underrepresented that they are statistically negligible.

When you compare the beliefs of the individual religions however, there isn't one that stands out as being more reasonable than the others. In fact, the two most statistically significant methods of predicting one's religion are "geography" and "religion of parents." Meanwhile, the two greatest predictors of atheism are "intelligence" and "education."

That's an interesting dichotomy that really begs the question of why religion is even relevant. Well, for all practical purposes, it is not. This is why imperialism is such a dominant force in the cultures of mainstream religious groups. By recruiting as many followers as possible, fundamentalists can cower behind the "ad populum" fallacy, which (in their minds) frees them of any accountability of reason. While indeed a fallacious practice, this "quantity over quality" approach works because a religion can easily exploit the uneducated or unambitious, simply by promising them utility in exchange for faith. Obvisouly, this "no thought required" approach appeals to these types of people, as it's far easier to just be given an answer right now, rather than committing effort and accountability toward the chance of finding a more qualitative explanation eventually. It also benefits the religion itself by "stacking the deck" with exactly the types of people who are incapable of, uncomfortable with, or resistant to the "research mentality." Unsurprisingly, these are exactly the same types of people who are likely to be oblivious of any logical ingongruities in their own arguments, and without the capacity, resources or ambition to rationalize beyond what they've been instructed to repeat.

Christians, as we've all observed, are completely uninhibited, even self entitled, when it comes to imposing their will upon others. Islam is more limited in its capacity to do this, because the religion itself prohibits blatant imperialism by being a self described "non-compulsory religion." However, while Muhammad stated explicitly that Islam is non-compulsory, many of his followers have found a loop-hole around it just like they did with his mandate for non-violence. In many Middle Eastern nations (where Islam is strongest) and some South Asian nations, men are allowed to acquire as many wives as they can afford to provide for. Also, since women are still considered property in many of these regions and are prohibited from making many of their own decisions, it is pretty much obligatory that each new wife adopts her husband's religion. Consequently, many Muslim men in these countries (such as India, which is 80% Hindu) prefer to marry "infidel" women, which I actually have to admit is quite strategic.

Unfortunately, these factors still provide religion with enough "fuel" to insist upon its own relevance, thus continuing a centuries long tradition of self-fulfilling prophecy. By comparison, an almost elite degree of intelligence or education is required before one has the capacity to independently rationalize whether God probably does or does not exist, which gives atheism a distinct disadvantage in the numbers game. In fact, the only "religion" that I know of that encourages introspection, logic and research the way most atheists do is Buddhism, which is a non-mythical religion and therefore enforces no belief in deities or the super natural. In fact, it doesn't enforce any specific belief at all, not even the belief that Buddha really existed.

 

[hexwind]

the people who act the most horribly think that they can go to "heaven" just because they go to "church" and think that "jesus" will "forgive" their "sins"

These people that we call hypocrites mister
I wish it was as easy as you asked for this

In fact, the two most statistically significant methods of predicting one's religion are "geography" and "religion of parents." Meanwhile, the two greatest predictors of atheism are "intelligence" and "education."

Yes, a LOT of people are religious simply because their parents are.
And actually the same goes with atheists, I know a lot of people who are atheists simply cause their friends/parents/idols are.
I have respect for neither, intellectually speaking.
I will teach my kids someday about religion by reasoning and using their minds to analyze the issue, rather than believing it with no effort of thinking.

That's an interesting dichotomy that really begs the question of why religion is even relevant. Well, for all practical purposes, it is not. This is why imperialism is such a dominant force in the cultures of mainstream religious groups. By recruiting as many followers as possible, fundamentalists can cower behind the "ad populum" fallacy, which (in their minds) frees them of any accountability of reason. While indeed a fallacious practice, this "quantity over quality" approach works because a religion can easily exploit the uneducated or unambitious, simply by promising them utility in exchange for faith. Obvisouly, this "no thought required" approach appeals to these types of people, as it's far easier to just be given an answer right now, rather than committing effort and accountability toward the chance of finding a more qualitative explanation eventually. It also benefits the religion itself by "stacking the deck" with exactly the types of people who are incapable of, uncomfortable with, or resistant to the "research mentality." Unsurprisingly, these are exactly the same types of people who are likely to be oblivious of any logical incongruities in their own arguments, and without the capacity, resources or ambition to rationalize beyond what they've been instructed to repeat.

