But if we're born with atheistic tendencies why would we look to that explanation rather than developing scientific method and whatnot earlier on? It might just be that living in this day and age it's hard for me to grasp, but if human nature is to not believe in a higher power, why, when I don't understand something, would my first explanation be a higher power, and not a more scientific attempt at understanding it?
"Ah, life is a gate, a way, a path to Paradise anyway, why not live for fun and joy and love or some sort of girl by a fireside, why not go to your desire and LAUGH..."
I agree. I'm only saying that having knowledge of, or understanding the bible is not a prerequisite for atheism.
Absolutely.:) I think it might be the fact that I study anthropology that makes me actively learn about religions - not the fact that I want to sit down and argue the finer points of the Gospel of Yorkie Peters with a priest.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
But if we're born with atheistic tendencies why would we look to that explanation rather than developing scientific method and whatnot earlier on? It might just be that living in this day and age it's hard for me to grasp, but if human nature is to not believe in a higher power, why, when I don't understand something, would my first explanation be a higher power, and not a more scientific attempt at understanding it?
If we weren't born with atheistic tendencies, would scientists have continued to research thing we could just attribute to "god's work"? By now, I think religion survives on tradition, for the most part - science is explaining a lot more than it could 2000 years ago.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
But if we're born with atheistic tendencies why would we look to that explanation rather than developing scientific method and whatnot earlier on? It might just be that living in this day and age it's hard for me to grasp, but if human nature is to not believe in a higher power, why, when I don't understand something, would my first explanation be a higher power, and not a more scientific attempt at understanding it?
For the same reason that physicists invent new particles that can never be detected whenever their calculations don't work. If something makes no sense, invent an explanation that cannot be proved wrong. Even the incredible scope for bullshitting that comes with science can't explain ALL THIS so people come out with more creative ways.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
Also I'd just like to point out that I have no problem with atheism, I don't personally hold that belief (or non-belief, however you want to put it), but I also don't hold religious beliefs. I also don't think that saying that atheism is not human nature makes the case for it any weaker or stronger, I just think it's a strange claim to make.
"Ah, life is a gate, a way, a path to Paradise anyway, why not live for fun and joy and love or some sort of girl by a fireside, why not go to your desire and LAUGH..."
For the same reason that physicists invent new particles that can never be detected whenever their calculations don't work. If something makes no sense, invent an explanation that cannot be proved wrong. Even the incredible scope for bullshitting that comes with science can't explain ALL THIS so people come out with more creative ways.
Well, that's part of what my belief in a God is founded on. In my view, traditional religion failed to explain everything, science has failed to explain everything, and I'm completely open to the idea that humans just aren't capable of understanding everything, but to me, the fact that there are so many inexplicable forces at work in our universe is at least some indication of some type of higher power, and not necessarily the traditional concept of God
"Ah, life is a gate, a way, a path to Paradise anyway, why not live for fun and joy and love or some sort of girl by a fireside, why not go to your desire and LAUGH..."
Absolutely.:) I think it might be the fact that I study anthropology that makes me actively learn about religions - not the fact that I want to sit down and argue the finer points of the Gospel of Yorkie Peters with a priest.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm very interested in religions.
Also I'd just like to point out that I have no problem with atheism, I don't personally hold that belief (or non-belief, however you want to put it), but I also don't hold religious beliefs. I also don't think that saying that atheism is not human nature makes the case for it any weaker or stronger, I just think it's a strange claim to make.
I'll put it to you this way: if you were born into a proverbial vaccuum, with no religious influence from parents, schools, churches, etc, would your first instinct be to say "Oh yeah, God's work. All of it"?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Well, that's part of what my belief in a God is founded on. In my view, traditional religion failed to explain everything, science has failed to explain everything, and I'm completely open to the idea that humans just aren't capable of understanding everything, but to me, the fact that there are so many inexplicable forces at work in our universe is at least some indication of some type of higher power, and not necessarily the traditional concept of God
I don't disagree with any of that, nor do I agree. I am uncertain about these things because unlike those who claim to KNOW that there is a god and those who claim to know that there isn't, I accept my fallibility. I still see no need for religion. Higher power or not, I don't UNDERSTAND the concept of religion. It's completely unnecessary to me. Who gives a shit if there is a higher power? It hasn't revealed itself to me in my life and if it's there, I'm going to keep living the same way and not worry about it. In this way, I consider myself an atheist, even though I am spiritual and do not necessarily reject all notions of higher power. I have no need for an entity God. I am happy not knowing everything and enjoy wondering. I don't feel the need to go to church every sunday to validate my existence. I can sit on a beach at sunset and say "wow... this is incredible" and not feel the need to explain it to myself.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
I'll put it to you this way: if you were born into a proverbial vaccuum, with no religious influence from parents, schools, churches, etc, would your first instinct be to say "Oh yeah, God's work. All of it"?
