Well, how can you say there is anything out there? The multiverse is so beyond our grasp at this time, its kinda useless to speculate because we really dont know anything. Also if there is some sort of force in out universe, why should it be higher than us? We are part of it, if it exists.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious The Atheism/Agnosticism thread
- Thread starter Adamant Zoroark
- Start date
Alright so, the original plan was just to edit this into my other post when I got back form home. I got to writing and ended up spending all night and most of today writing this. I figured just making a new post was appropriate.
Your hypothetical response isn't particularly surprising; I imagine that a lot of people feel the same way and would "atone" as well. The reasoning by which you justify this response, however, I have a few issues with. Well, only one, really: why are you assuming that this hypothetical God is an asshole?
I mean, yes, the Bible doesn't exactly paint God in the brightest of colors. Or even those moderately acceptable mid-tones you'd use to paint your room so the walls don't keep you up at night. However, it is also the flippin' Bible (TM.). As Shade has demonstrated in this thread, the Bible attributes divine intervention to events that have completely rational explanations behind them (specifically, the snake bite). If a piece of literature meant to spread His word and keep an accurate record of events that are supposed to help prove His existence (if this last part isn't true, people certainly have a tendency to treat it as though it is supposed to be) is full of holes, contradictions, and logical fallacies, why would you assume that it managed to portray God accurately?
In saying that, compelling evidence for the existence of God does not necessarily equate to compelling evidence for the existence of God as humanity has portrayed Him. By extension, this also does not mean that His laws, punishments, and rewards are accurate, either. In addition to that, even if compelling evidence for the existence of the God that Christians, Muslims, and Jews worship was presented, it probably wouldn't be strong enough to tell who was right. Each of those religions is also accompanied by its own set of denominations and other dividers. For example, Christianity is divided between the Catholics and the Protestants. The Protestants take this division even further with their Baptist and Lutheran churches. Muslims have the Sunni and the Shiites, too. I would talk about the Jews, butfuck Judaism I don't actually know anything about them. They probably have their own sects as well. All of them share different views on His laws and how He should be worshiped - who's to say any of them are even right?
Until the Lord Almighty himself drops by for some real talk to actually tell us which religion got it right, no one really has any reason to believe in a God who's an asshole. As we have already noted however, the Christian / Muslim / Judaic God is pretty much an asshole (assuming, of course, that their holy books portray him accurately), and dismissing these religions because they choose to worship a deity whom they (they being the ones dismissing it) believe to be an asshole is pretty reasonable. At least, I find it more reasonable than choosing to believe that God is an asshole and worship him because new evidence was found to support His existence, and not because this evidence was augmented by even more evidence that He actually is an asshole. That said, I don't support dismissing the existence of God entirely solely because people choose to worship Him as a huge, throbbing penis-head (a point I believe you made in your post). I'll get to what I do and don't believe about God later, though.
Basically, the hypothetical you've posted doesn't really give you a good reason to believe that God is an asshole. Evidence of His existence is just that - you still have the flexibility to incorporate other meaningful beliefs into how you choose to seek 'atonement'. Of course, this entire point hinges on just what "compelling evidence" entails, but I don't think I'm up for debating a million different hypotheticals. Also, if I happened to assume too much about your post, I apologize. I'm sure you'll let me know, though.
__
All that aside, I’m actually happy Jorgen posted what he did. It highlights one of my major issues with organized religion (or maybe just religion in general): people believe in an asshole.
Whether that decision is conscious or not is probably up for debate due to the fact that most people more than likely only believe in God because their parents did (so, re: indoctrination), but that’s for another discussion.
I find that religion is often the lifeblood for a lot of the bigotry and hatred that impedes our progression to a more idealized world (a sentiment that I imagine is shared by many others in this thread). I also think that most of this stems from the belief that God must be infallible and the Bible must be taken literally. What I don’t understand though, is why God must be flawless and why the Bible must be taken literally. Hell, even in Louisiana, where people are super hardcore about their religion, they teach you that the Bible wasn’t actually put together until 200-300 years after Jesus died. If Jesus wasn’t even around to QC Check the book’s skeleton, why should it be viewed as a reliable source of (factual) information?
People are more than capable of incorporating their own values into the religious practices. Many religious individuals I have met recognize that there’s no real way to determine who’s right and who’s wrong; they feel that as long as you believe in God, you’re good. Others think that as long as you’re a good person, you’re good. While I understand that the purpose of religion is to provide a sense of community through solidarity of belief, couldn’t the same thing be accomplished if you didn’t allow religion to become such a pervasive part of your life?
Not that I feel you shouldn’t treat your religious beliefs as an important facet of your life. Rather, I wonder why many individuals refuse to personalize their religious beliefs and instead rely on the testament (hee hee) of a 2000 year-old book for an accurate portrayal of their creator.
