I wasn't raised in a very religious family, but one that accepted God. Around now (I'm 14), Yeah I'm questioning, but I'm not going to lose my faith. I don't believe religion is wrong, it's just a choice of free will. We all have choices, I just decided to make this one to believe in God, or a God if you will. I just think we all work in different mindsets. Those willing to just accept even without proof, and those willing to question it, and those that want cold hard proof, and even then may not even follow God. It's just a free choice, but it's one that tends to be figuratively stubborn. In other words, a very very solid choice that is very hard to change.
I bolded and italicized the part in that which shows why it technically isn't a "free choice". I'm sorry but 14 isn't far enough removed on a psychological level to say you've made a "free choice". Even though you might disagree every decision you make and who you are as a person early in your life is shaped by your surroundings. If your surroundings involve religion (no matter to what degree, either very or barely) then that is what you know. You can't possibly have many other view points because you haven't been exposed to enough of them. Sure being on the internet allows for a lot more knowledge about other view points and the thought processes behind them but you've had more years under your parents, your friends who think as you do, and your surroundings then you have in the internet. Let me draw a parallel to what I'm talking about. I grew up in a pretty secular family, (dad was raised Catholic, mom was raised Jewish but since they've been adults they've pretty much cast off anything to do with religion) and an upper middle class family. My family has never really had a problem with money but I knew friends who were less well to do. When I was younger it never occurred to me that some of my friends couldn't do some of the things I wanted to do as often as I liked to do it because they didn't have the money to do it. This concept is just something that was built into me because of how I grew up, I knew nothing else. When I got older (around high school I'd say) and I started learning about social-economics and got more friends in varying situations and grew to understand how things work and why they work then I could frame my perspective differently and think as others did.
Honestly Agreed. I mean, yeah I'm young. Really I have no response, but I can see your point. I still have quite a few years to see what else I have to learn as far as religion goes. Well, anyways I hope I don't kill this forum LOL As far as the edit to your response goes, I understand your parallel. It takes time to really understand much. I say I'm far too young to really be in this. Well, I'm out, maybe we will meet again
western society is based on judeo-christian ideals and always will be lets debate a real topic like economics so I can destroy all you babbies
and now he's dead god - 1 atheists - 0 also he can't distinguish between principles and faith also america was not the start of western civilisation I'm not even a theist
he doesn't agree with me = troll stop liking what I don't like EDIT: why can't I post threads, I want to start an economics thread debating religion is the stupidest thing
With complete honesty, no. The only reason I've been to these places is because of Christianity, believe it or not. And I think you missed my point, it's more than just helping people, I've experienced a lot of the world, first hand, that most people have not, which I think gives me more say than people have credited me for. My central point is that that religion relies on much more than scientific understanding.
A little disconcerting that you can't find the motivation to uncover your inner self without help from the guy in the sky. But then i guess any religious nut can link those two together. I don't want anyone to think that there is some kind of religious exclusivity in this whole feel-good agenda. I'd like to recommend everyone here read On the nature of things (wiki if you get confused. This is one of finest pieces of literature created. And what is interesting about Lucretius is that there is almost no proof he ever existed. But i don't need to believe he existed to understand his work, and i think Lucretius' explanation of Epicureanism (what the poem is about) is probably the greatest philosophical text that has survived history. To me, Epicureanism is the only way to ascribe morality, and it comes from deep contemplation. I do hope some of you read it.
False. Carbon Dating was put forward as evidence to contradict a creationist view, and instead of providing evidence to disprove it, you brushed it off with a cop out quote. You made a claim that carbon dating doesn't stand up even to scientific scrutiny, back it up or back down. I remember you saying that your interpretation of the bible is not only the correct one, but that the idea of interpretation in itself is misguided, even implying that your interpretation is obvious beyond question. Sorry, even without going in to the realms of scientific vs. religious argument, and just sticking with christian explanations, how does that in any way equate to you saying that 'any theory could be correct'? As for the burden of proof, why? I come up with a scientific theory, even one with large apparent holes (I'm talking theoretically), but one that is deduced from citable observations. You, in turn, frankly make up a story with nothing to back it up other than itself, yet the burden is on me to disprove you? How on earth do you figure that? But still, I'll accept that indescribably skewed requirement, and again return to my point that direct contradictions of creationism in terms of the age of the earth are well document, accepted science. So, again, please disprove them. You've been called out more than you've called others out? You began your presence in this thread by grouping atheists as the most closed minded bunch of people, and have since followed up with similarly brash and even inflammatory comments. Just to look at that in isolation, what proportion of the world's atheists/agnostics have you met and talked with enough to discern how closed minded they are? I'm guessing it's not a large percentage. So please explain to me how you feel qualified to make such a wide, sweeping assertion? It's becoming pretty clear that you not only lack perspective on the issue at hand, but lack the ability to look at yourself in a critical light.
