If all religions were too disappear...

[Salem1]

Yeah, but they aren't to be trusted.

In fact, strange though it may seem, they're just trying to trick you into joining them. Yeah well it was stupid stuff like that which worked on them, and it's hard for most people to admit that people aren't usually very clever.

Before you edited your post to further explain, I thought you were kidding with me or something. That's so dumb I hadn't really thought that they were trying to compel me with it. But you're absolutely right, it was stupid stuff like that which worked on them, so of course they think it'll work on me. Haha, how pathetic... as if I was going to make the same mockery of my rational and logical thinking as they are doing...

[MathiasOfAthens]

Im Atheist but Ill be the first to mention how religion is not always harmful. It does bring good to people, makes them feel better or gives them a purpose. Sometimes it motivates them to succeed. While I disagree with their worldview and how they believe a God magically created a planet and Universe and then populated one of those planets with people who resembled his image but maybe populated other planets that resembled his cousin or something IDK. Basically one cannot, imo, prove something from one book. One can not say because God wont this down in a book it must be true when Science is completely testable and observable and refutes much of what the Bible claims. Obviously you cannot disprove a God anymore than a Spagetti monster or a Dragon.

[Squiggle]

. Basically one cannot, imo, prove something from one book. One can not say because God wont this down in a book it must be true when Science is completely testable and observable and refutes much of what the Bible claims.

Namely?

Obviously you cannot disprove a God anymore than a Spagetti monster or a Dragon.

You can disprove both a dragon and a Spaghetti monster...

[MathiasOfAthens]

Namely?

The Flood, The age of the planet, universe, etc. The Ark and two of each animal.

The Creation theory: In Evolution the Sun came first (Proven), but in Creation the Earth came first. Dry Land came first in Evolution opposed to water and sea coming first in the Bible. Land Animals came before Whales in Evolution (Proven) opposed to Whales and big fish coming first in Creation. The Stars came first but the Bible states the Earth came first before the stars. I could go on and cite the whole list but why....

Contradictions:
Genesis 1 gives the order of creation as plants, animals, man and woman. Genesis 2 gives it as man, plants, animals and woman. Genesis 1:3-5 says light was created on the first day, Genesis 1:14-19 says the sun was created on the fourth. Genesis 7:2 says Noah took seven pairs of each beast, Genesis 7:8-15 says one pair.

The Bible doesnt know if its right or wrong to commit adultery.
Or when Jesus ascended into Heaven.
Doesnt even know if the Earth will live forever or not.
Sometimes God wants an animal sacrifice and sometimes he doesnt.
According to the Bible the Earth is Flat, the moon emits its own light, the sky is solid and the stars can be shaken from the sky by earthquakes.

The Bible claims that rabbits chew the cud, pattern on goat's coats can be changed by what their parents look at while copulating, that only dead seeds can germinate and that ostriches are horrible parents.
Some people believe the T-Rex was a peaceful vegetarian.

You can disprove both a dragon and a Spaghetti monster...

My comparison was simply I have not seen a dragon or a Spaghetti monster but if I believe hard enough then it must exist fore you cannot disprove it. You cannot show me any sort of tangible proof it does not, hence I take it on faith. Likewise one could not prove they exist either.

Basically, one can not prove the old gods of Rome do not exist or the Asgardian Gods like Thor and Hel.

[Squiggle]

The Flood, The age of the planet, universe, etc. The Ark and two of each animal.

All contained with a book that is known to be, in terms of literary style, allegory. Anyone with expert knowledge on the topic KNOWS it cant be taken literally [and the flood does have some historical basis].

The Creation theory: In Evolution the Sun came first (Proven), but in Creation the Earth came first. Dry Land came first in Evolution opposed to water and sea coming first in the Bible. Land Animals came before Whales in Evolution (Proven) opposed to Whales and big fish coming first in Creation. The Stars came first but the Bible states the Earth came first before the stars. I could go on and cite the whole list but why....

Again, same deal, same allegorical writing style.

Contradictions:
Genesis 1 gives the order of creation as plants, animals, man and woman. Genesis 2 gives it as man, plants, animals and woman. Genesis 1:3-5 says light was created on the first day, Genesis 1:14-19 says the sun was created on the fourth. Genesis 7:2 says Noah took seven pairs of each beast, Genesis 7:8-15 says one pair.

