Thursday, Feb 12, 2009
Today is the birthday of Charles Darwin, a man who came up with the theory of evolution, which offers an explanation for the existence of advanced life without a supernatural creator. It's a theory that has a great deal of explanitary power, and offers an explanation to not only physical characteristics of any given life-form, but also it's mental characteristics, or it's psychology. A very notable proponent of this theory of Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, where he offers a good arguement against the existence of a god. It's a great read and I recommend it to anyone who is questioning their religion.
Up until a few months ago, I believed in the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. I thought it was a perfectly good being. However, when I started to think about it, I noticed that there are a lot of flaws with the Christian religion. Though it may seem like a good thing, there is little redeeming value in religion.
It is essentially a control on free thought. This applies to religion in general, especially the Abrahamic faiths, which are the main religions in my critique as those are what I'm most familiar with. But I will address other religions as well, although briefly. This critique also focuses mainly on the moral implications and faults of religion since that is the aspect of it that I'm most interested in.
In the Abrahamic faiths, either you think the same way as God and have the same opinions, or you have sinned against God (in Islam, God is called Allah). All of your deep, personal thoughts and feelings are under God's scrutiny and if you have a thought or feeling that God dislikes, you have sinned against him. If there is a personal god who takes an interest in your life, you would have a permanent, inescapable, totalitarian rule that has total surveillance over your life, including your thoughts and feelings, and all your thoughts and feeling must conform with this god's wishes. It is the most complete form of totalitarianism possible. But this goes on into the next life. If you decide to accept God and to be what he wants you to be, you go to Heaven, eternally and blissfully praising god, which sounds like a horrible fate to me, where all individuality is stripped away. Or if you choose to be yourself, you go to Hell, where you suffer for all eternity. There's a reason why pride is one of the seven deadly sins. One who likes who they are is unlikely to submit their will to God.
Obedience is the primary moral value in the Abrahamic faiths. The reason you love your neighbor is because God has commanded you to love. The fact that being a kind and loving person is actually the right thing to do has no bearing on why you do it, as far as God is concerned. The only thing that matters to God is whether or not you obey this command. If God commands you to love, then you must love. Feel this emotion on command.
If you think that homosexuality is not necessarily bad, then you're a sinner. If you enjoy sexual pleasure, then you're a sinner. Sexual pleasure is part of being human. If humans did not ever feel lust, then there would be no sex at all, which would mean no procreation, which would result in the extinction of the human race. Lust is a necessary human feeling that is vital for procreation of the species. It's for this reason that it's hardwired into our brains. If it's so bad, then why would God hardwire it into the human brain in the first place?
So many major religions, past and present, have advocated violence in the name of God. In Christianity, God commanded the that the people in Jericho be killed after the walls fell, and that's what happened. If you read many of the laws in the Bible, such as those in Deuteronomy, it advocates stoning to death gays, those who commit adultery, and advocates female submission to men. The original sin story in Genesis explicitly advocates male dominion over women, in Genesis 3:16. The terrorist attacks from groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda are religiously motivated. They think they are doing God's will. Forget the actual consequences of their actions. As long as God told them to do it, then it's right. Over the course of human history, countless people were sacrificed to the gods for religious purposes. And because these religions claim these killings are right, people did them without question.
But thankfully, there is no evidence to support religion. We don't need a creator to explain how the Universe works. The order in the Universe is a result of various, mindless forces, like gravity, that work independently of a creator. Evolution, as far as I can see, explains brilliantly how complex life came to be. It sure explains human psychology very well, such as the feeling of lust as described above. In a prehistoric world, where most of human history took place, lust would have been a beneficial behavior for the survival of humanity. I, for one, am glad that religion holds no truth. To wish it does means wishing for eternal servitude. It would be of benefit to humanity to dispose of religious beliefs.
Other religions in the world are not without moral flaws. The Kamikazes in World War II were the result of a sect of Buddhism. Once again, violence in the name of religion. However, many people even question whether or not Buddhism is a religion. I'll leave that question up to you. And then there's Hinduism, which has the rigid cast system (which thankfully India banned). And there are a lot of other religions around too, that exist now or have existed. A great many of the historic religions required barbaric human sacrifices, as mentioned above. But hey, they were obeying the gods, so it must be right.
It's just as likely for God (or the gods) to exist as it is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to exist. There's no evidence for either.
Richard Dawkins - What if you're wrong
That short video puts forward a great argument about how arbitrary a belief in a certain religion often is. It came from the event in he next two videos.
Richard Dawkins in Lynchburg part 1
Richard Dawkins in Lynchburg part 2
IMPORTANT NOTE: I'm not trying to attack believers of religion. I'm not trying to personally insult any individual. I'm just attacking the ideas of religion itself. I'm also not trying to convert anyone to atheism. This is just my point of view on religion.
AND PROBABLY EVEN MORE IMPORTANT: Please, please make sure you do extensive research before you decide to turn away from a religion or join one. Deciding your religious beliefs must be done with great care.
That's a funny pic.
But at the same time, I think it outlines a serious problem about smoking at a very early age. So I just want take a moment to address all the children out there. Kids, please don't smoke or do drugs unless you're under adult supervision. Yes, I know it's cool to smoke with your friends away from adults, but for your safety and the safety of others, it's better to have adult supervision. After all, those cigarettes can get pretty damn hot and can burn you.
NOTICE: This public service announcement has been brought to you by Zea's Foundation for a Better Morality. This message may or may not actually promote a better morality to children.
This picture makes me hungry. I haven't had human flesh tacos in a while...
I wonder what Naruto tacos would taste like.
Those songs are great, just like the band that performs them.
Anyways, that's it for this blog.I hope you all have a wonderful night. And if you feel a cold wind at night, don't worry, it's not the Grim Reaper coming for you. It's me, coming to devour your flesh.
Comments
Page
1
« prev
|
next »
Posted Feb 12, 2009 2:32 pm PT
Cadefan: Thanks.
I'm glad you like the picture.
I'm glad you like the picture.
Posted Feb 12, 2009 2:34 pm PT
That is why I am a Witch...an original pagan...believe as you chose, as long as you hurt none.
Posted Feb 12, 2009 3:04 pm PT
scatha: I have more respect for some of the neopagan movements, like Wicca, because they don't try to control the way you think. But that doesn't mean that the beliefs themselves are true.
Posted Feb 12, 2009 3:24 pm PT
I worship thee, O flying spaghetti monster! XD You do make some good points... Religion IS kinda like a dictatorship... Now I'm off to start a cult! XD
Posted Feb 12, 2009 4:46 pm PT
Everyone has an argument against religion.
I always will forever wonder why people are always bothering or are against Christianity. I don't get it at all.
In this book does he ever talk about the other faiths like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and other things? If not then he is bias.
Everyone questions their faith and it is up to that person to make the decision themselves, not someone else.
I want you to check this man's page out Lee Strobel
I always will forever wonder why people are always bothering or are against Christianity. I don't get it at all.
In this book does he ever talk about the other faiths like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and other things? If not then he is bias.