My main reason for believing is the pascals wager. Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If I'm wrong, I was remembered for a time as a nice nutty christian. If I'm right, I go to heaven when I die. Now, let's say I don't believe in God or accept Jesus. If I'm wrong, I'm eternally damned. If I'm right, then it doesn't matter. I will have lived my life as a good christian and will have lost nothing. It's encouraging to see that people can sit down and debate without lashing out at each other. Let's hope this thread lasts...
But that whole concept's a bit of a con now isn't it. You shouldn't need to be driven by a fear of "what if" to live a life of doing things right and being morally healthy. As matty keeps trying to explain, "hell" is a concept that only came into existence once Christianity started and wasn't even an idea brought on by Jesus as Jesus was a Hebrew thus did not believe in a "hell". And that whole point is irrelevant because you could make the same wager about everything in your life and then you would never take a risk and end up with one boring but safe existence.
Doesn't it work like that everywhere though. In a similar way that the risk of jail stops you from doing bad. Social standards stop you from doing things that socially alienate you. The way you control yourself through fear of what others will think, or the punishment you will receive. I support the notion that humans need a higher power to control them... Similar to the notion that "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine. Or Aristotle and his idea that government is of human nature. Your last paragraph isn't really a good analogy... Taking a risk of committing an immoral crime? Why would anyone do that, theist or atheist? EDIT: I also very much like the idea of an economic debate, after all economy is all theory so it could be interesting... I don't know anything about it though, but I'd love to read and learn.
I am not an atheist, but if I was I would tell you it doesn't offer anything. Neither does following a religion. The comfort you derive from "being one with the lord" could easily be obtained by having friends, family, and others that care for you. The only difference in someone with strong moral fiber who is an atheist and someone with strong moral fiber as a theist is that the theist will claim that the reason for their benevolence is because of their religion while an atheist would claim that the inborn rewards of helping people out and doing a good job are all that is required. I personally believe in the concept of a "soul" and that it exists in some way after death however I do not take stock in organized religions that spout nonsense rules that have been developed over time to fit the time period they were developed in. Do you think if you skip going to Church on Sunday God will smite you or cast you to hell, why is that a rule? Anyway like I was saying, the "atheist" belief is that you shouldn't need religion to offer you anything and that we live the life we're given, not the one we hope to get after its done. Like the Bible thing you took just one side of that point of view. Why leave your house? Sure you could get hit by a car by going outside so why not just stay in the house. If someone takes a view point that if they're wrong for believing something they will get punished for it then that encourages stagnation and no progress in challenging preconceived notions. The government thing is sort of unrelated to this whole point as government is a necessity of a large populace. Pure democracy which would be the famed "perfect system" in which every single member of a society gets a direct vote and say in how things will be only works when the numbers are small (and I'm talking very small, try this system with just 20 people and see how difficult getting anything done is). The "evil" part results because a "perfect democracy" can never work thus fewer individuals are required to make the decisions and "power corrupts absolutely" and all of that.
No, I don't. That doesn't make sense. According to my belief, I am going to Heaven because I have accepted that Jesus is the Christ and he came to save me. Actually, its a big risk either way. One way, you get to live the life you want without God. The other, you are a religious freak that wasted his life following a false teaching. I have personally had experience in this in Boy Scouts. You are right, it doesn't work. However, what does that have to do with religion?
The morals the bible teaches does not prevent stagnation. Playing it safe, and fear of going punishment aren't the same, so your analogy isn't right. Me being afraid of being killed is not the same of me being afraid that killing someone will send me to hell. The point of introducing government is a concept of a higher power that controls the majority. I'm saying that humans need to be put in place by a higher power, not to prevent the good from committing good, but to prevent the bad from committing bad.