What I'm saying is I have no idea, but the first conclusion that humans as a species came to when they were in that basic situation was to look to a higher power. And honestly, I didn't have very strong influences on me as a kid, so I was able to develop my views pretty independently, with some help from some great thinkers/writers
"Ah, life is a gate, a way, a path to Paradise anyway, why not live for fun and joy and love or some sort of girl by a fireside, why not go to your desire and LAUGH..."
I don't disagree with any of that, nor do I agree. I am uncertain about these things because unlike those who claim to KNOW that there is a god and those who claim to know that there isn't, I accept my fallibility. I still see no need for religion. Higher power or not, I don't UNDERSTAND the concept of religion. It's completely unnecessary to me. Who gives a shit if there is a higher power? It hasn't revealed itself to me in my life and if it's there, I'm going to keep living the same way and not worry about it. In this way, I consider myself an atheist, even though I am spiritual and do not necessarily reject all notions of higher power. I have no need for an entity God. I am happy not knowing everything and enjoy wondering. I don't feel the need to go to church every sunday to validate my existence. I can sit on a beach at sunset and say "wow... this is incredible" and not feel the need to explain it to myself.
Well that's about how I feel too, I've just had some of those experiences you talk about not having. And trust me, my belief that there is some sort of higher power leaves me plenty of room to wonder, and enjoy that sense of wonder
"Ah, life is a gate, a way, a path to Paradise anyway, why not live for fun and joy and love or some sort of girl by a fireside, why not go to your desire and LAUGH..."
What I'm saying is I have no idea, but the first conclusion that humans as a species came to when they were in that basic situation was to look to a higher power. And honestly, I didn't have very strong influences on me as a kid, so I was able to develop my views pretty independently, with some help from some great thinkers/writers
That's cool. Like I said at the start of the thread, I'm not gonna waste anyone's time trying to change anyone's mind, cos it's not my place.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
I always wonder why the majority of atheists Ive heard are very bitter toward people who believe in God. Im not saying this same characteristic isnt shared by some OVERLY conservative Christians and others, but it seems even when they say something like "You have your faith , I dont mind, just dont force it on me" kinda thing, it still seems to me like they dont even want to hear you opinion. I for one believe In God, I know he exists because I have had experiences that I cant deny. I go to church, its a contemporary church, but I dont believe anyone whosoever should let someone else tell them what to believe. Its between you and God.
Another strange thing I have noticed is that most people I have heard that are majorly against religion and/or God, had a bad experience with either the catholic church or the baptist church, Im not dissin' anybody from either, but I really dont like either of them for the most part.
I believe in evolution, I cant understand why so many christians cant accept the idea that God created us to evolve. Thats what I think, that God created us, and other things, to evolve.
All in all, I really dont hate atheists, I just want to know what made them decide that there was no God. I feel sad for them, (I REALLY dont mean it in a demeaning way at all) It just makes me sad.
...
Have you ever heard of that saying... where God is like a mountain, which can be approached by many paths... which all reach to the top? Yeah, some paths are easier to ascend, while others are rough and trecherous. But, in the long run... they all end up at the same place.
to me... religions are the different paths. The God of the Bible, the Quran and the Torah are the same thing. He is also the same thing Buddhists, Hindus and native American Indians believe in... and the spiritualists. It's all the same and your way works for you. Just accept it and move on.
No need to worry about me. Just because I do not choose to folow in your footsteps, doesn't mean i'm looking for the same thing.
I have no problem with God... and my grievences with Religion is waning. I usually have problems when God's fans... who have time and time again shown me... act and say things that are in complete opposition of what they claim to be.
So... if i decide to take a more adventerous route to find God... that's on me. Let me be.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
The question is not whether or not there is a god, but whether or not it really matters if we know he/she is there.
At this point in time, it really doesn't matter if we know there is or isn't a god that is watching over us. The reason being is that even if there was a god, there is no way we could ever know that the bible, the koran, or any other script of organized religion represents "his wishes."
Often I hear of the religious talking as if they know something about humility just because they recognize that a god exists and follow his supposed wishes.
But, as far as I can tell, that is not a true sense of humility. The fact that we suddenly "behave" because we've discovered a "higher" being that is all powerful and is capable of laying down supreme consequences does not make us humble.
What makes us humble is our ability to see ourselves who for we really are, not for who we'd like to believe we are, and acknowledge in other people the parts of ourselves that we see in them.
That is true humility. That is an earnest pursuit of truth. But, that is an enormously difficult thing for EVERYONE to do because we naturally are at odds with one another as we compete for resources and a sense of status.
On top of that, the ability to be introspective (see into ourselves) is also extremely counter-intuitive (unnatural). We've been on this earth for thousands of years and only recently have we begun to understand our emotions, our patterns of thinking...etc. Even the simplest pattern of thinking that we all exhibit, the hierarchy of needs, was discovered in relatively recent history.