I agree, but it seems to work on the surface, but what counts is what people think, what they have in mind. If you were able to convince them with what you called an answer right now, then they either can be easily manipulated to leave their beliefs for another one, or take the wrong direction of the belief (take suicide bombers and Islam for instance). There is no way the walk the right path as long as they don't understand what that belief system is all about, they don't have the clear and right image. Consequently, they give the wrong image to the outsiders and that creates misunderstanding between people, and its effects are clear in the Internet (I have seen a lot of this here in this board).

In many Middle Eastern nations (where Islam is strongest) and some South Asian nations, men are allowed to acquire as many wives as they can afford to provide for. Also, since women are still considered property in many of these regions and are prohibited from making many of their own decisions, it is pretty much obligatory that each new wife adopts her husband's religion.

This is not because of Islam. This is because of tradition, and this habit has always been there in the Middle East before Islam comes. I am not sure if Islam allows you marry as much women as you desire, but i doubt it (I will look for it, coz i don't want to give a wrong information lol)

Consequently, many Muslim men in these countries (such as India, which is 80% Hindu) prefer to marry "infidel" women, which I actually have to admit is quite strategic.

See my two past responds to your post (that im quoting now)

In fact, the only "religion" that I know of that encourages introspection, logic and research the way most atheists do is Buddhism, which is a noon-mythical religion and therefore enforces no belief in deities or the super natural. In fact, it doesn't enforce any specific belief at all, not even the belief that Buddha really existed.

Same goes with Islam.
According to the Qur'an, learning and gaining knowledge is the highest form of religious activity for Muslims, and the on
I wish I could quote some verses off Koran that

 

[razoredge]

That was funny BMWG, did you copy and paste that ? Cause it looks like it was written by someone that did alot of research and I can imagine why anyone non religious would put effort into such research.

I also cant imagine why someone of proclaimed higher intellegence, logic and education would suggest that various religious communities do not have its share of the same. Or that we dont have a giant pile of atheist moron trash.

This in itself renders that entire writing with 0 value as it seems to be based solely on the idea of being educated,logical and intellegent but fails on that very principle. Showing itself only with bias and pompus BS equal to that of the religious.

Religion as well as other forms of power has been used in mankinds history for many purposes.

Maintaining some form of law and social structure I believe has been its primary use.
Abused into power tripin dominance which applies to religious and non religious bulling through out our history

On a more personal level I believe it has simply been mankinds method to answer or accept that which he does not understand and has no control over.

As well because its so hard to accept that upon dying its all over, all has been for nothing and a general fear of that darkness

So with my low ed logic this seems to explain to me why people of both intelligence and moron can be found in both faith and atheist

This could also explain why many a less than religious person may "look to the Lord" in the autumn of thier life... what the hell right ? Its like buying a lottery ticket... you never know and this could be the most important lottery.

My current act of faith is that one day "Tom Brady" will answer his own questions and find some grounds by which to stand on his own two feet rather that find and adopt those opinions and views that will make him fit in the best

 

[monoxide_child]

Well, that's just the thing about imperialism... it works.

If you compare the population sizes of imperialistic religions to the populations of non-imperialistic ones, there is a huge disperity between the two. I think about 60% or more of the world's population is either Christian or Muslim, while the remainder are predominantly Hindu or Buddhist. Obviously there are other existing religions, but they're so underrepresented that they are statistically negligible.

When you compare the beliefs of the individual religions however, there isn't one that stands out as being more reasonable than the others. In fact, the two most statistically significant methods of predicting one's religion are "geography" and "religion of parents." Meanwhile, the two greatest predictors of atheism are "intelligence" and "education."