Working at Pizza Hut introduced me to all kinds of people. For a while, I worked alongside a religious fellow named Daniel. I don’t remember what religious denomination he subscribed to, but he was fun to be around most of the time. He’d usually come to me with some pretty unique questions (“Gabe, how do I make my sperm taste better?”; “If I was gay, would you go out with me?”). Stuff like that. The differences in our views made our conversations entertaining, and the insight he provided into that sort of mentality was invaluable.
The conversations weren’t always so positive, though. One day we started discussing kids and adoption and he told me that my sexual orientation made me unfit to raise children.
It made me absolutely furious to hear that.
Most of the people who pass that kind of judgment don’t fucking know me. Why would this guy, who’s actually gotten to know me, continue to perceive sexual orientation as a meaningful moniker of morality (fuck yeah, alliteration)? I would think that one’s ability to fulfill their children’s physical and emotional needs would be more pertinent qualifiers of parenthood. It was baffling and very hurtful.
Not all of my experiences have been like this, though. My friend Alexis very cute was not exactly like this, but my religious stance and sexual orientation made him kind of uncomfortable for a bit, I think. When he learned that I was an atheist he was really shocked, reasoning his surprise by explaining that I “was a good person.” When I decided to confide in him about my sexual orientation, he took that to mean that I was hitting on him. I have many wonderful memories from talking with him while walking around Stonebridge’s golf course.
It took him a long time to come to terms with the fact that there was nothing wrong with me being an atheist homosexual. He made me tag along with him to church for the longest time. I didn’t really have a reason to say no; he told me that he was lonely and needed a buddy. From my understanding he believed that these trips to church were good for me, too. He must have been hoping that listening to the preacher would somehow “save” me.
Eventually, I couldn’t take it anymore. One day the preacher started talking about how pagans and prostitutes are terrible people and I was visibly livid. Alex had obviously noticed because later he asked me what was wrong. I told him that it made me physically sick to be in a room full of the kind of people who would just eat that shit up. It made me feel anxious and alienated and it was just an uncomfortable experience each and every time I went.
He stopped taking me after that. He understood that what he was doing was more hurtful than it was helpful and never brought up my religious inclination or homosexuality in that sort of context ever again. The remainder of our time together was spent playing video games and dicking around Bossier / Shreveport until like 3 in the morning.
Haha, I really miss him. I hope remembers my address, otherwise he won’t be able to write me from basic training.
ANYWAYS
For all the devout smogonites whose religious inclinations breathe life into a God that would punish me for thinking dick is pretty awesome, condemn Princess Bubblegum for looking beautiful in a dress*, and cast into hell every other atheist in this thread because He has failed to provide them with compelling evidence of His existence, I ask you:
Why do you believe in God the way you do?**
A bit of clarity: this is not meant to question your faith. I respect your right to believe what you want and am not trying to sway you from your Lord’s path; just trying to sate my curiosity. None of the characteristics I have listed are meaningful determinants of someone’s moral compass. Even being religious does not automatically make you a good person. Why isn’t being a good person enough to get one into ‘Heaven’? Faith in God doesn’t actually matter until after you’re already dead, but being a good person has an impact on the world around you and the people in your life. So then, why is faith in God more important than being a good person?
*Everyone looks beautiful in a dress; Princess Bubblegum is obviously no exception.
**I have absolutely no idea if this is appropriate for this thread. Posters like mattj and Strange_Matter have been participating, so I figured why not. I’ll move it to the other religion thread if asked, though.
__
This is probably as good a time as any to talk about why I am an atheist.
I began my subscription to atheism at a very young age, but religion wasn’t a particularly large facet of my life until I got older. In middle school I was absolutely unbearable, and could only be described as The poster-child for ‘those’ kinds of atheists. I was very aggressive with my beliefs, and had a tendency to shove it in people’s faces when the opportunity presented itself. It was pretty bad.
I mellowed out as I got older, though. Louisiana played a really big role in that, since my beliefs were constantly under siege and I was forced to recognize what about myself I saw in others and why I didn’t like it. My Grandmother moving in with us added to this, too. She pretty much indoctrinated the rest of my family by force. The transformation was pretty scary – religion had never been a large part of our household, and now everyone was going to church every Sunday, saying the rosary every night, and being asked to pray that Obama loses the election. Before that, it was usually limited to conversations about religion between me, my Mother, and my Father.
I remember a time when religion was actually brought up in class by one of my teachers. His argument essentially boiled down to “How do you think (religious) people feel knowing that someone they care about is going to hell?” I was so flabbergasted that I couldn’t respond. I wish I had though, I probably would have asked why I should give a fuck. Just as I choose to acknowledge that compelling evidence for the existence of God has yet to be discovered, the individuals he was referring to choose to believe that God would condemn me to hell for something so petty. The major difference between the two of those choices though, is that mine is reasonable and theirs is shitty and intrinsically harmful.