The concept of a god and religion steps in and fills the holes of understanding for which people yearn to be filled. That's why we see comments like this:
It seems clear to me that God didn't create a
truth so technically sophisticated that it would take
half a lifetime of text book research to catch a
glimpse of it, even if that was possible. If that was
the case then only the
most scientifically-oriented, intelligent few would be
saved by His gospel (the gospel is the story of
Christ's death and the explanation of it's saving purpose)
and the gospel itself (the thread of the entire
Bible) would be of little importance. Instead, as the
Bible states it, God simply exists and His creation
makes it obvious to all.
This is clearly just frustration over not being able to explain the inexplicable. That among other things is what fuels the desire for religion. People cannot stand the awkardness of ignorance. They refuse to acknowledge the HUMBLE nature of our simple existence.
So, that's why I say....religion teaches NOTHING about humility. Religion offers a solution to the frustration of a humble existence by offering a connection to something "higher."
If "God" was not a "higher" "supreme" being who is "all-powerful", then there would be no appeal.
Religion is, in fact, immoral. It teaches people to take on an immoral style of thinking towards their fellow man and to other living things.
A most recent example that I can think of is something I saw on Animal Planet the other day.
A veterinarian was saving the life of a stray cat, and she goes, "This cat deserves to live because it is one of god's creatures."
In other words, she did not have any true sense of compassion for this cat. Instead, she used her desire for a sense of "greatness" to motivate her to save the cat's life. Instead of, "I feel compassion for this cat because it is another living thing, and therefore I feel an emotional connection," she essentially went, "Because a supreme, all-powerful being wants me to keep this cat alive, it therefore deserves to live."
Sad, really, that religion does nothing more than suck any chance of a true humanitarian sense of well-being from a person's good-naturedness, and replaces it with a desire to fulfill the supposed wishes of a supreme being.
What makes it even more repugnant and inexcusably disgusting is that this groteseque approach to saving lives is often called "humility."
...
Have you ever heard of that saying... where God is like a mountain, which can be approached by many paths... which all reach to the top? Yeah, some paths are easier to ascend, while others are rough and trecherous. But, in the long run... they all end up at the same place.
to me... religions are the different paths. The God of the Bible, the Quran and the Torah are the same thing. He is also the same thing Buddhists, Hindus and native American Indians believe in... and the spiritualists. It's all the same and your way works for you. Just accept it and move on.
No need to worry about me. Just because I do not choose to folow in your footsteps, doesn't mean i'm looking for the same thing.
I have no problem with God... and my grievences with Religion is waning. I usually have problems when God's fans... who have time and time again shown me... act and say things that are in complete opposition of what they claim to be.
So... if i decide to take a more adventerous route to find God... that's on me. Let me be.
Yea I totally agree with you. I think that God has revealed himself to many other people, and I know christianity isnt the only way. But yea I know what you mean, and I like that saying you mention.
Hopefully I didnt sound like I thought I was totally right and everyone else is wrong. I definitely dont want to come across that way. I believe a lot of things from other faiths and philosophies.
I told one of my most evangelical co-workers I'm an atheist.
I couldn't take it anymore - all of the God talk. She stated that she knew I believed as she did, so I felt compelled to let her in on what was apparently my little secret.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
so I felt compelled to let her in on what was apparently my little secret.
Gutsy, gutsy move. Most people, being the hopelessly ignorant creatures that they are, will have a hard time understanding. What's more is that they might even be afraid of the influence that religion might have at your place of work. You risk your job security.
Gutsy, gutsy move. Most people, being the hopelessly ignorant creatures that they are, will have a hard time understanding. What's more is that they might even be afraid of the influence that religion might have at your place of work. You risk your job security.
I'm union represented, so I'm fine - probably the same reason people get to bring the church with them to work everyday at our office. :rolleyes:
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Whats the point of arguing about something we know nothing about?.. its cool to discuss and bring up theories, but people who argue about faith are idiots. It even says it in the name, FAITH. Not fact, faith.. that goes for athiests too. If you argue, you are guilty.
If I'm not mistaken, Hank Hanagraaf and/or his staff
have answered Richard Dawkin's criticism. I'm not sure
if they answered it in book form or in a CRI
journal/news letter (some of these can be read for
free online). Dawkins had no understanding at all of the
certain scriptures he criticized in his book. You could always research Hank's
rebuttals for a comparison to see for yourself.