Everyone questions their faith and it is up to that person to make the decision themselves, not someone else.
I want you to check this man's page out Lee Strobel
Posted Feb 12, 2009 5:33 pm PT
man... i feel like this is gonna be a long post......
I believe in God. First of all cause your arguements seemed repetitive in my opinion but secondly cause aethism offers... well nothing. In aethism, there's no afterlife so what the hell is the point of this life? Secondly there's no logical explination for the creation of the universe from what science tells us. At first there was nothing... then something was created. That violates the law of conservation of mass and energy whre mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Cause basically nutin+nutin=nutin. Also I heard that someone is trying to find a "God gene" that makes people believe in God. So if a gene controls what you believe in whose to say that genes do not judge every single action you have. If genes then control every single action it becomes that God you descirbed that gives us no free will. Also I happen to know someone that experienced a miracle that science can't explain so that further makes me feel God is real. I have a feeling I forgt something I wanted to say but I'm tired so well... that's me arguement.
I believe in God. First of all cause your arguements seemed repetitive in my opinion but secondly cause aethism offers... well nothing. In aethism, there's no afterlife so what the hell is the point of this life? Secondly there's no logical explination for the creation of the universe from what science tells us. At first there was nothing... then something was created. That violates the law of conservation of mass and energy whre mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Cause basically nutin+nutin=nutin. Also I heard that someone is trying to find a "God gene" that makes people believe in God. So if a gene controls what you believe in whose to say that genes do not judge every single action you have. If genes then control every single action it becomes that God you descirbed that gives us no free will. Also I happen to know someone that experienced a miracle that science can't explain so that further makes me feel God is real. I have a feeling I forgt something I wanted to say but I'm tired so well... that's me arguement.
Posted Feb 12, 2009 6:38 pm PT
Yeah. Sometime later, if I have the photo that I need, I will have my new blog up. You won't believe what I am about to post, so better have a chance to read my other blog before the new one...
Posted Feb 12, 2009 7:12 pm PT
Well I am christian call me crazy but I think evolution makes no sence at all how can men come from monkey's and why would the universe be created by a big bang that came out of nowhere wouldn't it had to have made by something or whatever and if there is no god or afterlife then what are we here for then I agree with soniccomics plus I heard people who had near-death experiances saw a afterlife something that was probably heaven so how can there not be a afterlife if people with near-death experiances saw a afterlife then?
Posted Feb 12, 2009 8:11 pm PT
soniccomics, you rock!
Posted Feb 12, 2009 8:18 pm PT
telvisnostic: That is a very good point. In this blog, I'm referring mostly to the Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Christianity, and Judiasm) because those are what I'm most familiar with. And I should have gone into many of the other faiths out there. Most major religions have dogma that tells them how to act. Hinduism, for instance, has the rigid cast system. Thankfully, India abolished the cast system. The major critique of Buddhism, at this moment, is that it's more of an ethic system than a religion. This is held by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Also, many atheist authors, like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, argue that the kamikaze attacks in WWII were inspired from Buddhism during the Showa period, which again addresses its flawed morality. The reason why most people who question religion look at Christianity is because it's in the traditionally Christian areas of the world where atheism is growing the most rapidly. It's what they are most familiar with. However, Richard Dawkins addresses other world religions, such as Islam. Another author, Christopher Hitchens, addresses each of the Abrahamic faiths. Personally, I haven't heard extensive critiques on Hinduism and Buddhism as much as the Abrahamic faiths. The main ones I've heard of are what I addressed above. And of course, there are lots of other religions too, that exist right now or have existed. Many of the past religions had the barbaric practice of human sacrifice, all in the name of the gods. But in the end, when it comes to any religion that you can find on this planet, there is no evidence for any of them. Richard Dawkins actually addresses the possibility of their being a creator, which could be any god, not just the Judeo-Christian god. That's the bulk of his book. Only after that does he go into religious morality, which focuses on many religious practices, not just the practices of Christianity.
Posted Feb 12, 2009 8:36 pm PT
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Posted Feb 12, 2009 8:37 pm PT
I'm sorry you feel that way Zea, but I have to disagree with your statement. I'm not going to try to influence you or anything but their is redeeming value in religion, how about a great after-life, how about knowing the fact that you're never alone, how about cherishing something that is near and dear to you and knowing that it will always be protected and loved in the eyes of God.
Posted Feb 12, 2009 8:38 pm PT
Hurricane: I know what you mean. But, just because it's comforting, it doesn't mean it's true. For a long time, I felt comforted by religion. However, when I thought about it, I found no comfort in it when I realized that I can't just be myself anymore. It doesn't make sense that an infinitely wise and objective God would try to have such a strong control over finite beings. Humans can find comfort and value in life without God. At least that's what I've been finding. Ever sense I left my religion, I felt like shackles have been removed from me. I can now say that when I do something nice, I'm doing it because of who I am, not because it's what God wanted me to do it.
Posted Feb 12, 2009 9:10 pm PT
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Posted Feb 12, 2009 9:11 pm PT
soniccomics: Supposed miracles happen across religions. Though I can't fully disprove any miracle, there is often another explanation for many, if not, most, miracles. As for the creation of the universe, let me start like this. Before Isaac Newton, people thought God kept the planets around the Sun. Then Newton discovered gravity, which is a mindless force that keeps the planets in orbit. Then he asked, "where did gravity come from?" He came to the conclusion that God did it. But later on, Albert Einstein came to along and discovered that gravity is the result of objects bending space and time. What Einstein did is find a gap in human knowledge and said that God did it. Just because we don't currently have an accepted explanation for the Universe does not mean that God did it.
And about the afterlife, that does not mean that life is pointless. One has to find meaning in life for themselves, whether it be in art, writing, friends, family, or anything else. I don't think God is needed.
And you know, I get repetitive a lot. It's not just this blog. I'll have to try to improve with that.
And about the afterlife, that does not mean that life is pointless. One has to find meaning in life for themselves, whether it be in art, writing, friends, family, or anything else. I don't think God is needed.
And you know, I get repetitive a lot.
It's not just this blog. I'll have to try to improve with that.
Posted Feb 12, 2009 9:12 pm PT
Speckeledford: Cults are an interesting topic and they play an important part in the formation of religion. Christianity is theorized by many people to be the result of a doomsday cult.
Cadefan: i'll check it out when it's up.
Cadefan: i'll check it out when it's up.
Posted Feb 12, 2009 9:26 pm PT
Darkknight: A lot of those people only think they saw an afterlife when it was probably just a dream. Most people have a concept of an afterlife and as such, it makes sense it would be a common 'vision.' Plus, such 'visions' can often be found across religions.
As far as the big bang, just because science may not have an accepted answer, it does not mean that God did it. In the future, we might, and probably will, have a good answer. There are already some theories out there, although they aren't yet widely accepted. Richard Dawkins goes into a few of them in The God Delusion. They often involve a multiverse of some kind. One thing that scientists are starting to accept is that there was something before the Big Bang. What that is, who knows? But any ideas they have now don't seem any less likely than God as an explanation. We're just going to have to wait until an explanation becomes accepted.
