Do you believe in God?

[txbrit31]

as a cleric in holy orders- absoluely. Guinness is proof!

[Sonthert]

[quote name='Marcus9638']Finally, only your last paragraph insulted me a bit.  The rest of what you wrote was very intelligent but when you stated that people like me who believe in "God" "create your own little world view" it cheapened and belittled my opinion.  I don't like the word "little" when used to reduce someone's comments.  You also asked if it wasn't "presumptuous to decide what God is, antithetical to what his holy scriptures are?"  Again, I thought I was being clear in the very beginning of my post by saying that I don't believe that we've defined God yet.  I should have been more detailed in saying that I don't subscribe to any particular religious beliefs, and therefore the inherent scriptures.  The scriptures are the very thing that bother me the most.  I don't believe I have all the answers or can provide accurate insight into the exact definition of what or who created all of this, but I know in my gut that this isn't all a great "accident" and that we're the lucky beneficiaries of it.   
Thanks again for your reply.  There's nothing I love more than comparative religion and an open discussion as to everyone's take on the whole topic.
Marcus[/quote]Sorry! Wow! I didn't see this reply. I'm sorry that my phrasing seemed offensive, I wanted to try to make a point that a personal view "little" and a global view "big" are different. Its easy to believe in all sorts of things, real or made up, somebody could say the universe was accidently created when somebody blew their nose, or man was transplanted to Earth by aliens. There is no proof of anything of the sort. I like to base my beliefs one rationale, evidence and reason. Life is short, there is no sense wasting time and energy on things that don't exist when we live in a world, that without any proof, accepted tacitly, that does exist. My point was it has become very popular for people to make up their own personal beliefs, regarding the universe or whatnot without any proof, but call it "God" as in the christian god, an a supreme unipotent god. Your world view is not one of God, it is what would be more properly typed, by the bible, as heresy. You might see it as christian doctrine, but it is, in the strictest words of the bible, not. You believe in a supernatural power, which is the spark of life, I believe you said. Very cool, your beliefs are just as valid a way to live your life as anybody else. The reference to god is confusing, to me at least, let all these churchy references go. Start from square #1, I know nothing...OK, I assume I am here...There is a lot of misinterpretation of science. Man did not evolve from apes. Man had a common ancestor with the apes, in fact, they are just as evolved as we are. It would be like roughly saying you came from your sister, unless you had one of "Those" families, it would be more proper to say you and your sister came from a common parent (Mom). Another biggie is one you implied, that the universe was an accident. The big bang was most definitely not an accident. When we dumb it down from the group of underskilled, underpaid secondary school teachers, it is called an explosion and an explosion is mistakenly though of as an accident. If lightning strikes a tree, and it explodes, is it an accident? No, something definable and scientifically explainable happened. The universe is not an accident, but because it is not an accident doesn't imply there was a design. Its a false dichotomy. Christians are prepared to believe that the christian god has always existed, but can't believe the universe couldn't also be without creation...it must have been created somehow. If one is possible of infinite existence, why can't the other be of infinite existence?

[nuschultz]

Less serious comment ahead:
Has anyone read the thread in the joke board about how everyone is going to hell?  Here is is, quoted from that thread.
 
[quote]
The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University ofWashington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is,of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gascools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.One student, however, wrote the following:First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul getsto Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the differentReligions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of soulsin Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change ofthe volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for thetemperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell hasto expand proportionately as souls are added.This gives two possibilities:1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until allHell breaks loose.2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls inHell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.So which is it?If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman yearthat, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you, and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must betrue, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozenover. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, itfollows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore,extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divinebeing which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"
[quote]

[pavlakos_politakos]