I'll briefly explain one of the main reasons why Dawkin was fighting an imaginary battle while writing his book. As controversial (symbolic and
mysterious) as the subject of eschatology (book of
Revelation/end times) is, Dawkins seems to have
foolishly based most of his argument against one of
several eschalogical systems of interpretation,
futurism/pre-millenialism, which I believe is a false
system of interpretation to begin with. In other
words, even if Dawkins was correct, which I believe he
wasn't (even premillenialists have a solid case
against his misunderstanding of scripture) he would
have no argument against my method of eschalogical
interpretation, since I follow Orthodox preterism. You
could read Hank Hanagraaf's "The Apocalypse Code" to
gain a correct understanding of the statement about
"this generation" made by Jesus. Dawkins has an
incorrect understanding of the statement because it
seems that Dawkins has no clue at all about the
complicated subject of eschatology. I wonder if he
even understands that there are Christian
interpretations other than futurism and premillenialism.
The beginning chapters of a book by Steve Gregg, Revelations/Four Views, would give anyone interested an understanding of the many 'isms' (methods of
interpretation) of eschatology.
Probabilities in science close the gap on this more than anything man has come up with thus far.
At a certain point, the law of probabilities becomes substantially more than a guess.
I don't have time for a long technical discussion, but I'll explain a bit of where I'm comming from. I use the law of probability for an understanding of why the earth is in this one optimum position in the milky way with the corresponding laws of the universe supporting it. I can't consider this obvious, pinpoint accurate design for sustenance of life as a mere coincidence. When asked about this subject, most Darwinists sidestep the issue with 'there must be millions of planets like this out there somewhere'. The DVD, ThePrivileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe by
Jay W. Richards, is a good place to start on this topic, IMO. It can be found at http://www.equip.org/store/topical.asp?Div=Types&Da=y&Author=&TopID=&Keyword=&K2=&DeptID=204&SubID=&List=all .
I have no real problem with the idea of an old earth, as many Christians hold to a day/age, old-earth belief. It's spontaneous generation and macro-evolution that I see no shred of evidence anywhere for. It's a shame those two doctrines were forced upon students for a number of years. The DVD Unlocking the Mystery of Life (can be found at http://www.equip.org is excellent. The DVD does a great job in showing how evolution gives no account for the origin of genetic info for either protein or the flagellar motor assembly. It seems clear to me that a law of probability points to creation being the cause of such sophisticated life. I challenge any evolutionist to view the DVD with an open mind.
On the subject of archeopteryx, the following info is definately worth a read.
From Hank Hanegraaff's book, The Bible Answer Book
Vol. 1:
"Is Archeopteryx The Missing Link Between Dinosaurs
And Birds?</P><P>Whenever I say (during my radio show) that there are
no transitions from one species to another, someone
inevitably brings up Archeopteryx. This happens so
frequently that I've decided to coin a word for the
experience: pseudosaur. Pseudo means false and saur
refers to a dinosaur or reptile (literally lizard).
Thus, a pseudosaur is a false link between reptiles
(such as dinosaurs) and birds. Myriad evidences
demonstrate conclusively that Archaeopteryx is a
full-fledged bird: not a missing link.</P><P>First, fossils of both Archaeopteryx and the kinds
of dinosaurs Archaeopteryx supposedly descended from
have been found in a fine-grained German limestone
formation said to be Late Jurassic (the Jurassic
period is said to have begun 190 million years ago,
lasting 54 million years). Thus, Archaeopteryx is not
a likely candidate as the missing link, since birds
and their alleged ancestral dinosaurs thrived during
the same period.</P><P>Furthermore, initial Archaeopteryx fossil finds gave
no evidence of a bony sternum, which led
paleontologists to conclude that Archaeopteryx could
not fly or was a poor flyer. However, in April 1993 a
seventh specimen was reported that included a bony
sternum. Thus, there is no further doubt that
Archaeopteryx was as suited for power flying as any
modern bird. </P><P>Finally, to say that Archaeopteryx is a missing link
between reptiles and birds, one must believe that
scales evolved into feathers for flight. Air friction
acting on genetic mutation supposedly frayed the outer
edges of reptilian scales. Thus, in the course of
millions of years, scales became increasingly like
feathers until, one day, the perfect feather emerged.
To say the least, this idea must stretch the credulity
of even the most ardent evolutionist.</P><P>These and myriad other factors overwhelmingly
exclude Archaeopteryx as a missing link between birds
and dinosaurs. The sober fact is that Archaeopteryx
appears abruptly in the fossil record, with
masterfully engineered wings and feathers common in
the birds observable today. Even the late Stephen Jay
Gould of Harvard and Niles Eldridge of the American
Museum of Natural History, both militant
evolutionists, have concluded that Archaeopteryx
cannot be viewed as a transitional form. </P><P>For further study, see Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The
Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, Calif.: Institute for
Creation Research, 1995); and Jonathon Wells, Icons of
Evolution: Science or Myth? (Washington D.C. Regnery,
2000).</P><P>Genesis 1:25
God made the wild animals according to their kinds,
the livestock according to their kinds, and all the
creatures that move along the ground according to
their kinds. And God saw that it was good."
Where did religion originally come from then if everyone is born an atheist?
The answer lies in obedience theory.