Experiences like that, and also the one’s I have described throughout this post, have really helped to shape my religious beliefs. Recently I have found myself fixated on the irrationality of it all. Not in the idea that God is real, but in the consequences of discovering compelling evidence of his existence, or if we could somehow prove that he was real.
This kind of ties back in with Jorgen’s hypothetical. If compelling evidence for the existence of God was discovered, nothing happening is one of the most realistic scenarios. Yeah, religious people get to rub it in the face of atheists everywhere, but so what? The evidence more than likely wouldn’t be strong enough to prove who has it right. Ergo, everyone goes back to arguing, disease / war / poverty still needs to be cured / avoided / eliminated, and life moves on. The only difference is that most atheists will probably adopt religious beliefs that mirror what I’ve been discussing while the hardcore ones retain their skepticism.
Of course, the alternative is like, the exact opposite of that. I imagine that this compelling evidence could potentially inspire radical religious factions to take action in the name of God. History has shown us that people have been willing to do horrible and irrational things in the name of something they couldn’t prove – I couldn’t begin to fathom what would happen if people actually had bona-fide scientific evidence with which to justify their actions.
Basically, in the event that compelling evidence for the existence of God is discovered, it’s probably safe to assume that either nothing significant will happen, or that a lot of horrible, terrible, awful shit will. In recognizing that, it’s kind of funny to me that some people feel compelled to try and prove the existence of God. I mean, not only is that really silly given that faith is kind of like the defining characteristic of religion, but the world is probably better off not knowing for sure anyways.
None of that really explains why I am an atheist, though. To be perfectly honest, I initially adopted atheism when I was younger because my Mother told me that if I prayed hard enough, I would have a baby brother. Well, I got a little sister instead. I was eight years old (or younger) and I wasn’t rewarded doing what I was supposed to. So that kind of rattled the foundations for my faith. It didn’t help that church was also really fucking boring and I just didn’t have the attention span to listen to a preacher praise Jesus for an hour and a half.
As I got older, met a lot of people, and learned more about the world around me, I came to the conclusion that I just didn’t have any reason to believe. So I don’t.
Okay, my headache is gone and my sister's in Colorado (these two things are not related). Let's see if I can't give a more adequate and concise response.
Your hypothetical response isn't particularly surprising; I imagine that a lot of people feel the same way and would "atone" as well. The reasoning by which you justify this response, however, I have a few issues with. Well, only one, really: why are you assuming that this hypothetical God is an asshole?
I mean, yes, the Bible doesn't exactly paint God in the brightest of colors. Or even those moderately acceptable mid-tones you'd use to paint your room so the walls don't keep you up at night. However, it is also the flippin' Bible (TM.). As Shade has demonstrated in this thread, the Bible attributes divine intervention to events that have completely rational explanations behind them (specifically, the snake bite). If a piece of literature meant to spread His word and keep an accurate record of events that are supposed to help prove His existence (if this last part isn't true, people certainly have a tendency to treat it as though it is supposed to be) is full of holes, contradictions, and logical fallacies, why would you assume that it managed to portray God accurately?
In saying that, compelling evidence for the existence of God does not necessarily equate to compelling evidence for the existence of God as humanity has portrayed Him. By extension, this also does not mean that His laws, punishments, and rewards are accurate, either. In addition to that, even if compelling evidence for the existence of the God that Christians, Muslims, and Jews worship was presented, it probably wouldn't be strong enough to tell who was right. Each of those religions is also accompanied by its own set of denominations and other dividers. For example, Christianity is divided between the Catholics and the Protestants. The Protestants take this division even further with their Baptist and Lutheran churches. Muslims have the Sunni and the Shiites, too. I would talk about the Jews, but
Until the Lord Almighty himself drops by for some real talk to actually tell us which religion got it right, no one really has any reason to believe in a God who's an asshole. As we have already noted however, the Christian / Muslim / Judaic God is pretty much an asshole (assuming, of course, that their holy books portray him accurately), and dismissing these religions because they choose to worship a deity whom they (they being the ones dismissing it) believe to be an asshole is pretty reasonable. At least, I find it more reasonable than choosing to believe that God is an asshole and worship him because new evidence was found to support His existence, and not because this evidence was augmented by even more evidence that He actually is an asshole. That said, I don't support dismissing the existence of God entirely solely because people choose to worship Him as a huge, throbbing penis-head (a point I believe you made in your post). I'll get to what I do and don't believe about God later, though.