I do believe God exists.Maybe its because i was born into (like someone else here)an Eastern Orthodox family(Greek Orthodox to be exact) or because my father is a priest.Either way i do have faith in my religion.i believe the Bible is not to be taken literally.for instance in Genisis it states  that in 6 days God created the Universe and on the 7th day He rested.Seven of Gods days could be 7 billion years.I believe that there  is a Heaven and Hell and more people are damned than saved.I believe that the image mankind has of God is symbolic.He is neither man nor woman,but a spirit.We portray Him as a Man seated above the clouds,with a long flowing  beard.Again i do not  believe this  is to be taken literally.He is potrayed as a man because man has always been the dominant gender,his beard indicates wisdom,justice,and forgiveness.He is seated above the clouds like a monarch;a great ruler,in his Kingdom of Paradise which few will enter.i believe God is a trinity.a combo of 3 in one.it is known as the Holy Trinity in only Christianity.The Holy Trinity is composed of the Father,the Son,and the Holy Spirit.I believe that all religions(excluding Satanism;which is more like a cult anyway)worship and/or believe the same God,just in a different perspective.They have a different belief on how to enter the  Kingdom Of God.i do NOT believe that to enter heaven you MUST believe in Jesus.A buddhist who does not aknoweledge the teachings of Jesus Christ,but has lived a pure,honest life is not damned to the pits of Hell,but a Christian who disregards the teachings of what he/she believes in(Jesus Christ)and lives a life of sin,deciept,and moral crime has no chance of  entering The Kingdom of Heaven(unless his  ways are changed,asks forgiveness from God,confesses,etc..)he WILL be damned to burn in  Hell.I believe God always forgives,no matter what.I believe in miracles for those who believe and have faith;even those who do not deserve it.I do NOT believe in only science and base everything on scientific facts,but try to combine what my religion teaches and science.For instance:Darwins Theory-i believe when God created Adam from clay and water,Adam was not as humans are today;maybe like  a caveman,and then evolved after time.I believe in following the ten commandments even if you are a non believer,simply because  they make sense  in order to sustain a peaceful,happy society.I believe that the Old Testament has its limits,because it was made for Jews to follow;ways of  life,to keep the chosen alive.Hygiene,which foods and drinks to  not consume because of disease,when to bathe,who not to marry or have sexual intercourse with,and of course a set of laws(the Ten Commandments).
for those of you who have never heard of Orthodox Christianity,it is the first form of Christianity(AND CHRISTIANITY WAS ESTABLISHED LOOOONG BEFORE THE MIDDLE AGES,INCLUDING ROMAN CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY)until theCatholics broke off,and then the Protestants broke away from the Roman  Catholic  Church,etc...
i am personally not over religious.i do normal human things,i sin too.i dont run around claiming i am God or a prophet,these are simply my beliefs and i  follow them as much  as i can.
thats about it,if anyone has any comments or questions feel free to  ask me in THIS thread please!!!

[steve07]

Yes because I have faith

[Sonthert]

Pav: The bible has a word for your perspective: heresy. It is a direct violation of commandment. Any person who holds a belief or perspective that is different than the bible is a heretic. They burned people for that several hundred years ago. The bible IS literla and it is not open to interpretation. There was a swinging group of guys back in olden times who (properly) taught that Jesus Christ was not a man, but an embodiment of a spirit of man. These people were called antichrist. I am sure devout Hindus would laugh at you because of your perspective...proposing that they believe in god. Steve: I have faith too, I believe in humanity and its ability to imrove itself and continue to make life better for everybody. I also don't believe in god. People with faith can be athiests/non-thiests. I don't have to have faith about god...there is none, all world religions are relics of mystic mumbo-jumbo when people were groping for answers.

[Ghaleon]

woah woah woah tangeirs.  this assault on the Bible is unwarranted and, strictly speaking, nonsense.  Have you ever read any Christan theology?  I've been studying it for 3 years now, and the array of accepted 'perceptions' is dizzying.
The word 'heresy' is used once in the bible, in the book of revelations.  The context is a Christian being persecuted as a heretic, not the other way around.
"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets"  (no, i didn't have that memorized, I ran a search engine )
Heresy is a term coined by the Catholic Church, and is currently only used, I think, by it and the Eastern Orthodox church.  Don't get me wrong, i'm not too pleased with the concept either, but that's a problem with a specific part of Christianty, and not the body as a whole.  And even so, the Catholic church has made great strides towards tolerance in the past hundred years.  The Eastern Orthodox Church, as far as I know, has always allowed its members the freedom of intellectual exploration (is this right, pavlakos?).
Also, where on earth do you come out with the conclusion that the bible is necessarily taken literally?  The Bible itself certaintly never says it.  The Bible also never says that all Christians even need to acknowledge the Bible as an authority.  How could it?  It wasnt compiled until hundreds of years after the last book was even written...
People 'believe' in the Bible because they choose to.  Rather, they have faith that it is, in its entirety, inspired by God and holds some kind of truth, metaphorical or otherwise...  The Bible does not set forth Dogma, some churches do.  you're objections are both exagerated and misdirected.

[Sonthert]