According to obedience theory, a vast overwhelming majority of people will obey a perceived "authority" even when it means sacrificing their own personal beliefs.
This was proven in the Milgram experiments, whereby volunteers were coerced into committing what they believed was serious, deadly, bodily harm to an unwilling individual simply because they were being "instructed" to by an authority figure.
It proved that the holocaust could happen anywhere because it is human nature to follow orders in spite of there being a moral conflict involved.
People are naturally social beings. That is, we survive by being social. We learn from birth that we need a family to survive, and we insinctively "admire" our parents because they are the caregivers who know what's best for us.
And that is how the concept of a god is born. God is merely the manifestation of our need to admire something. Our need to admire something is derived from our need to seek a sense of safety within a society.
Religion capitalizes on that need to admire a "greater" thing by creating the ultimate caregiver (aka parent), which is god. God is anything that is "good" for society.
And thus is the dichotomy of our sense of morality. On the one hand, we respect life. On the other, we need the lives of others to sustain our own.
In the process, we lose sight of what it is that truly makes us compassionate human beings. While we recognize individual human beings as possessing characteristics similar to ourselves, we also recognize the "greater good" that is achieved by putting the needs of our "neighbors" before ourselves.
That "greater good" is a concept which at times can dilude our own sense of self. That is also the birth of culture. It is why people, rather than identifying with their own individual characteristics, would rather identify with the culture in which they were raised.
This lost sense of self leaves a question mark in the backs of their minds, and that question mark is answered with "God."
Religion is, essentially, immoral. It is for those who lack beliefs -who lack a solid foundation for the appreciation of life and the development of the individual human will.
And that's why I always say...the question is not whether or not there is a god. The question is why people need to believe in one in the first place.
You'll find that the types of personalities that look to religion for answers generally happen to be extremely naive and overly simplistic when it comes to understanding human nature and the intricacies of societal behavior.
But here's the thing: what makes you believe there is a god? I don't want to get into a full-on god/no-god debate here, because it's futile and will just get locked after 9 pages of crap, but I don't think atheists have to justify a lack of faith. If you asked people why they don't believe cars exist, I could see your point, but it's not like there's undeniable proof that there is a god.
I doubt you will see God's face in the sun one day while hearing a ground shaking command to accept Christ as your savior. Here are some (not all) of the ways He has made Himself known:
Creation: The earth in all it's complexity has
design written all over it. If a basketball needed created
then how much more the earth and beyond? Put a
watch in a paper bag and then take a sledge hammer
to it. The pieces aren't going to go into place and
function no matter how much time passes. There is nearly an infinite amount of scientific creation evidence extant for anyone who's interested to check it out.
Darwinism is teetering and it's inevitable demise is
foreseen by a rapidly increasing number of scientists worldwide. Darwinism is outdated in an advanced scientific era. Scientists
today know he had no clue of the complexity of a
single human cell (stretch one out and the genetic
information reaches for miles) when he spoke of
spontaneous generation. Why doesn't SG happen
today within or outside of a lab? Billions of normal
fossils and skeletons have been found but nothing at all
transitional. Darwin himself said if this missing
link wasn't soon found (which has long passed) then his theory would be debunked.
Archaeological evidence: Cities, specifics like
monuments, buildings, artifacts, etc. match O.T.
history.
Fulfilled Bible prophecy: The O.T. prophecy of the
temple to be destroyed was fulfilled in N.T. times.
There are many other similar examples.
Fulfilled messianic prophecy: More than a hundred were listed
in the O.T. and Jesus fulfilled them all, including
many he couldn't have possibly controlled: his leg was
not broken by Roman soldiers despite that being the
customary norm for anyone on a cross, a crown of
thorns was placed on his head, his clothes were
gambled for, etc. etc.
Bible harmony: There were close to a hundred authors involved
in writing the Bible who were from different races, linguistic barriers,
time periods, regions, and cultures, but a common
gospel theme and total harmony is found from cover to cover. Each book
totally harmonizes with the whole in each aspect. No
claimed Bible contradictions have ever been proven.
The empty tomb and evidence of the gospel accounts:
Jame's, the brother of Jesus, abrupt turn from his
pre-resurrection adamant rejection of Jesus' claims
of being the messiah to dying for his faith after
witnessing the resurrected Christ, Peter's and the
disciples' cowardice and rejection of Christ pre-resurrection
but post-rez being bold as lions and dying for their
faith (Peter, with humility, even requested to die upside down rather than be hung upright on a cross like Christ) , God choosing Mary Magdalene to be the first eye witness of the resurrected Christ despite the fact
that womens' testimonies weren't even allowed in
court in that day (she would have been the worst candidate
to be used for a hoax story. She was not only a
woman but a former prostitute), God's sovereignty which
insured the rise of Christianity despite severe
government persecution by both the Jewish and Roman
governments, etc. etc. See Lee Strobel's book "Case for Christ" for much more.