Again, knowledge of methods in which the bible was told [oral tradition] would show these are not contradictions. It is universally accepted that in oral traditions that secondary facts are meaningless and only the core story is at all factually relevant, you would be surprised to the degree in which literary scholars will accept seemingly contradictory statements from books that have an oral background, while still holding that they are not in fact contradictory. Basic understanding of modern treatment of the bible could tell you this.

The Bible doesnt know if its right or wrong to commit adultery.

The quotes simply state to take back unfaithful women, not that unfaithfulness is not wrong or is not grounds for divorce.

Or when

Jesus ascended into Heaven.

This goes right back to the secondary details quip on oral traditions. No contradiction.

Doesnt even know

if the Earth will live forever or not.

The earth living forever is a reference towards the earthly paradise after the time of judgment, the rest is a reference to mortal coil and the existence of man's current state [godless etc]. Again, basic understanding of interpreting the bible...

Sometimes God wants an animal sacrifice and sometimes he doesnt.

Thats not a contradiction, none of those quotes specifically stated God did not want sacrifices until the new testament, because Jesus was meant to be the last sacrifice.

According to the Bible

the Earth is Flat, the moon emits its own light, the sky is solid and the stars can be shaken from the sky by earthquakes.

Again, nothing specifically states that the earth is flat, these are merely allegorical statements in books of allegory. The bible is a series of books, some are historical bibliographical [mark luke etc] some are poetry [pslams] some are apocalyptic [revelations] etc. Your confusing which is which, and thereby raping the actual context and learned scholarship we have on the bible.

The Bible claims that rabbits chew the cud, pattern on goat's coats can be changed by what their parents look at while copulating, that only dead seeds can germinate and that ostriches are horrible parents.

Again, allegory...

Some people believe the T-Rex was a peaceful vegetarian.

Now your criticizing peoples interpretation of the bible rather than what it actually says...congratulations?

It doesnt even matter if the bible is inerrant or not. I believe the bible is inerrant because I believe in Jesus, that he was raised from the dead and was God revealed. I believe that due to the historical justifications in the new testament [which are universally regarded as historically reliable]. I dont believe in jesus because I believe in the bible.

My comparison was simply I have not seen a dragon or a Spaghetti monster but if I believe hard enough then it must exist fore you cannot disprove it.

And you can disprove it....so you are wrong.

You cannot show me any sort of tangible proof it does not, hence I take it on faith. Likewise one could not prove they exist either.

Uh, yes you can. A dragon and a spagetti monster are physical entities, we can therefore look for physical clues as to their existence, incoherence in their attributes, and so on. The FSM for example is philosophically incoherent because its meant to be creator of all things [beyond time etc], yet holds a physical body [therefore subject to time] and is meant to be incredibly powerful [yet capable of getting drunk], and being physical, would be subject to the laws of decay; the fsm should be dead. Dragons should leave evidence, a fsm is incoherent. They can not exist.

Basically, one can not prove the old gods of Rome do not exist or the Asgardian Gods like Thor and Hel.

I can use the same method I used against the FSM against the polytheistic Gods, they are not defensible. God is. This post is nothing but wanton ignorance, of philosophy and of the literary style of the bible. If you want to hold your views, fine, but dont c/p them from other ignorant fools. Doesnt really help your case.

[Bokks]

Whao there, members!

This is becoming a very interesting debate, but it has gone very off-topic. I'll leave everything standing as it is but you have to keep to the topic that the OP gave you.

You are more than free to make a new thread about this, something about the ethics of spirituality and the consistency of holy texts, and if you'd like you can PM me to move these arguments into a new thread somewhere, but you can not keep on this tangent in here.

Anything else off-topic will be deleted.

Happy posting!

[Dr. Croccer]

Shall we blame Theism for the crusades using similar logic?

Don't you people always?

[Strelok]

Don't you people always?

Not me in specific at least. I blame very certain types of religious dogma and the individuals in authority responsible but not Theism in general.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I think I will make a new thread so we can continue our discussion Squiggle if you would like.