That's your interpretation, to be sure. The bible is "the word of God", literally the divinely inspired writings of men. Religion cannot exist if it is not dogmatic, so therefore, the bible is not open to interpretation. Besides, if the bible is the word of "God", then to question is impossible, if is to be all knowing and all seeing. My objections are not exagerated nor are they misdirected. How does 4000 years of religious history show, time and again, that questioning or disagreeing with religious doctrine invites consequences? Crusades, the protestant reformation, the story of the crucifixion of Jesus, the halocaust, The supression of Nepal, the enemity of India and Pakistan, the civil war in Nigeria, The "blue laws", witch trials in Salem, the uproar over Trey Parker and Company's Mohammed depiction, the destruction of the Tomb of Eve in Jeddah, Jewish slavery to the Egyptians, "In God we Trust" on the back of US currency, the legal prevention of mormons from having multiple wives, 9-11 and the nerve gas attacks on the Tokyo subways. To name a few. Each is a differant instance where people of one religion assault, mock, annoy or kill other people because their religious views aren't in agreement. As an athiest, I am resentful of having religion shoved down my throat. I am not anywhere near as extreme as these bozos who want to end Christmas and tear down crosses. If you want to believe in fairy tales and the bible, that's your business. The bible is a work of fiction, it among of a group of many works of fiction from around the world that harken back to a time when men were not far descended from squatting in caves. If the religious people of the world stopped going to church and using that time to collectively work for the good of the race of man (and woman) the world would be a better place. Athiests will win, eventually, religion will fade away like a old photograph in the sun. When that happens, peace and joy will replace the superstition and bowing fear that religion weighs down on humanity. I misspoke trying to blend two different lines of reasoning through editing, I haven't skimmed the bible recently, but the juxtaposition of the word heresy and bible is not warranted, I agree. The spirit is there though.Heresy "2. opinion or doctrine contrary to a dominant or generally accepted belief." Webster's Dictionary. The Bible is the word of God, it is accepted as the authority of religious doctrine in the church, so opinions that are contrary to the bible is heresy. Don't worry, we're just heretics of different flavors, though!

[Ghaleon]

"That's your interpretation, to be sure. The bible is "the word of God", literally the divinely inspired writings of men." 
Sidenote: that isn't my interpretation; but i'm arguing that it's a legitimate and not-necessarily-destructive one.
"religion cannot exist if it is not dogmatic"
This, i think, is true.  That's what faith is; believing in a proposition or belief system regardless of other forces.  Thus a Christian has the dogma that "Christ is Lord" or something like that, and will not allow himself to be budged by reason or empirical evidence. 
But this is all it means and is not necessarily negative.  For instance, I can hold the dogma that "God wants me to love my neighbors" and cause no harm whatsoever.  Holding to a dogma does not mean that you have to kill other people who don't believe in it.  Granted, relgions have done that before, but they do not do it everywhere or all the time.  You're objection would be like me saying "I hate Germans because they kill Jews."  The correct formulation of this statement would be "I hate a particular group of Germans (the Nazi's) at a particular time in History (WWII)"
As for your examples, you seem to have adopted a strictly anti-religious interpretation of history. In doing so, I think you make 2 mistakes.  1) you speak of 'religion' as though it were some homogenous force; as though the cummulative 'spirit' of religion wreaks havoc throughout history.  But religion has no such unity in history.  There were religious thinkers for and against the reformation; for and against the crusades; for and against the vietnam war; for and against the war in iraq; and, as a matter of fact, for and against dogma (Erasmus, the anti-reformation catholic poster boy, desired to reject all dogma).  religious thought and activity is as varied as the people who accomplish it.
Another objection I have to your philosophy of history is this: do you really think that religion can explain that much?  I think that it's very rare that you see a historical event that is actually caused by a system of ethics or dogma.  For instance, there are certain marxists interpretations of the reformation which hold that the germans revolted because they were the people being most opressed by the midievil economy and stood to gain the most from a free market system.  I find this interpretation much more convincing, illiterate german peasants could not understand Luther's writings enough to care about them.  My point is that there are other and, if not more powerful, at least more frequent sources of history than religion. 
I agree that there have been many instances of people being oppressed or killed in the name of a religion but I do not believe that religion is at the heart of these conflicts.  Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to protect religion from all criticism. I just think that it's probably not that frequent a source of history.  People will be people, they do good things and bad things, they'll find reasons to kill each other and reasons to love each other whatever framework they're opperating under.
I'm very intersted in your prediction that religion will die out.  Freud made that prediction in the 1920's, I still don't know what to make of it.  I guess we'll have to wait and find out. 

[Sonthert]