As for evolution, there are large similarities between humans and apes. Humans share roughly 98% of their genes with chimpanzees. Chimps are close relatives of the human race. Both had a common ancestor at some point in history, roughly five to eight million years ago. With all the fossil evidence and the biological evidence, there is a very strong case for evolution. But where is the evidence of a creator?
As far as the big bang, just because science may not have an accepted answer, it does not mean that God did it. In the future, we might, and probably will, have a good answer. There are already some theories out there, although they aren't yet widely accepted. Richard Dawkins goes into a few of them in The God Delusion. They often involve a multiverse of some kind. One thing that scientists are starting to accept is that there was something before the Big Bang. What that is, who knows? But any ideas they have now don't seem any less likely than God as an explanation. We're just going to have to wait until an explanation becomes accepted.
As for evolution, there are large similarities between humans and apes. Humans share roughly 98% of their genes with chimpanzees. Chimps are close relatives of the human race. Both had a common ancestor at some point in history, roughly five to eight million years ago. With all the fossil evidence and the biological evidence, there is a very strong case for evolution. But where is the evidence of a creator?
Posted Feb 12, 2009 9:46 pm PT
While I will disagree with what he wrote, I will not hate on him. His hatred for God an dall his infinite joy and possibilities is mind boggling. What brought him to this conclusion that God is not real? I must know. I'm also with Hurricane because you are not alone when you believe in God. Why is it that people can beleive in things they cannot see, but not God. You can feel him just like the wind and rain.
As for teh Cast system in India, it is still there to this day. Do not let them fool you. I did a report on this country and learned about them a lot.
Ah remember when the sacrifices were happening it was to atone for sins or to show love for God himself. It was not just to say, 'oh well here is an animal to sacrifice and that's it'. There were valid reasons behind it. Remember when it got to the New Testament all those practices were abolished and were not needed once Jesus gave his life for us all.
The one problem I have with this man is that he seems to think that as a Christian, you must be set in these straight line of thinking, when it's not like that. God gave man (us) free will to do with what we were given and that is how we live.
When you read your Bible or pray it takes a weight off your shoulders because you've just have been able to tell this almighy being things that you woultn't tell another human being. I'm going on a tangent so I'll stop before I just coninue to ramble.
Who does he think the creator is? And why can it not be God (Juedeo-Christian)? Check that link out that I put there for you. He's great/
As for teh Cast system in India, it is still there to this day. Do not let them fool you. I did a report on this country and learned about them a lot.
Ah remember when the sacrifices were happening it was to atone for sins or to show love for God himself. It was not just to say, 'oh well here is an animal to sacrifice and that's it'. There were valid reasons behind it. Remember when it got to the New Testament all those practices were abolished and were not needed once Jesus gave his life for us all.
The one problem I have with this man is that he seems to think that as a Christian, you must be set in these straight line of thinking, when it's not like that. God gave man (us) free will to do with what we were given and that is how we live.
When you read your Bible or pray it takes a weight off your shoulders because you've just have been able to tell this almighy being things that you woultn't tell another human being. I'm going on a tangent so I'll stop before I just coninue to ramble.
Who does he think the creator is? And why can it not be God (Juedeo-Christian)? Check that link out that I put there for you. He's great/
Posted Feb 12, 2009 10:39 pm PT
telvisnostic: What brought Richard Dawkins to his conclusion that God doesn't exist is because there is no evidence for his existence. He hates religion because it is not true and has been a major cause of various problems in human history (like the witch trials or the caste system, just to name a couple). There is nothing in this universe that hints at a supernatural creator of any kind. Evolution does not require a god. It explains very well why humans and animals are the way they are. Human feelings that are regarded as sinful, such as lust, are hardwired into the human brain. But if they're sinful, then why would the Judeo-Christian God, or the Islamic god Allah, or whatever god you believe in, hardwire them into the brain? The human mind is based upon the structure of the brain, which means that every feeling a human has, sinful or otherwise, is a result of this structure. And if a god created humans, then he created the human brain. From what I can see, the human brain does not show any signs of being created by any god that we've come up with.
So if a God didn't create the human brain, then it must be from a different process. While certain aspects of human behavior like lust may be regarded as sinful by various religions, they are actually important for human survival in a pre-civilized world, which is where the vast majority of human history happened. Lust became an beneficial behavior because it is what motivates human procreation. As such, this behavior became favored in the evolutionary process.
As far as Dawkins is concerned, if there is no evidence for a viewpoint, especially one that has been investigated for centuries, then that viewpoint should be discredited. Personally, I think you should find a copy of the God Delusion and read all his arguments for himself. That way you can decide for sure whether or not he's right. Another good book about the arguments against religion is called "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith. His section on morality is great. However, Smith focuses mostly on Christianity, especially in his section on morality, which he acknowledges. But his proofs against a creator apply to all gods that are present in current religions.
Dawkins started to question religion when he realized that there are many possible gods that one can believe in. The reason many, if not, most people believe in a certain religion is because they were brought up in that faith. If one was raised a Hindu, they would probably live their live as a Hindu. Their belief in that faith is arbitrary. This is a common argument against God, as other atheist thinkers like Dan Barker use it. I was even able to think of it when I started to question my religion, before I even heard of Richard Dawkins.
When you say that you can feel God in the air, that praying to God lifts a weight off your back, you are referring to the Christian God. Those feelings are experienced by Muslims when they pray to Allah. When people think there's an all powerful creator who is willing to take care of them, it gives them comfort. And now the part about sacrifices. Here is where I have a major problem with, in this case, the Judeo-Christian God. This particular God is an omnipotent being. As such, any possible task for God costs him no effort. So, why was any kind of sacrifice necessary at all? If he is all powerful, why not just forgive our sins? No animal sacrifice would be needed in the Old Testament. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross is unneeded for forgiveness.
And as for believing in things that we cannot see, let me put it like this. We can't see gravity, but we know it's there. We can feel it's pull. Though we can't directly see it, we can scientifically prove that it's there. The same applies to the Big Bang. We didn't see the event, but there is scientific evidence that the event happened. We can't see evolution take place, but there is evidence that it happened. What differentiates a creator from these is that there isn't any evidence for it, direct, indirect, or otherwise. If, in fact, there really is a creator, it sure did a wonderful job of making it appear that it played no part in the creation on the universe.
I started checking out that link. some of the videos about whether Jesus was resurrected were interesting. C.S. Lewis also makes some interesting points about this. I have a few problems with the truth of the biblical Jesus, though. The main sources of his life, which are the Gospels, are generally accepted to be written no earlier than roughly 70 AD, or 40 years after the death of Christ. And to my knowledge thus far, there are no contemporary records of Jesus, even though many other 'messiahs' appear in records. Obviously he didn't make much of a splash in his real life, despite attracting crowds of thousands of people.
And now, lets take a look at Matthew 27:51-53. The earth split open in verse 51. The bodies of many holy people were raised from the dead in verse 52 and appeared to many people in verse 53. This is a spectacular event, so why are there no contemporary records? And as spectacular as the holy people being raised from the dead would have been, it doesn't appear in the other Gospels even though Mark and Luke also depict the Earth splitting. It doesn't add up well to me.