For anyone interested in finding a good church or Christian advice, good examples can be found at the following link. I'm not an affiliate. I'm just a listener.
I think it's equally important to be informed about what you're accepting. I find it pretty depressing knowing there are people going to church just cos it's what they do on a Sunday, or saying that god exists just cos they never took the time to consider other possibilities.
Then there are many others who go to church to worship God because of who He is and the eternal life they have through Him.
because of who He is and the eternal life they have through Him.
"because they admire power and want to live forever"
that is, after all, what you're saying.
It's just hard for a lot of people to act like decent human beings without being able to associate such behavior with something "greater" than just being a decent human being. That's why they need religion.
They lack a natural sense of morality. They are empty, belief-lacking shells of people they may have once been before being brainwashed by...whomever. Religion is immoral. Churches are houses of self-deception.
I'll put it to you this way: if you were born into a proverbial vaccuum, with no religious influence from parents, schools, churches, etc, would your first instinct be to say "Oh yeah, God's work. All of it"?
Two cents for ya, even though you weren't typing to me. Yeah, that would be the first instinct, along with the instinct to say "but who cares". Unless God draws someone, the desire to have an intimate relationship with Him isn't there. The real question is, do people have to be completely rewired to have this desire. In other words, does God throw out a lifeline and lead us to grab it. Or, as the calvinist would believe, does God see a lifeless body at the bottom of the ocean and breath life into it.
...
Have you ever heard of that saying... where God is like a mountain, which can be approached by many paths... which all reach to the top? Yeah, some paths are easier to ascend, while others are rough and trecherous. But, in the long run... they all end up at the same place.
to me... religions are the different paths. The God of the Bible, the Quran and the Torah are the same thing. He is also the same thing Buddhists, Hindus and native American Indians believe in... and the spiritualists. It's all the same and your way works for you. Just accept it and move on.
No need to worry about me. Just because I do not choose to folow in your footsteps, doesn't mean i'm looking for the same thing.
I have no problem with God... and my grievences with Religion is waning. I usually have problems when God's fans... who have time and time again shown me... act and say things that are in complete opposition of what they claim to be.
So... if i decide to take a more adventerous route to find God... that's on me. Let me be.
The Bible teaches a gospel that is totally at odds with the messages of the other religions you mentioned.
[quote But, as far as I can tell, that is not a true sense of humility. The fact that we suddenly "behave" because we've discovered a "higher" being that is all powerful and is capable of laying down supreme consequences does not make us humble.."[/quote]
A mature Christian doesn't follow God because of fear. Also, we don't "behave" on our own. God is responsible for the gradual changes.
[quoteWhat makes us humble is our ability to see ourselves who for we really are, not for who we'd like to believe we are and acknowledge in other people the parts of ourselves that we see in them [/quote]
That is part of it. I agree.
[/quote]Often I hear of the religious talking as if they know something about humility just because they recognize that a god exists and follow his supposed wishes.[/quote]
So are you arguing that a Christian (with God's help) isn't capable of actually being humble due to the fact that they've read about humility in the Bible?
.[/quote]Even the simplest pattern of thinking that we all exhibit, the hierarchy of needs, was discovered in relatively recent history.
The concept of a god and religion steps in and fills the holes of understanding for which people yearn to be filled. That's why we see comments like this:
They refuse to acknowledge the HUMBLE nature of our simple existence..[/quote]
Our existance is anything but simple though. Ask any scientist, atheist or Christian. So if a person believes it's wise (benificial to himself and others) to ponder the origin of life, it's somehow his/her pround yet insecure crutch?
[/quote]If "God" was not a "higher" "supreme" being who is "all-powerful", then there would be no appeal. .[/quote]
If "God" was not a "higher" "supreme" being who is "all-powerful", then He wouldn't be God and wouldn't have the ability to create.
.[/quote]Religion is, in fact, immoral. It teaches people to take on an immoral style of thinking towards their fellow man and to other living things..[/quote]
Since you don't believe in God, who changes the heart which leads to change of behavior, then ok. I believe otherwise. Are there also instances of Christian immaturity and failure? Yes, of course.
[/quote]A most recent example that I can think of is something I saw on Animal Planet the other day. A veterinarian was saving the life of a stray cat, and she goes, "This cat deserves to live because it is one of god's creatures."
In other words, she did not have any true sense of compassion for this cat. Instead, she used her desire for a sense of "greatness" to motivate her to save the cat's life. Instead of, "I feel compassion for this cat because it is another living thing, and therefore I feel an emotional connection," she essentially went, "Because a supreme, all-powerful being wants me to keep this cat alive, it therefore deserves to live."[/quote]
So are you arguing that a Christian (with God's help) isn't capable of actually being compassionate due to the fact that they've read about compassion in the Bible?