This response was far better thought out than your first one, if you don't mind my saying so. Yes, I would bulk religion together as a group, for the sake of discussion and practicality, most religions are nearly identical and all of them certainly have similar functionality in humanity's terms. Your argument is badly flawed, however, you tried to stand on two different soap boxes. The ends never justify the means, your proposition "I hate Nazis because they killed the Jews." is a good example. You are right, but I am not criticizing a small group of people, like the Germans, but your argument is incorrect. Religion is a larger social order than nationality, however Nazis are a smaller social order than Germans, so your example is badly flawed. I am criticizing the instrument of religion. Your logic is "We can;t judge the barrel by a few bad apples." I say its not a barrel of apples at all. The force religion has had on humanity was important before democracy, communism and higher forms of governments. Religion instituted control. There were few enough people that Cain could slay Abel and nobody would ever find out. For tax purposes, we needed everybody alive and working, so we have to threaten you with an unseen, watching eye; god(s). Cain slew Abel and God sent him away...see there are ramifications for your actions...this is the beginning of a codified legal system, enforced not by policemen, which would be impractical, but by an ultimate reward or consequence if you followed the rules or broke them. No, you are right, religion is not necessarily bad, but the bad and the good are inseparable. Using your straw man argument, Hitler built the autobahns and righted the sinking German economic ship, so we shouldn't be opposed to him and the Nazis, there are good things about them. That is your interpretation, anyhow. This of course is absurd. We cannot justify the ends by the means. The good things that come from Nazis or religion are few and not worth the onus that it places on humanity. You are right, there are a few people who dissent, there always are. In a matter of course, using the same logic, you did, there were some Americans that supported the Nazi party, like Henry Ford, for one. So, should we judge America to be a bad, wicked pro-Nazi regime? Of course not, there were Germans who opposed the Nazis and actively tried to prevent the atrocities that would polarize history forever. Does that diminish what the Nazis did? No, the Nazi party did what they did, whether there were people who opposed them or not. So, no, I disagree completely with your logic. A few people standing outside objecting to the grotesquerie does not relinquish responsibility!Can religion explain that much in terms of human misery? Well since it is fictional in the first place, it better be damn good to outweigh the inquisition, the crusades and the witch trials. The question is, what benefit does religion have? Morality is now established my national doctrine, in our case the constitution. We disregard the bible when it comes to a conflict between the constitution and the bible. Everything that religion "gives" to people can easily be achieved through other instruments. So, I will conditionally, for the sake of this argumentation, say OK, religion doesn't contribute that negatively to humanity. It, on the other hand, has no benefits that couldn't be had other ways. So whatever bad that comes from religion is a burden...it provides nothing but takes a little...dump it. Heroine makes you feel good, takes away the pain, but it is addictive, it is a negative influence. You could also feel good by building a boat, helping the homeless, helping clean up your neighborhood park. So heroine has no positive value when used regularly, to the point of addiction. Occasionally used, it might relieve temporary pain. Religion, too in the same manner. When you continue to rely on going to church or a religious code for your strength, moral certitude or a group of people you can socialize with, it is no different than being addicted to heroine. Occasional use might be forgiveable, but regular use is debilitating.Religion breeds fanacticism. Its ultimate goal is moral control. It twists people's minds in fear so that they cannot use complete reason to evaluate things in terms of a moral humanity. It creates factions that fight bitterly and kill one another. If we joined together, as one race of humanity, and worked for our own good, the world would be far better off...fewer wars, no inquisitions, no crusades. People having one less thing to use to hate one another. Sticking to archaic, backward ideas is not right, from an intellectual or humanist point of view, religion must be a relic that is shoveled into the dustbin of history.

[coolaskimdeal]

I'm an in-betweener, not really sure what I believe right now... 
I definitely believe there is SOMETHING out there beyond our control,
but Jesus and I don't jive -- so many people have gone around
throughout history claiming to be the Messiah, I don't see why we
should believe him anymore than we should believe any of the
others.  But I certainly don't think that my beliefs are any more
accurate than anyone else's, none of us know, it's just an
opinion.  One of the most interesting things about Christianity,
though, is the Bible, which I would love to take an analytical class on
at some point in my life.  For example, why are there two stories
of creation?  How can I put my faith in a book that contradicts
itself?  Additionally, every place in the Bible where the phrase
"Lord God" appears, in the older texts, used the Hebrew words for
"GODS" in the place of that... indicating polytheism.  Things like
that make me wonder what to believe and I definitely need to educate
myself a lot more before I make any long term identifications for
myself with religion.

[Ghaleon]

no response yet; just asking for some clarification.
"Religion is a larger social order than nationality"
could you comment on this statement a little? You are arguing that religion once served a basic and universal purpose; that this purpose is the unity that religion has throughout history and that, as we now have stabilized government, we no longer need it to serve said purpose, correct?  If so, is it really true that religion served the same purpose everywhere in the world?
Also, while this may be true, or may have been true, I have a hard time believing that this is the only primal funciton of religion.  What of religion as an expression of or response to the human condition in the world; that of uncetainty and insecurity? I think such a formulation would go a long ways in explaining why religion still exists at all.
 
 

[Sonthert]

That is Nazis are a subset of Germans. So, Nazis are a smaller social organization unit than nationality.Religions encompass many countries, so religion is a larger social organization unit than nationality.Religion has two basic functions, it establishes a social code, in most cases, which exerts social control over people. Two: it is a mystical unit that answers questions that cannot be answered rationally or answered with the level of intellectual sophistication available. In the most basic sense, yes religion plays the same purpose, all over the world. In more specific cases, it is applied differently.Yes, religion exists because there are many questions humanity can ask, but does not have rational answers to, or rational answers are not possible. People used to believe that natural disasters were caused by a god or gods. We know much more about why earthquakes occur, how tornados form, where tidal waves come from and the like.  The advancement of science has  surplanted  the supernatural functionality of religion. Who believes that tornados "just happen" as a result of god's will?  People also belived that people got sick and died  as god's will.  Now we understand viruses and bacteria much better, no mystery, no supernatural explanation. I agree, it is an explanation for why people still have religion. It is of course, supremely arrogant and ignorant to believe you can explain away everything by attributing it to some supernatural source. It is far more reasonable to sit down and ask how/why/where and try to collect inforamtion to answer those questions. To believe a fictitious book you believe in gives you answers to all of the questions that can be asked is...like I said arrogant and ignorant.