Basically, the hypothetical you've posted doesn't really give you a good reason to believe that God is an asshole. Evidence of His existence is just that - you still have the flexibility to incorporate other meaningful beliefs into how you choose to seek 'atonement'. Of course, this entire point hinges on just what "compelling evidence" entails, but I don't think I'm up for debating a million different hypotheticals. Also, if I happened to assume too much about your post, I apologize. I'm sure you'll let me know, though.
__
All that aside, I’m actually happy Jorgen posted what he did. It highlights one of my major issues with organized religion (or maybe just religion in general): people believe in an asshole.
Whether that decision is conscious or not is probably up for debate due to the fact that most people more than likely only believe in God because their parents did (so, re: indoctrination), but that’s for another discussion.
I find that religion is often the lifeblood for a lot of the bigotry and hatred that impedes our progression to a more idealized world (a sentiment that I imagine is shared by many others in this thread). I also think that most of this stems from the belief that God must be infallible and the Bible must be taken literally. What I don’t understand though, is why God must be flawless and why the Bible must be taken literally. Hell, even in Louisiana, where people are super hardcore about their religion, they teach you that the Bible wasn’t actually put together until 200-300 years after Jesus died. If Jesus wasn’t even around to QC Check the book’s skeleton, why should it be viewed as a reliable source of (factual) information?
People are more than capable of incorporating their own values into the religious practices. Many religious individuals I have met recognize that there’s no real way to determine who’s right and who’s wrong; they feel that as long as you believe in God, you’re good. Others think that as long as you’re a good person, you’re good. While I understand that the purpose of religion is to provide a sense of community through solidarity of belief, couldn’t the same thing be accomplished if you didn’t allow religion to become such a pervasive part of your life?
Not that I feel you shouldn’t treat your religious beliefs as an important facet of your life. Rather, I wonder why many individuals refuse to personalize their religious beliefs and instead rely on the testament (hee hee) of a 2000 year-old book for an accurate portrayal of their creator.
Working at Pizza Hut introduced me to all kinds of people. For a while, I worked alongside a religious fellow named Daniel. I don’t remember what religious denomination he subscribed to, but he was fun to be around most of the time. He’d usually come to me with some pretty unique questions (“Gabe, how do I make my sperm taste better?”; “If I was gay, would you go out with me?”). Stuff like that. The differences in our views made our conversations entertaining, and the insight he provided into that sort of mentality was invaluable.
The conversations weren’t always so positive, though. One day we started discussing kids and adoption and he told me that my sexual orientation made me unfit to raise children.
It made me absolutely furious to hear that.
Most of the people who pass that kind of judgment don’t fucking know me. Why would this guy, who’s actually gotten to know me, continue to perceive sexual orientation as a meaningful moniker of morality (fuck yeah, alliteration)? I would think that one’s ability to fulfill their children’s physical and emotional needs would be more pertinent qualifiers of parenthood. It was baffling and very hurtful.
Not all of my experiences have been like this, though. My friend Alex
It took him a long time to come to terms with the fact that there was nothing wrong with me being an atheist homosexual. He made me tag along with him to church for the longest time. I didn’t really have a reason to say no; he told me that he was lonely and needed a buddy. From my understanding he believed that these trips to church were good for me, too. He must have been hoping that listening to the preacher would somehow “save” me.
Eventually, I couldn’t take it anymore. One day the preacher started talking about how pagans and prostitutes are terrible people and I was visibly livid. Alex had obviously noticed because later he asked me what was wrong. I told him that it made me physically sick to be in a room full of the kind of people who would just eat that shit up. It made me feel anxious and alienated and it was just an uncomfortable experience each and every time I went.
He stopped taking me after that. He understood that what he was doing was more hurtful than it was helpful and never brought up my religious inclination or homosexuality in that sort of context ever again. The remainder of our time together was spent playing video games and dicking around Bossier / Shreveport until like 3 in the morning.
Haha, I really miss him. I hope remembers my address, otherwise he won’t be able to write me from basic training.
ANYWAYS
For all the devout smogonites whose religious inclinations breathe life into a God that would punish me for thinking dick is pretty awesome, condemn Princess Bubblegum for looking beautiful in a dress*, and cast into hell every other atheist in this thread because He has failed to provide them with compelling evidence of His existence, I ask you:
Why do you believe in God the way you do?**
A bit of clarity: this is not meant to question your faith. I respect your right to believe what you want and am not trying to sway you from your Lord’s path; just trying to sate my curiosity. None of the characteristics I have listed are meaningful determinants of someone’s moral compass. Even being religious does not automatically make you a good person. Why isn’t being a good person enough to get one into ‘Heaven’? Faith in God doesn’t actually matter until after you’re already dead, but being a good person has an impact on the world around you and the people in your life. So then, why is faith in God more important than being a good person?