So if a God didn't create the human brain, then it must be from a different process. While certain aspects of human behavior like lust may be regarded as sinful by various religions, they are actually important for human survival in a pre-civilized world, which is where the vast majority of human history happened. Lust became an beneficial behavior because it is what motivates human procreation. As such, this behavior became favored in the evolutionary process.
As far as Dawkins is concerned, if there is no evidence for a viewpoint, especially one that has been investigated for centuries, then that viewpoint should be discredited. Personally, I think you should find a copy of the God Delusion and read all his arguments for himself. That way you can decide for sure whether or not he's right. Another good book about the arguments against religion is called "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith. His section on morality is great. However, Smith focuses mostly on Christianity, especially in his section on morality, which he acknowledges. But his proofs against a creator apply to all gods that are present in current religions.
Dawkins started to question religion when he realized that there are many possible gods that one can believe in. The reason many, if not, most people believe in a certain religion is because they were brought up in that faith. If one was raised a Hindu, they would probably live their live as a Hindu. Their belief in that faith is arbitrary. This is a common argument against God, as other atheist thinkers like Dan Barker use it. I was even able to think of it when I started to question my religion, before I even heard of Richard Dawkins.
When you say that you can feel God in the air, that praying to God lifts a weight off your back, you are referring to the Christian God. Those feelings are experienced by Muslims when they pray to Allah. When people think there's an all powerful creator who is willing to take care of them, it gives them comfort. And now the part about sacrifices. Here is where I have a major problem with, in this case, the Judeo-Christian God. This particular God is an omnipotent being. As such, any possible task for God costs him no effort. So, why was any kind of sacrifice necessary at all? If he is all powerful, why not just forgive our sins? No animal sacrifice would be needed in the Old Testament. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross is unneeded for forgiveness.
And as for believing in things that we cannot see, let me put it like this. We can't see gravity, but we know it's there. We can feel it's pull. Though we can't directly see it, we can scientifically prove that it's there. The same applies to the Big Bang. We didn't see the event, but there is scientific evidence that the event happened. We can't see evolution take place, but there is evidence that it happened. What differentiates a creator from these is that there isn't any evidence for it, direct, indirect, or otherwise. If, in fact, there really is a creator, it sure did a wonderful job of making it appear that it played no part in the creation on the universe.
I started checking out that link. some of the videos about whether Jesus was resurrected were interesting. C.S. Lewis also makes some interesting points about this. I have a few problems with the truth of the biblical Jesus, though. The main sources of his life, which are the Gospels, are generally accepted to be written no earlier than roughly 70 AD, or 40 years after the death of Christ. And to my knowledge thus far, there are no contemporary records of Jesus, even though many other 'messiahs' appear in records. Obviously he didn't make much of a splash in his real life, despite attracting crowds of thousands of people.
And now, lets take a look at Matthew 27:51-53. The earth split open in verse 51. The bodies of many holy people were raised from the dead in verse 52 and appeared to many people in verse 53. This is a spectacular event, so why are there no contemporary records? And as spectacular as the holy people being raised from the dead would have been, it doesn't appear in the other Gospels even though Mark and Luke also depict the Earth splitting. It doesn't add up well to me.
Posted Feb 13, 2009 12:00 am PT
You do know that all version of the Holy Book--no matter the religion--are written some several hundred years apart, by flawed man, who is himself subject to the culture and time period within which he resides, right? I mean, we Christians celebrate Christmas as being the birth of Jesus, even though evidence has proven that were he to exist, Jesus' real date of birth would be in either June or July. As well, many of the scriptures are said to be written metaphorically in the same way that Jesus' parables are told, because it is the only way believers can comprehend what God may or may not be saying, because God is beyond human comprehension, hence why we--as humans--question Him, even though we shouldn't. For example, God's seven days could've been eons to us, and for all we know, God could've created the Big Bang, starting things off on their own natural course, considering that God gave this life for us to control. Besides, if there was no everlasting life, then logic would dictate that all one's deceased loved ones (parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, children, spouses, et al) or those who inspired one's personality that've passed on (in my case, visionaries Walt Disney & Jim Henson) would merely be decomposing in the ground, something most people cannot fathom, because they cannot stand to know that their loved ones and childhood icons would just be decaying corpses (or in the case of Walt & Jim, ashes blowing in the wind). And when you ask "If he is all powerful, why not just forgive our sins?", I retort that He did it to teach us a lesson, because there've been greater sins beyond the hardwired (ex: lust), such as many people killing in the name of God, even though one of the commands is "Thou Shalt Not Kill". The problem is that even the commands are subject to scrutiny. For example, when God says "Thou Shalt Kill", does He account for kill-or-be-killed situations such as being in war or being attacked by some psycho?
Posted Feb 13, 2009 5:20 am PT
The only issue I have with religion is they all think theirs is the correct path to God and anyone else's beliefs are a pathway to hell. The new land was sought out for religious freedom and still in this day and age, choosing a religion is like choosing who to hang out with in High School. "They do this and they do that." It's all nonsense! I believe in God and I will believe what I want without anyone's influence. I NEVER discuss religion with my friends because I don't want to have to bust someone in the chops for telling me that what I believe in is wrong. I refuse to go to Church because it's all so hypocritical. "Do as I say, but not as I do" is horse crap. Additionally, why should I give 10% of my earnings to hear some fancy talker in a Armani suit tell me what I already know? When I go home in my Honda Civic, I'm eating turkey and ramen while he's driving an Escalade and eating Prime Rib. I wish I had the time to fully articulate my thoughts on this, but I'm at work. Sorry.
Posted Feb 13, 2009 9:45 am PT
I think Naruto tacos would taste like chicken. Thanks for posting the music from Tristania, that was the first time I heard anything from them and I enjoyed it.
Posted Feb 13, 2009 9:45 am PT
While you make some interesting points DemonSlayerZea , just because Science can't prove it, doesn't mean that it isn't true. And you don't always need evidence either. Some things don't need to be explained. I've always wondered why Bill is formed from William, it has yet to explained. Because you know what, it can't!
Mr. Dawkins has to do better than the 'if there is no evidence, it's not true mess'. He also from what you said, dispells his own argument by saying there is a creator. Where is the eveidence there for that?
Did you know that there is evidence of the Ark of Noah? People who are risking their lives everyday are wanting to let the world know that many things in the Bible are true. But folks that are sometimes too narrow minded or jaded or had some bad experience with their faith tend to look the other way.
Lust is not beneficial. Lust leads to many awful things. LOVE is beneficial more so than not.
Of course there are possible Gods. You can go back to the days of the Roman and Greek eras where there was a God for damn near everything, but who is the one true God?
He does forgive you for your sins. All sins are forgiven except for blashpeming agains him. Jesus died for our sins. When you pray you talk to God and ask for forgiveness for all the wrong you did and thought. It's forgiven then because when you are sincere, that's how it goes.