But back to Topic, in the future religions will have less affect on our lives sort to speak they will not hold absolute truth in everything and believers will not believe every word as the literal truth that so many Christians, especially in America, do. An amazing number of Christians believe the bible is the literal word and not a collection of stories. Religion may not disappear entirely but the faiths might change and become more philosophical.

[Denny Crane!]

Strange seeing things like this. I don't know how other people view religion in the UK but in my experience the only religious people are the muslims, and the hindus and often only the older people there as well. We are living in a country that is either atheist or the religion matters so little to people that they might as well be.

This could just be my local experience of Newcastle, its certainly not something I've ever done much research on other than to know that church attendance is dropping off as the older generations die.

[Salem1]

Strange seeing things like this. I don't know how other people view religion in the UK but in my experience the only religious people are the muslims, and the hindus and often only the older people there as well. We are living in a country that is either atheist or the religion matters so little to people that they might as well be.

This could just be my local experience of Newcastle, its certainly not something I've ever done much research on other than to know that church attendance is dropping off as the older generations die.

This is fortunately my experience in Sweden as well, I'm pretty sure that it's universal for several European countries.

[James Cook]

The world would be more advanced and there would be less conflict especially in the middle east.

most likely

Would be more peaceful I bet.

let us hope

Atheists would start killing eachother for having different degrees of disbelief instead.

atleast the day that we ban religion is the day, we have one less reason for killing eachother

[Sire Brenshar]

most likely


let us hope

atleast the day that we ban religion is the day, we have one less reason for killing eachother

Could you also state why you think these things though? And a surely a ban on something as major as religion would never be put in place in a free, democratic society?

[James Cook]

Could you also state why you think these things though? And a surely a ban on something as major as religion would never be put in place in a free, democratic society?

most likely

well its no surprise that religions have worked against science in the past, imagine if they havent

let us hope

but then again its probaly not gonna happend

atleast the day that we ban religion is the day, we have one less reason for killing eachother

its a fact

[Denny Crane!]

This is fortunately my experience in Sweden as well, I'm pretty sure that it's universal for several European countries.

Yes something that will only increase as the generations change. Even Italy isn't quite as ardent as it once was.

[Phier]

Religions won't disappear because humanity simply isn't smart enough.

We still have people going to chiropractors, getting their palms read, taking Chinese 'traditional' medicine, thinking crystals have powers, think they have seen ghosts, etc etc etc.

All superstitions and unfounded beliefs lead to god. As long as people are susceptible to them, they will be susceptible to religion.

[Gigantus]

...... As long as people are susceptible to them, they will be susceptible to religion.

I think a little rephrasing might get closer to the matter: as long as humans are capable of abstract thinking there will be a need for a focal point for that abstract thinking. And religion or a god [by any name] fulfills that requirement.

[Phier]

I think a little rephrasing might get closer to the matter: as long as humans are capable of abstract thinking there will be a need for a focal point for that abstract thinking. And religion or a god [by any name] fulfills that requirement.

I think perhaps even more to the point would be as long as we have a instinctive NEED to assign a cause to an effect, there will be god to fulfill that requirement.

[Strelok]

I think perhaps even more to the point would be as long as we have a instinctive NEED to assign a cause to an effect, there will be god to fulfill that requirement.

It's a logical necessity within the current state of the universe.

However, when we talk about any remote possibility of "before" the universe we are dealing with the aphysical. The aphysical is devoid of our established logic which is established in accordance to what we perceive to be be truths within reality. With this, you could pretty much say that an aphysical blank created itself a pocket of time and space to exist within and manifested a toaster. Then, this toaster put some bread into itself, and then when the broad popped out, the big bang singularity was initiated.

It's not remotely establishable as a fact, or intellectually honest to believe in. Just like the concept of God.

Too many people have trouble accepting the only answer with intellectual integrity, which is to say: we don't know.

[Helm]

With this, you could pretty much say that an aphysical blank created itself a pocket of time and space to exist within and manifested a toaster. Then, this toaster put some bread into itself, and then when the broad popped out, the big bang singularity was initiated.

That is roughly how most of the anicent creation myths went, instead of a toaster they would have a giant cow or what have you. It wasn't the same as Christianity where what you begin with is one eternal human like being it tends to begin as a void or chaos.