*Everyone looks beautiful in a dress; Princess Bubblegum is obviously no exception.
**I have absolutely no idea if this is appropriate for this thread. Posters like mattj and Strange_Matter have been participating, so I figured why not. I’ll move it to the other religion thread if asked, though.
__
This is probably as good a time as any to talk about why I am an atheist.
I began my subscription to atheism at a very young age, but religion wasn’t a particularly large facet of my life until I got older. In middle school I was absolutely unbearable, and could only be described as The poster-child for ‘those’ kinds of atheists. I was very aggressive with my beliefs, and had a tendency to shove it in people’s faces when the opportunity presented itself. It was pretty bad.
I mellowed out as I got older, though. Louisiana played a really big role in that, since my beliefs were constantly under siege and I was forced to recognize what about myself I saw in others and why I didn’t like it. My Grandmother moving in with us added to this, too. She pretty much indoctrinated the rest of my family by force. The transformation was pretty scary – religion had never been a large part of our household, and now everyone was going to church every Sunday, saying the rosary every night, and being asked to pray that Obama loses the election. Before that, it was usually limited to conversations about religion between me, my Mother, and my Father.
I remember a time when religion was actually brought up in class by one of my teachers. His argument essentially boiled down to “How do you think (religious) people feel knowing that someone they care about is going to hell?” I was so flabbergasted that I couldn’t respond. I wish I had though, I probably would have asked why I should give a fuck. Just as I choose to acknowledge that compelling evidence for the existence of God has yet to be discovered, the individuals he was referring to choose to believe that God would condemn me to hell for something so petty. The major difference between the two of those choices though, is that mine is reasonable and theirs is shitty and intrinsically harmful.
Experiences like that, and also the one’s I have described throughout this post, have really helped to shape my religious beliefs. Recently I have found myself fixated on the irrationality of it all. Not in the idea that God is real, but in the consequences of discovering compelling evidence of his existence, or if we could somehow prove that he was real.
This kind of ties back in with Jorgen’s hypothetical. If compelling evidence for the existence of God was discovered, nothing happening is one of the most realistic scenarios. Yeah, religious people get to rub it in the face of atheists everywhere, but so what? The evidence more than likely wouldn’t be strong enough to prove who has it right. Ergo, everyone goes back to arguing, disease / war / poverty still needs to be cured / avoided / eliminated, and life moves on. The only difference is that most atheists will probably adopt religious beliefs that mirror what I’ve been discussing while the hardcore ones retain their skepticism.
Of course, the alternative is like, the exact opposite of that. I imagine that this compelling evidence could potentially inspire radical religious factions to take action in the name of God. History has shown us that people have been willing to do horrible and irrational things in the name of something they couldn’t prove – I couldn’t begin to fathom what would happen if people actually had bona-fide scientific evidence with which to justify their actions.
Basically, in the event that compelling evidence for the existence of God is discovered, it’s probably safe to assume that either nothing significant will happen, or that a lot of horrible, terrible, awful shit will. In recognizing that, it’s kind of funny to me that some people feel compelled to try and prove the existence of God. I mean, not only is that really silly given that faith is kind of like the defining characteristic of religion, but the world is probably better off not knowing for sure anyways.
None of that really explains why I am an atheist, though. To be perfectly honest, I initially adopted atheism when I was younger because my Mother told me that if I prayed hard enough, I would have a baby brother. Well, I got a little sister instead. I was eight years old (or younger) and I wasn’t rewarded doing what I was supposed to. So that kind of rattled the foundations for my faith. It didn’t help that church was also really fucking boring and I just didn’t have the attention span to listen to a preacher praise Jesus for an hour and a half.
As I got older, met a lot of people, and learned more about the world around me, I came to the conclusion that I just didn’t have any reason to believe. So I don’t.
Last edited:
First of all, you're treading dangerous ground when you talk about choosing your beliefs. It's pretty obvious that beliefs can't be changed arbitrarily. No matter how hard I try, I will never believe that the world is flat, unless there evidence that somehow overturns the mountains of evidence that I have becomes known to me. I can only ignore the cognitive dissonance and try to convince myself that I believe something that I really don't. I doubt that you could choose to go into other religions, either, at least not at the moment. Depending on your environment, you could have very much or very little control over what you get to believe, as well as what you get to profess a belief in. Legal enforcement of rights only goes so far. You can't reasonably arrest someone for raising his child in an environment where she's taught a specific belief system and given "safeguards" against opposing beliefs in advance, so that she never gets to fairly weigh the beliefs until she's in her 30s or something.