Can you see the wind, no, but you can sure as hell feel it right? I can't see molecules, but I know it's there. I can't physically see GOD, but I can still feel him everyday.
Told yah, Mr. Strobel is awesome. A former full fledged Atheist and now he's on the other side. Godd for him!
Not everything adds up to us. That verse you mentioned could have also been in the minds of the people that were there. You and I may never know.
BTW, this argument will never end and we will both not come to an agreement. I enjoyed this very much though.
Mr. Dawkins has to do better than the 'if there is no evidence, it's not true mess'. He also from what you said, dispells his own argument by saying there is a creator. Where is the eveidence there for that?
Did you know that there is evidence of the Ark of Noah? People who are risking their lives everyday are wanting to let the world know that many things in the Bible are true. But folks that are sometimes too narrow minded or jaded or had some bad experience with their faith tend to look the other way.
Lust is not beneficial. Lust leads to many awful things. LOVE is beneficial more so than not.
Of course there are possible Gods. You can go back to the days of the Roman and Greek eras where there was a God for damn near everything, but who is the one true God?
He does forgive you for your sins. All sins are forgiven except for blashpeming agains him. Jesus died for our sins. When you pray you talk to God and ask for forgiveness for all the wrong you did and thought. It's forgiven then because when you are sincere, that's how it goes.
Can you see the wind, no, but you can sure as hell feel it right? I can't see molecules, but I know it's there. I can't physically see GOD, but I can still feel him everyday.
Told yah, Mr. Strobel is awesome. A former full fledged Atheist and now he's on the other side. Godd for him!
Not everything adds up to us. That verse you mentioned could have also been in the minds of the people that were there. You and I may never know.
BTW, this argument will never end and we will both not come to an agreement. I enjoyed this very much though.
Posted Feb 13, 2009 10:35 am PT
I'm not going to argue whether or not there is a God, or what, if any, religion is "correct", because I'm sure we both know there can never be any resolution to any of those issues. I will say that too many tend to focus on the negative results of religion, such as people blindly killing in God's name, but they tend to overlook the positive results, and there are some. Believing in a higher power can make people feel better. It gives hope. Are the people who believe in these things correct, or are they just delusional? I have no idea, but if people are able to find comfort in religion, why is that wrong? And why is that aspect of religion so conveniently overlooked. I've heard more than once that ever since people have made the conscious effort to remove God from our lives (forbidding prayer in public places, saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", etc.), people have become more and more amoral.
Posted Feb 13, 2009 10:56 am PT
Im a very conflicted person when it comes to religion vs. Science so i'll decline in expressing in point of view on this topic. THe thing to remeber is that religion is a spiritual connection between a person and their beliefs. Its not something science can debunk since the premise of FAITH isnt physical.
Good Blog! Later
.
Posted Feb 13, 2009 11:13 am PT
MarWash: I find myself conflicted about it too, actually. I often ask myself, "am I really right about this?" To me, having to make an appeal to faith just doesn't seem to cut it, though. It just seems like there is a complete lack of evidence for religion, from what I can see. This universe doesn't appear to have been made by a designer. But if I'm wrong and there is a creator, I hope that I'll be able to realize it before I die.
enervator: Good points. Religion does add comfort, and it that's what someone is looking for, then all the better for them. But I care more about the truth than for comfort. If I'm correct about religion, I don't want to be involved in it at all.
enervator: Good points. Religion does add comfort, and it that's what someone is looking for, then all the better for them. But I care more about the truth than for comfort. If I'm correct about religion, I don't want to be involved in it at all.
Posted Feb 13, 2009 12:35 pm PT
The problem is that I don't know that you'll ever be able to know for sure what the truth actually is, and neither will I. That's why religion is more based on faith than facts. If Jesus Christ were to appear in Times Square right now and start healing everyone of their various sufferings, I would take that as proof that the divine does exist. However, if that doesn't happen, that doesn't automatically approve that the divine doesn't exist. I don't consider myself to be a religious fanatic. As far as I'm concerned, if a person doesn't believe or believes in something different than I do, I really have no right or reason to battle them over it. I will agree with Sylent's comment, though. There is so much hypocrisy in religion that it winds up turning people away, which is sad.
Posted Feb 13, 2009 1:10 pm PT
telvisnostic: I'll make sure to check out that website a lot more. I've looked around for evidence for a creator but I haven't found much of anything. I've watched several debates on YouTube but the theists usually don't say much of anything that convinces me. Maybe this website will work out better for me.
I am aware of the fact that you can't actually disprove of God. However, there is also no evidence for fairies. Science can't disprove them. Does that mean they exist? Most people don't think so. Whether or not you agree with Richard Dawkins, I'll leave that up to you. An argument I often make is that a supernatural creator doesn't seem to be necessary to explain how the universe works. All the evidence points toward explanations that simply don't need a creator. And of course, if we eventually do discover that a creator is necessary for the universe, we will be met with the even bigger challenge of figuring out which god, if any that we came up with, this creator is.
Now on to the part about feelings like lust. If a woman that I find attractive walks by and I get a sense of sexual arousal, is that a bad thing? I think not. And plus, I'm pretty sure that when couples 'make love,' there is a lust component involved. I can love a women with all my heart, but love alone will not motivate me to have sex with her (though I guess this can depend on what your definition of 'love' is). From what I can see, lust is a vital instinct that drives human motivation for sex, which is needed for procreation. People have to want sex, and lust causes this want to happen.
However, I will say that lust, just like many other feelings, is harmful if done in excess. Lust has the potential to be a bad thing if you let it control your life and your views about the opposite sex. It's definitely been a root of female objectification in our society, but again, this is because lust is being let to control our society. But if one is mindful of his or her lust, then it can actually be a good thing. Without it, then what fun would a couple's sex life be? Obviously love should still be above lust in guiding a relationship. This is probably why so many marriages fail. But that doesn't mean that lust can't play a part.
The thing about the wind is that we can still prove that it's there. We can experience it and we know that it's made up from molecules, which can be detected using scientific means. Noah's Arc, as well as the creation story, are thought by many people to be taken from an earlier Sumerian story called Gilgamesh, although they are altered from the versions in Gilgamesh. I'm not going to make this claim right now because I haven't read Gilgamesh yet. But There is evidence of a large flood in Babylon several thousand years ago. Being such a rare event, it would make sense for stories of it to passed from one generation to the next and eventually written down in whatever form they ended up in.
Anyways, i agree that this argument will probably go on forever. I've also enjoyed this debate.
I am aware of the fact that you can't actually disprove of God. However, there is also no evidence for fairies. Science can't disprove them. Does that mean they exist? Most people don't think so. Whether or not you agree with Richard Dawkins, I'll leave that up to you. An argument I often make is that a supernatural creator doesn't seem to be necessary to explain how the universe works. All the evidence points toward explanations that simply don't need a creator. And of course, if we eventually do discover that a creator is necessary for the universe, we will be met with the even bigger challenge of figuring out which god, if any that we came up with, this creator is.