[Ghaleon]

[Sonthert]

1.  You are right. That is straw man argument, however. I never made that point, therefore your tearing that point down doesn't affect my original point. If we were comparing the relative strengths and weaknesses of labor parties or fraternal orders, I could group them together for comparison, could I not? Like I said, which you still haven;t addressed...religion has similar functionality...moral code, social controller, answerer of arcane questions. I can compare them because they all have the same three functions, to one degree or another. You didn;t touch that point, because you can't. In that manner, christianity is the same as Islam which is the same as Buddhism.2. You are right again. This is another straw man argument, however. My point was that Nazis were/are a sub-group within the German people. That is Mr. X identifies himself as a German, he also identifies himself as a member of the German Nationalist Socialist Party, AKA the Nazis. The Nazis were a specific group within, originally, Germany exclusively. Religion spreads across national borders, for instance, Muslims are found in Indonesia AND Egypt. This was your argument originally, you made the parallel between Nazis and Religion:'You're objection would be like me saying "I hate Germans because they
kill Jews."  The correct formulation of this statement would be "I hate
a particular group of Germans (the Nazi's) at a particular time in
History (WWII)"'In effect, Nazis are a SUBGROUP of Germans where religion is a supergroup...higher than nationality. Nazis are all Germans, but anabaptists cover many countries, so your argument was invalid. You can;t trot out the Nazis anytime you want to bash somebody's point without a valid argument.3. What are you talking about? Moral codes are a fundamental characteristic of all religions. Confucionism is almost nothing more than a moral code. Taoism spends the large part of the beginning of the book reciting stories about the dangers of greed and being a general jack-ass. Animists also practice/receive moral codes from their religion. How many times have we seen a National Geographic special on an African Tribesman thanking the prey for allowing him to catch them so that his family might be fed? He thanks the spirit of the animal for its sacrifice in his life. Sounds like a moral code to me...thanking the animal. Sounds like it answers some strange questions:"How is it that I can catch an antelope while Fred can't? It must have let me catch him." Is not worship a moral code anyways?You obviously don't understand Buddhism beyond the back of the Cliff-notes you didn't even bother to read. Buddhism is alot more complex and involved than the bigoted version "Buddhism claim's to know nothing." Same as the "Athiests don't believe in anything." Narrow minded garbage from people who are so insecure because their religion's a fraud and they might be found out at any time so they have to bash older and wiser religions than their own. At least when I point out the shortcomings of religions, I do it on an equal-opportunity basis: equally. I don't apply a short tagline that is nothing more than a stereotype. See now that was a straw man argument! Its a joke...an adult joke...for us...adults. I feel alot of your points aren't really coherently addressing mine but misinterpreting them to make them easier to destroy. For the record, I disagree with your overly-simplistic stereotype of Buddhism. 4. There can be no such thing as a definition for religion? What kind of horse crap is that? They should be fired. There is a scientific and even a dictionary definition for religion. Look it up. How does it happen "We can't define religion.".  We are humans. We invented religion, we can define  it.  That is  mystic  garbage, I feel like its the dark ages...:You can't read the bible...you aren't qualified.". I take it ONE anthropogist feels that way...well fortunately, I think sociolology is better suited to answer our questions about religion.5. Thats another straw man argument on your behalf. I didn't dehumanize religion. I made the point that if it provides no benefit and a few people become general nuisances in the eyes of humanity, then it is a bad deal. I think the phrase was religion breeds fanaticism. It twists people's minds. Doesn;t sound dehumanized at all.  It sounds like I am  commenting on the deleterious effects of religion on humans and humanity...I couldn't be humanizing it more...to use your previous example...gosh...only a few Nazis were the ones killing Jews, we can't hold them all accountable for the halocaust. I am holding all the Nazis accountable just as I am indicting religion for its effects on humanity. You can soft-shoe all you like,  fanaticism  is bred principally by religion and it is a destructive force on the conscience of humanity. It was done in the name of God, so be it. Are you a christian? NO!?! Off with their head! Are you a christian? YES?!?! Off with their head. Sounds like you are right to a point. I agree. There are larger AND more issues at hand, however and I don't think cultural expression quite covers it. Fanaticism, which is in no ways my only point, it just keeps coming up based on your response...religion is not some detached power, true. It does warp and subjugate people's minds so they can't tell what's true and what's false and then they are willing parties to atrocities like the Tokyo Subway bombings, David Koresh's followers or the Jonestown "suicides". In my way of thinking, when someone behaves badly using religion as a basis for or a justification of destructive behavior, it is roughly equivalent to "Gee, officer, I didn't mean to drive over that little girl...I've been drinking all day! I know that sounds like an excuse, but its true, you won't hold it against me, will you? Its the alcohol...I don't have any free will of my own." Sure, after awhile we get tired of people pleading "drunk" so we make a special law for "drunk drivers". In religion, how do you stop fanatics from calling "religion"? Whether or not you have a justification, you ARE responsible for your own actions. The real crime in drunk driving isn't being drunk...its driving in an irresponsible manner. Likewise too, for religion. The crime isn't going to church, its going to church and trying to use it for a substitute for thinking or even using for an excuse for horrible things you've done. So I partially agree with you, but I don;t believe your statement is inclusive enough.Enjoy your trip to Turkey! My mother went to Turkey and loved it. I hope you will be going to Istanbul...aka Constantinople...aka Byzantium...I hear its fabulous. If I am not committing a straw man of my own, would all those people who died in Jonestown have died if they hadn't met Jim Jones? Would every single one of them have committed suicide? Perhaps? Even if one didn;t kill themselves, it would have been a greater value to society to not have Jim Jones, but rather at least one of those people who would have otherwise died.