People have addressed the anecdotes already. You've been getting somewhat hostile with these responses, and I guess I understand that. Nobody really likes to be told that there's an alternative explanation to things they so clearly experienced. You have to understand, though, that anecdotal evidence like that is very weak evidence. It's not admissible in court, and a whole variety of pseudoscientific nonsense passes that standard of evidence. We can't even verify what you're saying. In a scientific test, you have to ask precise questions, set up a method that others can replicate, and gather data meticulously. Failure to do any of these opens the test up to unfalsifiability and manipulation, whether or not it's intended.
I suppose the real reason I'm actually posting, though, is this "New Creature" thing. The thing is, anybody can claim and firmly believe that changing their religious beliefs has changed their life for the better, and/or made them a better person. Many deconverted atheists would profess that leaving their religion has made them better people. I think I became a better person after I stopped believing. I became open to new perspectives regardless of how unfavourable they were to religion. I became less apathetic, and I started caring more about other people. When I stopped seeing things as part of God's plan, I had no more excuses for not caring. If I wanted the world to change, it was my responsibility to be part of that change, and to make sure that I'm actually doing it effectively, rather than doing things for the warm fuzzy feeling of pretending I was making a difference.
I actually cared more about other people, although I am still an aloof person now, when I became a Catholic. I believe all humans are created in God's image and for His glory.
I was quite an existential nihilist when I was an agnostic. If you watched the Japanese Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's anime, I related the most to the character of Aporia. So much despair (zetsubou), pain (itami) and suffering (Kurushimi) in the world. My secular world view was not as liberating as you perceived it to be.
Last edited:
Just saying, im fine with what you believe however I have a couple of issue's with what you said. one, if one has found that they recieve great joy in something wouldn't they want to share that happiness with their children? Second what's the point of being on this earth in the first place if god just made all of our problems just magically poof out of exsistance? We grow from suffering, and we learn from our mistakes. As for murderers, we all have the ability to make our own choices whether good or bad. Those are the only things I have to say about that
sure they can share happiness with their children, i am all for children being happy, i never said i had a problem with that. i said i had a problem with teaching children that such unsubstantiated claims are TRUE. when you start telling children: christianity is the true religion; the world is 6,000 years old; the qu'ran is infallible; evolution is false; and other such baseless claims, that is when 'sharing happiness' becomes 'indoctrination'. children should be raised with what we know and have tested, rather than some ancient book that doesn't really know what its talking about.
like woodchuck said, the 'we grow from suffering' is retarded. bet that kid with leukemia is really grateful for all he has learnt in his 5 year life.
like woodchuck said, the 'we grow from suffering' is retarded. bet that kid with leukemia is really grateful for all he has learnt in his 5 year life.
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
capefeather
I'm not sure where you live but people here in the US can choose to convert to whatever religion or non religion that they want. My brother wanted to become a Mystic so he became a Mystic. My other brother wanted to become a Jew so he became a Jew. We weren't raised in a particularly religious house and don't come from a particularly religious family. I'm an Apostolic Pentecostal because I want to be. You can claim that I am what I am because of societal influences all you want, but like many of your beliefs they lack any evidence.
I find it funny that people jump on the "IT'S ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE!" bandwagon. Of course it's anecdotal. Its what I've seen and experienced. I don't know what you base your moral and religious beliefs on, but I base it on what I've seen and experienced. I've read claims in the Bible, looked into whether or not their true, and in my experience, time and time again they sure do seem to be true to me. Feel free to disagree, but that's what I've seen and experienced first hand, anecdotal or not.
And I'm honestly confused as to why you think you can't verify any of my experiences. I know countless people who have. Do you live somewhere where there are no churches or something? Do you not have access to a Bible? Just because you're apathetic to the situation doesn't mean you "can't" verify the claims made by the Bible yourself.
I'm not sure where you live but people here in the US can choose to convert to whatever religion or non religion that they want. My brother wanted to become a Mystic so he became a Mystic. My other brother wanted to become a Jew so he became a Jew. We weren't raised in a particularly religious house and don't come from a particularly religious family. I'm an Apostolic Pentecostal because I want to be. You can claim that I am what I am because of societal influences all you want, but like many of your beliefs they lack any evidence.
I find it funny that people jump on the "IT'S ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE!" bandwagon. Of course it's anecdotal. Its what I've seen and experienced. I don't know what you base your moral and religious beliefs on, but I base it on what I've seen and experienced. I've read claims in the Bible, looked into whether or not their true, and in my experience, time and time again they sure do seem to be true to me. Feel free to disagree, but that's what I've seen and experienced first hand, anecdotal or not.
And I'm honestly confused as to why you think you can't verify any of my experiences. I know countless people who have. Do you live somewhere where there are no churches or something? Do you not have access to a Bible? Just because you're apathetic to the situation doesn't mean you "can't" verify the claims made by the Bible yourself.