Now on to the part about feelings like lust. If a woman that I find attractive walks by and I get a sense of sexual arousal, is that a bad thing? I think not. And plus, I'm pretty sure that when couples 'make love,' there is a lust component involved. I can love a women with all my heart, but love alone will not motivate me to have sex with her (though I guess this can depend on what your definition of 'love' is). From what I can see, lust is a vital instinct that drives human motivation for sex, which is needed for procreation. People have to want sex, and lust causes this want to happen.
However, I will say that lust, just like many other feelings, is harmful if done in excess. Lust has the potential to be a bad thing if you let it control your life and your views about the opposite sex. It's definitely been a root of female objectification in our society, but again, this is because lust is being let to control our society. But if one is mindful of his or her lust, then it can actually be a good thing. Without it, then what fun would a couple's sex life be? Obviously love should still be above lust in guiding a relationship. This is probably why so many marriages fail. But that doesn't mean that lust can't play a part.
The thing about the wind is that we can still prove that it's there. We can experience it and we know that it's made up from molecules, which can be detected using scientific means. Noah's Arc, as well as the creation story, are thought by many people to be taken from an earlier Sumerian story called Gilgamesh, although they are altered from the versions in Gilgamesh. I'm not going to make this claim right now because I haven't read Gilgamesh yet. But There is evidence of a large flood in Babylon several thousand years ago. Being such a rare event, it would make sense for stories of it to passed from one generation to the next and eventually written down in whatever form they ended up in.
Anyways, i agree that this argument will probably go on forever. I've also enjoyed this debate.
Posted Feb 13, 2009 1:16 pm PT
evervator: In fact, I don't know 100% for sure that I am right. I consider myself to be roughly 95% sure. However, it would be foolish to conform to a belief because I could be wrong. And a major complication is that even if I conform to a religion, like Christianity, I could still be wrong.
Posted Feb 13, 2009 1:20 pm PT
romo: Tristania is an awesome band. I recommend you look at a lot of their other songs too. A couple other songs I especially like are "Equilibrium" and "Down."
sylentassasin: That's probably one of the biggest problems I have with religion. Which one is right? And all the hatred they have for each other isn't helping the situation. It's no wonder why so many religious wars have led to a huge amount of bloodshed. The worst part is that when many of these groups carry out such violence that they think they are doing God's will.
sylentassasin: That's probably one of the biggest problems I have with religion. Which one is right? And all the hatred they have for each other isn't helping the situation. It's no wonder why so many religious wars have led to a huge amount of bloodshed. The worst part is that when many of these groups carry out such violence that they think they are doing God's will.
Posted Feb 13, 2009 1:28 pm PT
WWinnieF: The thing is that many world religions, like Christianity and Islam, believe their books to be divinely inspired. This would mean that any laws given are the word of God. When it says in the Old Testament to kill adultorers and gays, that's probably supposed to be taken literally because that is the word of God. In Genesis 3:16, when God commands that women be submissive to men, is that command metaphoric? If such laws are metaphoric, my question would be of what are they metaphoric of? It can't be of anything good. And if some parts of the Bible are metaphoric, then how do we know that vital Christian doctrine, like the resurrection, isn't metaphoric when this is the basis of Christianity? This is taken literally as historic fact. And something else to keep in mind is this. Is there evidence in the scriptures that some parts are not literal?
About you part about the afterlife, just because the idea of Heaven is comforting, that doesn't make it true. And of course, it's also possible that all those people ended up in Hell. Surely that can't give a comforting feeling. I know a lot of people in my family who I love dearly. However, they would probably not make it into Heaven if Christianity is true. I thought about them burning in Hell, and it scared me.
Now time for the 'Thou shalt not kill' argument that you made. When Jesus gave his Sermon on the Mount, he talked about turning the other cheek, which basically means that if you are being attacked by an aggressor, you are not to defend yourself with violence. This means that in a kill or be killed situation, you are not to defend yourself, which is a horrible proposition. Although personally, I'd run for my life because that would be the wisest thing to do, in my opinion. BTW, this appears in Matthew 5:38-42 and repeats in Luke 6:27-31.
And if you read through the Old Testament, there are numerous times where God orders men to kill, such as when the walls of Jericho fell. God ordered the Isrealites to kill numerous tribes after they escaped Egypt. They kill only because God commanded it, which is supposed to make it right. This seems to contradict the whole 'Thou Shalt no kill' commandment. And of course, if these commands of violence are metaphoric, I can't see it being of anything good.
About you part about the afterlife, just because the idea of Heaven is comforting, that doesn't make it true. And of course, it's also possible that all those people ended up in Hell. Surely that can't give a comforting feeling. I know a lot of people in my family who I love dearly. However, they would probably not make it into Heaven if Christianity is true. I thought about them burning in Hell, and it scared me.
Now time for the 'Thou shalt not kill' argument that you made. When Jesus gave his Sermon on the Mount, he talked about turning the other cheek, which basically means that if you are being attacked by an aggressor, you are not to defend yourself with violence. This means that in a kill or be killed situation, you are not to defend yourself, which is a horrible proposition. Although personally, I'd run for my life because that would be the wisest thing to do, in my opinion. BTW, this appears in Matthew 5:38-42 and repeats in Luke 6:27-31.
And if you read through the Old Testament, there are numerous times where God orders men to kill, such as when the walls of Jericho fell. God ordered the Isrealites to kill numerous tribes after they escaped Egypt. They kill only because God commanded it, which is supposed to make it right. This seems to contradict the whole 'Thou Shalt no kill' commandment. And of course, if these commands of violence are metaphoric, I can't see it being of anything good.
Posted Feb 13, 2009 1:50 pm PT
Well, while I'm not a believer myself I wouldn't say that I'm sure god don't exist. And by god I don't mean Abrahamic god, but some kind of higher force (or forces) in general. However I'm absolutely against centralised faiths like Catholicism or Islam. They are just totalitarian regimes that want to monopolyse human beliefs. And I don't even want to start how sexist those faiths are. Bible tells that woman isn't really a true human, she is a lesses being created from man to serve him...
Posted Feb 13, 2009 4:39 pm PT
well im catholic, but i don't agree with every single thing my religion tells me. but i still do believe in god and pray. without my faith i would just feel hopeless in this world. but still i have nothing against people who think like you, everyone believes in whatever they want to believe. have a nice week :]
Posted Feb 13, 2009 4:52 pm PT
'"Do as I say, but not as I do" is horse crap.'
And yet, we have people everyday claiming they do good, only to find that they're lying out their backside. We've become nations full of hypcritical beings. It's sad, really. And FYI, who says you need official religion (or consequently, a higher power) to have FAITH? FAITH is itself a belief in something, whether it be a belief in a better tomorrow, a belief in one's own self, a belief that one will find that one person to share one's life with, a belief that there's still magic in the networks of one's youth beyond the corporate BS, etc. Even though science and we humans in general like to have proof of everything, some things--like FAITH--cannot be disproven or proven, because FAITH is a belief system, regardless of whether it is tied to religion (and thus, a higher power) or not. Therefore, to denounce FAITH is to denounce everything, because even scientists believe in their theories, which means they have FAITH in the research they locate or have FAITH in those things that they've come to discover.