[Sonthert]

Note: my last several lines got switched...you'll get the point.

[EqualEyez]

I'm gonna keep it a bit short.I don't really believe that there is "someone watching us from heaven".In Belgium, less % is religious than in the US, my family isn't religious, but still i'm baptized. But that's my opinion and i don't mind someone believing in God.

[gunsboy]

I do believe in God.  I respect all opinions, but to deny the possibility of the existence of God is as as close minded as rejecting the other opinion.  Human mind works in mysterious ways.

[Sonthert]

I also deny the possiblity of the Easter Bunny, Zeus, Santa Claus, and the Earth Mother. I deny the possibility of a single, omniscient being creating the beauty around us. I deny the possibility that a Japan will win the Super Bowl this year. I deny the possibility that Adolf Hitler will defeat the United States. I deny many possibilities as completely improbable. Close-minded? No. I choose to reject a few possibilities out of an infinite number and I'm close-minded...whereas another person selects one possibility out of an infinite number and says "This is correct, there is a God and he created everything." That, in my manner of thinking is far more close-minded AND arrogant to boot. You can actually call me close-minded when you have summarily decided that you have the answer for everything and I'm wrong? Pppth. What's close-minded then?Science can't explain everything, so you automatically assume that a mystical answer is better than a rational one. Absurd. You have a preconcieved notion about the beauty and the synchronization of the planet, that science can't explain and you assume that there must be a higher power because you were observing it with an idea of a higher power to begin with. Religion is a tool that was used to keep you blinded to the truth. Be miserable, do your work, don't revolt and you will go to heaven. People believe this stuff...its hilarious. The richest company in the world is the catholic church. These whacko cult TV evangelists become millionaires all on the idea that living one life and dying isn't enough, there must be more. As Afrzak pointed out earlier, Penn Jillette's quote regarding elephants. I can't disprove god, its about as easy as you proving to me that there isn't an elephant in the trunk of my car. I say there is, I believe it, although rationally it makes very little sense, and you can't disprove it. I just say I have faith, I believe despite every rational attempt you make to disprove it. I believe in god about as much as you believe there is an elephant in the trunk of my car. Open your eyes people...they use this religion to take your money and enslave you and, worse, your mind. They tell you what to believe and what to feel. They can enslave the man, but if they enslave your mind, all is lost. Reject god and let your minds run free!

[gunsboy]

Well religion does not ask people to be used by some greedy jerks out there,  Humans would abuse anything we get our hands on.  Oh look, this stone is sharp lets murder people with it.  Oh, this thing burns fast, lets make a bomb, mmm look I split the atom, boom lets kill millions of people doing that ...
Look at basic commandments of all major "Abrahamic" religions: Judism, Christianity,  and Islam.  The basic message is the same, be nice be fair be good to everyone around you.  Do not lie, do not kill, do not steal.  Love people around you and do not be a racist ... etc.
I was born to a family that believed in God and when I got older I thought about the whole religion/God thing and I thought, what if there was no religion and no God and when we die we just disappear like anything else.  I thought that the notion of Adam and Eve as the origin of humans.  Many things made me really think:

Old books like Quran included some detailed explanations of things that science only found right now (including fetus development stages, and ocean currents, and astrological things), how could have a prophet back then who did not actually read or write come up with stuff like that.  Many things that it cannot be just a fluke (but could be explained by time travel - which I would rather believe in God than Time Travel).
I have studied biology and I know that evolution is true.  But Evolution cannot fully explain many things, the most that I was concerned with is how in the millions of years that this earth was populated by several other creatures, and none of them evolved into a similar or a competing species like humans.  And why in a very short period of time we evolved and took over earth.  Even if dinasours would have lived with humans, it seems that we would have invaded them and put them in zoos.
This is becoming a long post, sorry for that ... But I hate to just follow someone's teachings blindly and I always question everything around me.