."[/quote]Sad, really, that religion does nothing more than suck any chance of a true humanitarian sense of well-being from a person's good-naturedness, and replaces it with a desire to fulfill the supposed wishes of a supreme being.."[/quote]
What 'need' would there be to feel a sense of well-being after doing a good deed? Would there be pride and/or insecurity involved in that? Isn't the good deed all about the need of the person on the receiving end?
So are you arguing that a Christian (with God's help) isn't capable of actually being humble due to the fact that they've read about humility in the Bible?
The bible doesn't really address humility in its true form. You have delivered a loaded question.
Our existance is anything but simple though. Ask any scientist, atheist or Christian. So if a person believes it's wise (benificial to himself and others) to ponder the origin of life, it's somehow his/her pround yet insecure crutch?
Your statement is in contradiction to the OP quote that I posted. The OP quote stated that an understanding of life should not be available to a select few who study for many years.
Also....you mention pondering the origin of life. Christians do not ponder the origin of life. Rather, they claim to know it. Huge difference...
Since you don't believe in God, who changes the heart which leads to change of behavior, then ok. I believe otherwise. Are there also instances of Christian immaturity and failure? Yes, of course.
This is what I'm talking about...you believe that a change for the better can only be derived from an outside influence.
The truth is that morality lies within. We find our sense of morality by looking into our own ability to be compassionate human beings.
Otherwise, it is a coerced behavior, and coerced moral behavior simply isn't moral.
So are you arguing that a Christian (with God's help) isn't capable of actually being compassionate due to the fact that they've read about compassion in the Bible?
Nice...another loaded question. You assume that the bible teaches compassion. It teaches an obedience to God. That is the foundation for christianity, is it not?
It's not whether or not God's will is compassionate; it's that God will is the will of a being who created the universe, and therefore deserves our allegiance. Do you honestly stop and question whether God's will is truly compassionate?
The concept is called Divine Command, and it represents a cold and immoral approach to acts of compassion.
What 'need' would there be to feel a sense of well-being after doing a good deed? Would there be pride and/or insecurity involved in that? Isn't the good deed all about the need of the person on the receiving end?
If that were true, then it wouldn't matter if a creature was that of God's making or not.
According to the veterinarian in my example, the cat deserved to live not because there is a natural sense of well-being to be derived from doing a good deed, but because a supreme being commands it so.
Alas, I am disappointed once again in religion's ability to persuade me that God's will represents a true sense of morality.
It seems that you, mikesguitar, couldn't respond without loaded, rhetorical questions that side-stepped the points that I was making. Why am I not surprised?
The answer is that religion is simply an instrument of control for people who lack a natural sense of morality. I'm very sorry to put it that way, but I do BELIEVE that it is in your best interests if there is any hope for you to eventually discover the good within you that exists without the crutch of religion.
Comments
Absolutely.:) I think it might be the fact that I study anthropology that makes me actively learn about religions - not the fact that I want to sit down and argue the finer points of the Gospel of Yorkie Peters with a priest.
If we weren't born with atheistic tendencies, would scientists have continued to research thing we could just attribute to "god's work"? By now, I think religion survives on tradition, for the most part - science is explaining a lot more than it could 2000 years ago.
Well, that's part of what my belief in a God is founded on. In my view, traditional religion failed to explain everything, science has failed to explain everything, and I'm completely open to the idea that humans just aren't capable of understanding everything, but to me, the fact that there are so many inexplicable forces at work in our universe is at least some indication of some type of higher power, and not necessarily the traditional concept of God
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm very interested in religions.
naděje umírá poslední
I'll put it to you this way: if you were born into a proverbial vaccuum, with no religious influence from parents, schools, churches, etc, would your first instinct be to say "Oh yeah, God's work. All of it"?
What I'm saying is I have no idea, but the first conclusion that humans as a species came to when they were in that basic situation was to look to a higher power. And honestly, I didn't have very strong influences on me as a kid, so I was able to develop my views pretty independently, with some help from some great thinkers/writers
Well that's about how I feel too, I've just had some of those experiences you talk about not having. And trust me, my belief that there is some sort of higher power leaves me plenty of room to wonder, and enjoy that sense of wonder
That's cool. Like I said at the start of the thread, I'm not gonna waste anyone's time trying to change anyone's mind, cos it's not my place.
Have you ever heard of that saying... where God is like a mountain, which can be approached by many paths... which all reach to the top? Yeah, some paths are easier to ascend, while others are rough and trecherous. But, in the long run... they all end up at the same place.
to me... religions are the different paths. The God of the Bible, the Quran and the Torah are the same thing. He is also the same thing Buddhists, Hindus and native American Indians believe in... and the spiritualists. It's all the same and your way works for you. Just accept it and move on.
No need to worry about me. Just because I do not choose to folow in your footsteps, doesn't mean i'm looking for the same thing.