And yet, we have people everyday claiming they do good, only to find that they're lying out their backside. We've become nations full of hypcritical beings. It's sad, really. And FYI, who says you need official religion (or consequently, a higher power) to have FAITH? FAITH is itself a belief in something, whether it be a belief in a better tomorrow, a belief in one's own self, a belief that one will find that one person to share one's life with, a belief that there's still magic in the networks of one's youth beyond the corporate BS, etc. Even though science and we humans in general like to have proof of everything, some things--like FAITH--cannot be disproven or proven, because FAITH is a belief system, regardless of whether it is tied to religion (and thus, a higher power) or not. Therefore, to denounce FAITH is to denounce everything, because even scientists believe in their theories, which means they have FAITH in the research they locate or have FAITH in those things that they've come to discover.
Posted Feb 14, 2009 10:17 am PT
WinnieF: Personally, I'm against religion, particularly the major world religions. I'm not saying that faith is in itself a bad thing. This is not a blog against faith. This blog is about religion, which, in my opinion is not a very good thing to have faith in. Its morality is flawed and is based on whether or not God (or the gods) command it, not whether or not the morals are actually good or bad.
And of course scientists have faith that science is correct. But they have good reason to do so because science offers consistent results that can be tested. Science has proved itself to be very reliable, so as such, I feel safe putting my cards down for it. Because these results better explain the universe than religion does, it seems more sensible to me to put my faith on science, not religion. That's why scientists also believe in the theories they believe are true. Because theories have provided consistent results, they have a good reason to believe them to be true. You see, to put my faith in something, I need a good reason to do so. Religion is a very immense topic that deals with not only this life, but a possible afterlife that can possibly result in eternal torture. Millions upon millions have died because of religious conflicts and rules. To me, something this important has to give me a good reason to believe it's true. Now on to your part about a belief system, which can be a system of morals. Of course I have such a belief system. I believe that values like love and selflessness are beneficial to society. But I don't blindly believe these are right. History has consistently shown that these moral beliefs are in fact beneficial to myself and everyone else around me. I myself have experienced the benefits of kindness and the consequences of being malicious. I have also experienced the benefit of being optimistic about the next day. It's emotionally healthy. As such, I have a very good reason to believing in good morals because those are the ones that have shown themselves to be good. And best of all, I have them because I believe them to be right, not because I am commanded by a god to follow them.
I have never declared faith to be a bad thing. Never once have I said that it is morally wrong to believe in something you can't prove or disprove with complete certainty. But I think faith should be reasonable. I have a good reason to believe in the truth of science and I have a damn good reason to believe in the truth of good morals. But I have found not a single good reason to believe that religion is true. It is very important to note that 'faith' is an abstraction and many people think of it differently. It's possible that you and I have two different views on faith. I generally think of having faith as having a belief that something probably is or probably is not true. This belief may or may not have a rational basis. It is different than 'to know.' When I jump, I don't have faith that I'll fall back down. I know with 100% certainty that I'll fall back down. I am pretty certain that religion is untrue based on strong rational arguments against it, but I'm not 100% certain. I'm more like 95% certain that I'm right. I have faith that I'm right but I feel that I feel that have a strong argument to support my case. The main doubt I have is that I do not have all the possible evidence for or against religion. But until I feel I've heard a strong case for religion, I'm going to retain my current view on the subject.
And of course scientists have faith that science is correct. But they have good reason to do so because science offers consistent results that can be tested. Science has proved itself to be very reliable, so as such, I feel safe putting my cards down for it. Because these results better explain the universe than religion does, it seems more sensible to me to put my faith on science, not religion. That's why scientists also believe in the theories they believe are true. Because theories have provided consistent results, they have a good reason to believe them to be true. You see, to put my faith in something, I need a good reason to do so. Religion is a very immense topic that deals with not only this life, but a possible afterlife that can possibly result in eternal torture. Millions upon millions have died because of religious conflicts and rules. To me, something this important has to give me a good reason to believe it's true. Now on to your part about a belief system, which can be a system of morals. Of course I have such a belief system. I believe that values like love and selflessness are beneficial to society. But I don't blindly believe these are right. History has consistently shown that these moral beliefs are in fact beneficial to myself and everyone else around me. I myself have experienced the benefits of kindness and the consequences of being malicious. I have also experienced the benefit of being optimistic about the next day. It's emotionally healthy. As such, I have a very good reason to believing in good morals because those are the ones that have shown themselves to be good. And best of all, I have them because I believe them to be right, not because I am commanded by a god to follow them.
I have never declared faith to be a bad thing. Never once have I said that it is morally wrong to believe in something you can't prove or disprove with complete certainty. But I think faith should be reasonable. I have a good reason to believe in the truth of science and I have a damn good reason to believe in the truth of good morals. But I have found not a single good reason to believe that religion is true. It is very important to note that 'faith' is an abstraction and many people think of it differently. It's possible that you and I have two different views on faith. I generally think of having faith as having a belief that something probably is or probably is not true. This belief may or may not have a rational basis. It is different than 'to know.' When I jump, I don't have faith that I'll fall back down. I know with 100% certainty that I'll fall back down. I am pretty certain that religion is untrue based on strong rational arguments against it, but I'm not 100% certain. I'm more like 95% certain that I'm right. I have faith that I'm right but I feel that I feel that have a strong argument to support my case. The main doubt I have is that I do not have all the possible evidence for or against religion. But until I feel I've heard a strong case for religion, I'm going to retain my current view on the subject.
Posted Feb 14, 2009 4:56 pm PT
Iromaru: To me, there's no reason to believe that a creator of any kind exists. But if one does exist, I sure hope that it's not a god thought up by humans. For now, I'm not going to say that a creator exists unless there is a good reason for me to believe so.
nickel2006: Well, whatever works for you. And I hope your week also goes well.
nickel2006: Well, whatever works for you. And I hope your week also goes well.
Posted Feb 14, 2009 5:00 pm PT
LOL Naruto Taco's ...HEYYYYYYYY DSZ Long time about a year or two... well its ya boy .... Lightningspark... How ya going... GS been losing ppl or something ... well i hope all is well .... drop in a line and let me knw how things with you... Cool Cool BLOG BTW ... i see you still up to ya antics... lol .... 
Posted Feb 14, 2009 8:12 pm PT
Here's the thing though...according to many biblical scholars, many stories of the Holy Books do carry metaphorical meaning. For example, the classic Christmas story. Research has shown that Jesus was not truly born around Christmastime "in a manager with no crib for a bed" (as the song goes), but that rather--were he to exist--that he was born in a small cave just near Bethlehem. The manager though, has remained a part of Christmas tradition, not because of its questionable origin, but because of the constant slew of specials on television and tales in storybooks that've made it a key factor in the birth of the Judo-Christian savior. Even with the metaphorical tales in some parts of the Holy Scripture, some parts have been found to exist, such as the Ark of Noah, a lenin garment bearing the face of Jesus that very well could've been the very cloth that Jesus wore on his last days as a human, and even some writings that are not a part of the traditional Gospels, because these writings tell another side to the stories told in The Word. So, if God or Jesus were made-up (heaven forbid), how could it be that writers from the past who wrote some hundred years apart could--like the Myans--predict some future occurances or even leave traces of their civilization, thereby further allowing for investigation as to how some biblical aspects have factual backing when others do not? I mean, for all we know, the reason The Word doesn't mention the dinosaurs could've been because--as per your multiverse suggestion--something (or someone) could've thrown the meteor into the Earth (destroying it once), could've created the supposed tales relayed in Genesis & Exodus only to cause the infamous flood (destroying the Earth twice [although the flood was probably small, other occurances probably also took place alongside it, but since the flood was the most notable, it's largely remembered]), and finally, could've made the Earth into the way it is now with the help of what we humans consider science.