That's an interesting dichotomy that really begs the question of why religion is even relevant. Well, for all practical purposes, it is not. This is why imperialism is such a dominant force in the cultures of mainstream religious groups. By recruiting as many followers as possible, fundamentalists can cower behind the "ad populum" fallacy, which (in their minds) frees them of any accountability of reason. While indeed a fallacious practice, this "quantity over quality" approach works because a religion can easily exploit the uneducated or unambitious, simply by promising them utility in exchange for faith. Obvisouly, this "no thought required" approach appeals to these types of people, as it's far easier to just be given an answer right now, rather than committing effort and accountability toward the chance of finding a more qualitative explanation eventually. It also benefits the religion itself by "stacking the deck" with exactly the types of people who are incapable of, uncomfortable with, or resistant to the "research mentality." Unsurprisingly, these are exactly the same types of people who are likely to be oblivious of any logical ingongruities in their own arguments, and without the capacity, resources or ambition to rationalize beyond what they've been instructed to repeat.

Christians, as we've all observed, are completely uninhibited, even self entitled, when it comes to imposing their will upon others. Islam is more limited in its capacity to do this, because the religion itself prohibits blatant imperialism by being a self described "non-compulsory religion." However, while Muhammad stated explicitly that Islam is non-compulsory, many of his followers have found a loop-hole around it just like they did with his mandate for non-violence. In many Middle Eastern nations (where Islam is strongest) and some South Asian nations, men are allowed to acquire as many wives as they can afford to provide for. Also, since women are still considered property in many of these regions and are prohibited from making many of their own decisions, it is pretty much obligatory that each new wife adopts her husband's religion. Consequently, many Muslim men in these countries (such as India, which is 80% Hindu) prefer to marry "infidel" women, which I actually have to admit is quite strategic.

Unfortunately, these factors still provide religion with enough "fuel" to insist upon its own relevance, thus continuing a centuries long tradition of self-fulfilling prophecy. By comparison, an almost elite degree of intelligence or education is required before one has the capacity to independently rationalize whether God probably does or does not exist, which gives atheism a distinct disadvantage in the numbers game. In fact, the only "religion" that I know of that encourages introspection, logic and research the way most atheists do is Buddhism, which is a non-mythical religion and therefore enforces no belief in deities or the super natural. In fact, it doesn't enforce any specific belief at all, not even the belief that Buddha really existed.

yes, imerialism works for the people that actually THINK, the reason why most people in USA are Christian and most people in Middle East are Muslim, is because so many people really don't even try to scientific/imperialistic/analytical about life, where they just simply don't even question the religious beliefs of those around them

most people either become religious as children because of their parents bringing them to church at a young enough age that i would consider it to be brainwashing, or they become christians as adults because they've been psychologically broken so badly that they end up worshiping "Jesus" because they've become completely unable to handle their crappy existence without some sort of deity system to explain why their life sucks so bad

 

[razoredge]

ya... thats it

 

[hexwind]

yes, imerialism works for the people that actually THINK, the reason why most people in USA are Christian and most people in Middle East are Muslim, is because so many people really don't even try to scientific/imperialistic/analytical about life, where they just simply don't even question the religious beliefs of those around them

Do you mean that Once you think scientifically, you stop believing in your religion's teaching? Sorry, the more stuff I know about science, the more it attaches me to my religion, cause science blends in very well in it.

most people either become religious as children because of their parents bringing them to church at a young enough age that i would consider it to be brainwashing, or they become christians as adults because they've been psychologically broken so badly that they end up worshiping "Jesus" because they've become completely unable to handle their crappy existence without some sort of deity system to explain why their life sucks so bad

Excuse me
Are you assuming that atheists have better lives than religious people? You never heard somebody thinking the following way : God exists,so he can help me but my life sucks and God didn't help me, therefore he doesn't exist. Isn't it the opposite of what you said?