You're not leaving much room for discussion in a discussion thread here. Why is it satisfactory that it's anecdotal? Are you not interested in why people seem to have a problem with that at all? You say that the bible has some correct claims in it, but so do other books - what makes the bible so special?
As for basing moral beliefs, seeing as we're one big society and all, don't you think it's dangerous to base them solely on subjective stuff?
with deadly disease and children with down syndrome we learn that god loves us enough to provide ressurection, in which they will recieve a perfect body. Now to make sure that I don't make ebola or children with downs syndrome sound like object lessons, those who suffer the most and endure it will be blessed, maybe not in this life but the next. And yes one of God's main goal's is to help us aquire knowledge. Now I am not asking you to believe what I am saying, just to understand my perspective.
So ebola is an embrace of God's love? Do you have any idea of fucking ridiculous this sounds?
No, you miss understand me entirely. What I am saying is that god Loves us enough that he will bless those who have gone under many aflictions and trials. The thing is mortality =hardship, that's the reason why we are here in the first place. "for behold, this is my work and my glory- to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of men." it is my belief that there is something greater at work here, and mortality is only a small portion of it. Again I am not asking that you believe what I am saying just that you understand my perspective
Crux
Banned deucer.
When your perspective encompasses the realm of: God permits events like prolonged struggles with horrendously painful and debilitating disease, natural disasters that either kill you immediately, leave you to starve to death or leave you destitute, and human disasters like the Holocaust, the Gulags and the Khmer Rouge, all so that we can learn to love one another~~~~~ <3<3<3 :):):):):) I'm sure you realise how difficult it is for some people to see things from your perspective.
Especially when that position contradicts nearly all of the other principles you hold dear as part of your faith as I alluded to above.
Especially when that position contradicts nearly all of the other principles you hold dear as part of your faith as I alluded to above.
HBK
Subtlety is my middle name
I am of the opinion that believing in God is an act of fear; the fear of facing death and what happens after it, the fear of accepting life as it is and that there is nothing special about it, the fear of realizing that bad stuff just happens to you for no apparent reason and not because God has some weird plan for you, the fear of dealing with your problems by yourself, etc. Many others believe in God just because they are too insecure to accept themselves as they are instead of trying to change themselves. They believe that God will magically change them because they are too lazy to do it themselves.
I was raised as a Christian, and I became an Atheist because I just thought the whole concept behind a god was just not plausible (and there's no evidence that a god actually exists). It's a bit awkward for me because the rest of my family is Christian, and since my sister died a few years ago, they all believe she is in heaven while I think she's just a corpse in a cemetery. I was also given a Christian necklace that says "our guardian angel" when I still believed, but they still make me wear it even though I don't believe anymore.
I really do not know what you mean by "believing in God" since there are many facets to that. One could reasonably hypothesize that "belief in God" also serves the sociological function of reinforcing social and familial bonds. You admitted earlier that this was the primary reason why your parents want you to go to Mass. When I attend Mass, often I see others socialize after Mass, and as an autistic, I often feel quite alienated when my friends do not attend Mass, nor do I have any inclination to take to them as I judge that we do not share any common intellectual interests. As for myself, am I not a particularly pious person, since I do not spend much time attending Mass, praying, or saying Rosaries -- more often I spend times rehearsing Pokemon match-ups in my mind, but can participate in theological conversations in some detail because I do know about the basics of Catholicism from casual reading as an agnostic (in addition to my Confirmation) and general ability to reason and my broad knowledge to integrate some theological principles in more relevant topics such as ethics.
Still, the notion that God has a plan for anyone seems so unparsimoninous to any skeptic, since it is not warranted by an appeal to experience; it is just a subjective interpretation of events in one's life, influenced by one's personality, social group, and culture.
Let's not forget that the deity of choosing always reflects the desires, insecurities and values of the culture he derives from. The judeo-christian god is a perfect example of this. In the beginning he was much more like a chief of a tribe in the middle east and nowadays he is a commercialised god of feel good and non intervening.
Most Catholics who are devout most certainly do not believe in that God is " feel good and non intervening".
As for myself, I am less engaged in prayer and stuff, since I am more interested in finding my own strength. Largely inspired by watching Brandon and Paul.
From here (6:20)
Nice work, Julian Rebolledo!
This is largely why I study competitive battling in my spare time and why I am engrossed in it.
Last edited:
I suppose it depends on how you view the world and how a religious belief fits into that view.
For me, I don't really see how a religious person wouldn't be essentially an existential nihilist, if they really took seriously the notion that all the despair, pain and suffering in the world is part of God's plan. All these horrible things happen, often committed by religious zealots trying to spread their views, and I have no idea why a loving God would have all that be part of his plan. Whatever kind of plan this is, it seems to defy all logic and all basic moral intuition. So I have to consider these things, knowing that I have no idea of why God would plan this, thus also knowing that nothing I do is even reasonably likely to be in line with that plan. I suppose all this is supposed to prove the notion that we're powerless, pathetic, worthless people.