Posted Feb 15, 2009 7:41 am PT
Light: It's sure been a while. I'm glad to hear from you. And actually, this is the first time in a long time that I mentioned human flesh tacos. I'm glad you liked this blog.
And actually, this is the first time in a long time that I mentioned human flesh tacos. I'm glad you liked this blog.
Posted Feb 15, 2009 9:53 pm PT
WinnieF: The main reason why Jesus's birth is celebrated was to phase out a pagan holiday called Yule. And as far as I know, there is no evidence for Noah's Ark. If the story were true, Noah would have had to collect who knows how many millions of species, fit them in the boat, and keep them alive for several months. Plus, a flood that covers the tallest mountains would have left a huge amount of geological evidence all across the world. There is no reason to believe this story literally happened.
It is important to note that not even Christians can't agree on whether or not the entire Bible should be taken literally. A very large percentage of the U.S. population and many Christian theologians think the Bible is indeed literal truth. But regardless of whether or not it's literal, the Bible must still be inerrant in issues regarding faith and practice. It's regarded as being 'divinely inspired,' so it must be at least spiritially perfect. When God commands in Leviticus 20:13 that gays are to be put to death, that's probably supposed to be taken literally. I don't see any other way to take that verse. The same goes with other, countless verses, like Deuteronomy 25:11-12. Or Genesis 3:16, where God declares that women shall have pain in childbirth and be ruled over by their husbands as a result of original sin. We can clearly see that women experience pain in childbearing, which means that if Christianity is true, Genesis 3:16 is probably supposed to be taken literally and women are indeed supposed to submit to their husbands. These commands, and countless others, especially those in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, help to demonstrate the flawed morality of the Christian religion. There isn't any other way to take these parts except to take them literally. And if the morality presented is flawed, then there can't be a perfect god delivering it. If you read through these sections, like all of Leviticus 20, it's obvious that these laws are man-made, not divine.
As for the part about prophecy, I have not completely discredited it. But if legit prophecies can occur, does is it evidence for the Judeo-Christian god? Since prophecies happen across cultures and religions (like the 2012 prophecies), I don't think they point to any single, particular god.
It is important to note that not even Christians can't agree on whether or not the entire Bible should be taken literally. A very large percentage of the U.S. population and many Christian theologians think the Bible is indeed literal truth. But regardless of whether or not it's literal, the Bible must still be inerrant in issues regarding faith and practice. It's regarded as being 'divinely inspired,' so it must be at least spiritially perfect. When God commands in Leviticus 20:13 that gays are to be put to death, that's probably supposed to be taken literally. I don't see any other way to take that verse. The same goes with other, countless verses, like Deuteronomy 25:11-12. Or Genesis 3:16, where God declares that women shall have pain in childbirth and be ruled over by their husbands as a result of original sin. We can clearly see that women experience pain in childbearing, which means that if Christianity is true, Genesis 3:16 is probably supposed to be taken literally and women are indeed supposed to submit to their husbands. These commands, and countless others, especially those in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, help to demonstrate the flawed morality of the Christian religion. There isn't any other way to take these parts except to take them literally. And if the morality presented is flawed, then there can't be a perfect god delivering it. If you read through these sections, like all of Leviticus 20, it's obvious that these laws are man-made, not divine.
As for the part about prophecy, I have not completely discredited it. But if legit prophecies can occur, does is it evidence for the Judeo-Christian god? Since prophecies happen across cultures and religions (like the 2012 prophecies), I don't think they point to any single, particular god.
Posted Feb 15, 2009 10:51 pm PT
Here's one example of how the Bible is not literal (i.e. that it is stating something on the basis of context, the time period, the climate, or what have you). Where you note the place "where God declares that women shall have pain in childbirth and be ruled over by their husbands as a result of original sin", a reader can easily realize that although the pain of childbearing is universal across time and space, the idea of women being second to their husbands in terms of power and equality only serves to reinforce the traditional cultural beliefs of the time period (and even to this day unfortunately, women still get the short end of the stick, even though they've been fighting for an equal representation for years). Obviously, it is true that a lot of these laws are man-made and are therefore baised, but everything is itself biased, even if the law created was originally imposed to protect citizens (ex: The law "Thou Shalt Not Kil" was meant to protect humanity from ruthlessly killing each other like barbaric animals, but yet, in kill-or-be-killed situations, death still occurs, because of the human need for self-preservation [ex: Such as protecting self and loved ones from psychos] and because of certain people desiring to off their own kind or certain peoples they loathe [ex: Wartime strategies like Hitler's geocide of the Jewish population]). Not even science is immmune to this, for not less than two decades ago, Pluto was considered to be a miniscule planet by scientists. But nowadays, science tells us that it's not an official planet...it's a drawf. So, even science--like religion--is subject to new ideas, beliefs, research, etc.
Posted Feb 16, 2009 1:54 pm PT
WinnieF: If God's holy book can be influenced by human biases, then it is clearly not divinely inspired. This applies to all religions. To declare laws from the scriptures spiritailly false means to invalidate the scriptures, and puts them in question. What good is following a religion if its scriptures aren't reliable? For any holy book to be reliable, it has to be free from cultural, human biases and values. It must only reflect divine truth.
The Bible clearly isn't divine. Obviously the creation story (and the rest of the Bible) was written by a highly patriarchal, primitive society. The cultural values of this society show all throughout the Bible.
The Bible clearly isn't divine. Obviously the creation story (and the rest of the Bible) was written by a highly patriarchal, primitive society. The cultural values of this society show all throughout the Bible.
Posted Feb 16, 2009 4:16 pm PT
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Posted Feb 16, 2009 4:16 pm PT
i bielve in go but think it all is more complex yet simpler then we think it is..if that makes sense
Posted Feb 17, 2009 9:40 am PT
lol its cool but it not like the Good old days with the stupidity we use to do... lol ... human flesh tacos Original stuff .... i should destroy you for that but i go spare ya this time .. LOL human flesh tacos.....
Posted Feb 17, 2009 4:11 pm PT
creamylemon: That makes sense. But if there is a god, I doubt it's anything like what we've ever conceived of. Light: *devours you and then my demon pig-dog demons take the scraps* You should have gotten me when you had the chance.
Posted Feb 18, 2009 5:40 pm PT
Page
1
« prev
|
next »
Friends
My Friends
Cadefan22