[Sonthert]

#1: OK, the Koran contains factual information, many fictional works contain contemporaneous or factual references. These do not make the entire book true. For instance, in the screenplay for "Pulp Fiction" they make reference to a city named Los Angeles. Los Angeles is indeed a real city...does that make "Pulp Fiction" true? Not necessarily. In the movie "Outbreak", they refer to the Hanta and Ebola viruses which, as science tells us, are the names of real viruses...is "Outbreak" scientifically accurate? Not necessarily, some may be accurate, some may be inaccurate. In the TV Movie "The Day After" they depict the city of Kansas City being destroyed in 1986...Kansas City is a real city, so by the same logic we apply to religious texts, it must have been destroyed by a Soviet nuclear attack in 1986. There is scientifically significant information in many religious texts...that does not necessarily make the entire book true. It is because you believe it to be true that you have interpreted certain things in certain ways.#2: Your interpretation of Biology is interesting, but there are many theories, evolution, as commonly accepted IS flawed in my opinion...I don't believe in natural selection largely, but just because you have divine creation on one side and evolution on the other, saying "I don't believe in evolution, it can't explain everything." doesn't necessarily make creation true. That is a false dichotomy. Maybe the truth, which only lies in science, is a third, yet unexplored alternative. We will never know if people continue to blindly believe in divine creation. I think, that the core premise of evolution is true, that more complicated forms evolved from less complicated forms. That is a fact, as far as I am concerned. How is it that humans developed in this short period of time, as you put it? Did we develop in a short period of time? How do you know? What do you base this on? I say it took a long time, thousands or millions of years we can't really know. Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus not to mention australopithicines (Sp?) have been around a LONG time. Millions of years. How do we know that they are related to us? We might guess they were, but what if they independently evolved from other lines of apes/monkeys, similar to us? At least two of them lived together simultaneously and seemed to keep separated (which might imply they were different species, like unlike birds do not roost together). Dinosaurs harken back alot longer than that and Humans and dinosaurs, as far as the fossil record tells us, never lived contemporaneously. The overriding problem here is that religious people get easy answers...wrong answers, but easy ones. Where do earthquakes come from? God. Why do the good suffer while the wicked prosper? God. Why are there people here? God. Easy answers. Then religious people look at science and exclaim "Sceince can't explain anything very well." What you all are really saying is that science doesn't provide any childish and simplistic answers. Absolutely 100% correct. Science doesn't provide one single, easy answer. Only religion provides easy answers. Truth doesn't come from the regurgitated remains of holy books, only lies. Science provides us no truth and no easy answers. The religious men carry truth on their lips, but lie for their own benefit. The scientist works his life away with a faint glimmer of contributing something significant to the greater understanding of the world. Scientists do not get rich, they do not get famous, they are artists of a different sort...only possibly receiving accolades when death reaches its icy grip out for them.What about dolphins? Except for being aquatic and not having highly developed speech centers, they are every bit as evolutionarily advanced as we are.  For that matter,  chimps, gorillas and  dogs are as  advanced as we are. They may not be as smart as we are , they may not speak  in the same manner. Some species are newer, but overall, there are many creatures that are roughly just as evolved as we are. If you look at some creatures, they are more evolved than we are. If you want to consider "size" of DNA, a more complex creature having more DNA, than flowering plants and trees are far, far more advanced than we are. There is no single way to define humans as more advanced than other species other than our penchant for verbal and written language. Persoanlly, I believe that evolution is straight road, not a random jumping back and forth. We do not know where the road goes, because we have never been down it before. Anywhere in the universe where conditions are similar to Earth, we will find humanish creatures. We may be incompatible and have incompatible food sources, but we would look at each other and have a note of familiarity. And my post is longer than yours was and I'm NOT going to apologize, man.

[Scarecrow]

Anybody who wants to learn the origins of christian myth should pick up
a book called the Pagan Christ. It ends up telling you Jesus is the
stolen story of Osiris.

Personaly I am an Atheist. Religion is just another guise for peoples hate and lack of intelligent answers.