I don't know what your views on this matter are. I don't even know if your views are even practically distinguishable from atheism. However, for someone like me, who took the whole "there is a loving God out there with an unknowable plan" thing very seriously, letting go of that notion is liberating.
I'm not talking about the legal ability to choose. I'm talking about the ability to choose a belief based on influences from family, society, and even the belief itself. I thought that my post made that abundantly clear, but I guess some people are no longer capable of distinguishing between the two... I also did not make a claim. I said I doubted, and your attempted correction of that doubt doesn't do a whole lot. Just because you were relatively free to choose your religion in the past, doesn't mean you're as free to choose to leave that religion now, any more than I could choose to believe that the earth is flat. Nor does it mean that other people have the same experiences as you and can choose whatever beliefs they want without major consequences.
I also already explained what constitutes a strong evidential standard. So why do you act so offended? What's so objectionable about criticizing anecdotal evidence? Are you afraid you might be wrong, that what happened all those times may not have been what you thought it was? Would you accept anecdotal evidence from someone who disagreed with your beliefs?
When I said I can't verify your experiences, I mean I can't verify your specific experiences. We only have your word. There is a lot of information that we unwittingly hide with language. We don't know whether you're even telling the truth, and even if you are, we can't tell for ourselves what exactly it is you experienced. We don't know why you came to the conclusion you did, when there are lots of other explanations for both incidents you mentioned. We don't know which explanations are plausible, and which are not. All we know is that you decided on explanations that fit your beliefs. Ironically, all that shows (along with your subsequent antagonistic attitude) is that you've stifled your curiosity and you're only interested in appearing to approach things in an honestly curious way.
Ironically, some of us have seen people doing what you call "speaking in tongues". Unfortunately, that's not what the Bible seems to consider "speaking in tongues". The very passage you quote talks about people speaking in other tongues that foreigners could understand. The whole point of that story, as well as all of the book of Acts, is to advance the idea that Jesus wants to reach out to non-Jews, that he's not just a god of the Hebrews. How does a bunch of people getting an emotional high and talking gibberish accomplish that?
The kicker is, this phenomenon isn't specific to Christianity. I took some yoga classes years ago and there was this one exercise where you'd sit still with your hands initially close enough that each could feel the heat emanating from the other. People would do all kinds of random motions from that initial position. Another, more rarely done exercise involved shouting gibberish at random in the midst of an emotional high. Now, I'm not much of an expert on religion, but it seems to me that shouting random gibberish while high was a known phenomenon 2000 years ago, and not a very impressive thing for an alleged deity to predict.
And that's just one of the supposed prophecies that the Bible makes. People often claim that the Bible makes hundreds of prophecies and all of them have come true. The red flag here is that other religions make very similar claims. Logically, they can't all be correct. Indeed, such claims fall rather quickly under scrutiny. Most "prophecies" need to be heavily misconstrued and/or taken as vague metaphors in order to make even a remote connection to the events that they allegedly predicted. Though, sometimes the Bible does make explicit predictions. The book of Ezekiel predicts that the city of Tyre will be completely annihilated and will never be rebuilt. It's actually very explicit about it all. Seriously, read Ezekiel 26 for yourselves, guys. It's pretty brutal what will supposedly happen to Tyre... except none of it has happened.
Yeah, the main reason anecdotal evidence is frowned upon is because it's based on way too small a sample size (in most cases, being a single person's account of events). Anecdotal evidence is also very often poorly quantified (if quantified at all), tends to be strongly slanted by the individual bias of the person reporting the evidence, and generally reports events where none of the other possible causal factors are controlled. In this case, mattj, your reported experiences do all of these things that render the evidence unable to strongly support what you claim it does.
You seem to think that all evidence can be classified as anecdotal, because all information about the world must, at some point, be mediated through the senses. However, what we mean by anecdotal evidence is evidence that is reported with small sample sizes and insufficient rigor. There's a big difference between believing the earth is round because you saw curvature in the horizon of the great plains once, and believing the earth is round because you saw quantifiable features in satellite images, and it isn't just in how "high-tech" the latter evidence is.
You seem to think that all evidence can be classified as anecdotal, because all information about the world must, at some point, be mediated through the senses. However, what we mean by anecdotal evidence is evidence that is reported with small sample sizes and insufficient rigor. There's a big difference between believing the earth is round because you saw curvature in the horizon of the great plains once, and believing the earth is round because you saw quantifiable features in satellite images, and it isn't just in how "high-tech" the latter evidence is.