[gunsboy]

I do not hate or lack intelligent answers anymore than the next person on the bus.
I do believe in God in my own way and I do have a Religion.  I think that if people who do not believe in religions think it closed minded to believe in one then they are themselves a little closed minded in that aspect too.  Why not consider for one split second that the other side might be right or that there is more than one way to explain things and someone would like to believe in a way or another without downgrading others believes or non-believes.
I never thought that Pagans or Athiests or people from other religions stupid or ignorant or lack of intelligence.  I think the proplem or issue lie in people who believe things blindly not with people who think it through and then decide that one religion or way of thinking is how they are more comfortable with.
 

[Sonthert]

Of course, everyone is close-minded to some degree. I will adamantly refuse and dismiss a person who tells me there is no gravity. I would adamantly dismiss a person who stated Aristotle was right, all things are made of Hyle, rejecting the modern work in chemistry and physics. I am indeed close-minded. Reasonably, there is no god. You can doo-da for a week and the same conclusion comes out, rational people don't believe in god. There are too many religions in the world that are very different for any one to be correct, therefore they must be all wrong. Its all superstition and mysticism. Peoples long ago sought answers that were beyond their wildest dreams to have. They made stuff up, made up answers...there are Earthquakes because God is annoyed. God is the answer for all questions and the cause for all things...until we learn more. As technology, knowledge and science progress, more of God's dominion erodes daily. Pestilences, plagues, famine, flood, earthquakes, infectious diseases, pregnancy, the cosmos, other animals and fossils were explained away by god or the christian/catholic bible. No understanding was needed or occured. People who challenged the explanation by the church met with the label "witch" or when reason began to take hold again, "heretic"; now we have science. Knowledge replaces mysticism. So it has been, so shall it always be.

[Claytron]

I'll drag this one back up.I've gone through a few stages and I'll share my view. I went to a private episcopal school. I was taught about Chrisitianity growing up. Episcopalians are pretty mild Christians, so it was pretty light stuff. When you're a young child and magic is real - one takes these things in stride. God, Jesus, Santa, got it. But as one get's older and learns more about the nature of things, I realized that what I was learning was pretty inconsistent. There were alot of logical flaws in these people's beliefs - some took very literal views while others were much more reasonable and took most of it as symbolism. Personally that pushed me to agnosticism. I don't recally thinking about it much for a while, and eventually settling on a sort of 'omni-thesism' where everyone was kind of right. I still think there is some merit to that, but I digress. Slowly but surely I rejected all faiths. They seemed to be complete bollocks as Tangiers seems to hold to. Western faiths have no practical purpose beyond establishing code of conduct.I eventually became and athiest and completely discredited all of religion in much the same way Tangiers does now - with a particular distaste, which I still have, for Christianity.From there I began to do more research into religion. It is a subject I find very interesting. The eastern faiths have intrigued. In the West you're defined as an X or a Y. You're a 'Chirstian' or maybe your even more specific - you're a 'Baptist'. You're faith is a brand you wear on your sleave. In eastern cultures religion is interdependent on other idealogies. Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism all play major roles in Chinese philosophy. They're all interconnected in one way or another with varying degrees of intensity. Their historical figures even interplaying in their cannons. There is another element that Tangiers has neglected from his list of religious function: 1) Societal Conduct 2) Explaining Unexplainable Phenomenon 3) Self-Development - Eastern faiths include self-development as an integral part of their philosophies. Most Western faiths have traces of this but they're much more dogmatic and tend to focus around pure prayer focusing on adulation of their chosen diety.I personally am on a Taoist path. I find that much of the structure and philophies interplay well with what I have learned about 'things'. I'm a big physics fan and for me it's important that any faith allow for correlation between science and the faith. The key to me is that science and religion are on the same coin but most people want them in seperate bags. Slowly religion and science will meld into one thing. The more of the unexplainable we explain the less mystical religions become. We have painted the picture of god and he's a bearded white man. I think nothing could be further from the reality. As creatures we live from moment to moment - we are unique in our ability to reason and rationalize which gives us great power. We can see 'the cars being driven' - we can being to understand the very fabric of our existence. God could be nothing more than a guiding sense of order. We have no way to know for sure yet.My personal beliefs are a bit more complex - the idea of the soul and conciousness is an interesting phenomenon. I believe it's merely our understand of the terms as we have defined them that are the problem and the unwillingness to re-examine assumptions. Learning to interpret religious text is of the utmost importance - understand it's true meaning and learning what has been imposed upon it versus it's essence. I won't sit here and ramble about my specific beliefs right now they're not that important to this discussion.Most people don't have the same religious experiences - we barely percieve reality the same way, much less those things which appear beyond what we can sense directly/personally. I feel that it's important for any person to explore what is out there - conceptually ignoring the history and work in religion is just as ignorant as doing the same to science. That said I feel western religions don't have as much to offer as they really focus on dogmatic worship and very little on the individual - none the less they are important in the bigger picture. The eastern faiths have much more to offer you. I can't say one in particular is right or wrong - but they certainly have more insight into the nature of things.