I have no problem with God... and my grievences with Religion is waning. I usually have problems when God's fans... who have time and time again shown me... act and say things that are in complete opposition of what they claim to be.
So... if i decide to take a more adventerous route to find God... that's on me. Let me be.
Hail, Hail!!!
At this point in time, it really doesn't matter if we know there is or isn't a god that is watching over us. The reason being is that even if there was a god, there is no way we could ever know that the bible, the koran, or any other script of organized religion represents "his wishes."
Often I hear of the religious talking as if they know something about humility just because they recognize that a god exists and follow his supposed wishes.
But, as far as I can tell, that is not a true sense of humility. The fact that we suddenly "behave" because we've discovered a "higher" being that is all powerful and is capable of laying down supreme consequences does not make us humble.
What makes us humble is our ability to see ourselves who for we really are, not for who we'd like to believe we are, and acknowledge in other people the parts of ourselves that we see in them.
That is true humility. That is an earnest pursuit of truth. But, that is an enormously difficult thing for EVERYONE to do because we naturally are at odds with one another as we compete for resources and a sense of status.
On top of that, the ability to be introspective (see into ourselves) is also extremely counter-intuitive (unnatural). We've been on this earth for thousands of years and only recently have we begun to understand our emotions, our patterns of thinking...etc. Even the simplest pattern of thinking that we all exhibit, the hierarchy of needs, was discovered in relatively recent history.
The concept of a god and religion steps in and fills the holes of understanding for which people yearn to be filled. That's why we see comments like this:
This is clearly just frustration over not being able to explain the inexplicable. That among other things is what fuels the desire for religion. People cannot stand the awkardness of ignorance. They refuse to acknowledge the HUMBLE nature of our simple existence.
So, that's why I say....religion teaches NOTHING about humility. Religion offers a solution to the frustration of a humble existence by offering a connection to something "higher."
If "God" was not a "higher" "supreme" being who is "all-powerful", then there would be no appeal.
Religion is, in fact, immoral. It teaches people to take on an immoral style of thinking towards their fellow man and to other living things.
A most recent example that I can think of is something I saw on Animal Planet the other day.
A veterinarian was saving the life of a stray cat, and she goes, "This cat deserves to live because it is one of god's creatures."
In other words, she did not have any true sense of compassion for this cat. Instead, she used her desire for a sense of "greatness" to motivate her to save the cat's life. Instead of, "I feel compassion for this cat because it is another living thing, and therefore I feel an emotional connection," she essentially went, "Because a supreme, all-powerful being wants me to keep this cat alive, it therefore deserves to live."
Sad, really, that religion does nothing more than suck any chance of a true humanitarian sense of well-being from a person's good-naturedness, and replaces it with a desire to fulfill the supposed wishes of a supreme being.
What makes it even more repugnant and inexcusably disgusting is that this groteseque approach to saving lives is often called "humility."
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Hopefully I didnt sound like I thought I was totally right and everyone else is wrong. I definitely dont want to come across that way. I believe a lot of things from other faiths and philosophies.
"Its a secret to everybody."
jack
the universe was already here
I told one of my most evangelical co-workers I'm an atheist.
I couldn't take it anymore - all of the God talk. She stated that she knew I believed as she did, so I felt compelled to let her in on what was apparently my little secret.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Gutsy, gutsy move. Most people, being the hopelessly ignorant creatures that they are, will have a hard time understanding. What's more is that they might even be afraid of the influence that religion might have at your place of work. You risk your job security.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I'm union represented, so I'm fine - probably the same reason people get to bring the church with them to work everyday at our office. :rolleyes:
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
If I'm not mistaken, Hank Hanagraaf and/or his staff
have answered Richard Dawkin's criticism. I'm not sure
if they answered it in book form or in a CRI
journal/news letter (some of these can be read for
free online). Dawkins had no understanding at all of the
certain scriptures he criticized in his book. You could always research Hank's
rebuttals for a comparison to see for yourself.
I'll briefly explain one of the main reasons why Dawkin was fighting an imaginary battle while writing his book. As controversial (symbolic and
mysterious) as the subject of eschatology (book of
Revelation/end times) is, Dawkins seems to have
foolishly based most of his argument against one of
several eschalogical systems of interpretation,
futurism/pre-millenialism, which I believe is a false
system of interpretation to begin with. In other
words, even if Dawkins was correct, which I believe he
wasn't (even premillenialists have a solid case
against his misunderstanding of scripture) he would
have no argument against my method of eschalogical
interpretation, since I follow Orthodox preterism. You
could read Hank Hanagraaf's "The Apocalypse Code" to
gain a correct understanding of the statement about
"this generation" made by Jesus. Dawkins has an
incorrect understanding of the statement because it
seems that Dawkins has no clue at all about the
complicated subject of eschatology. I wonder if he
even understands that there are Christian
interpretations other than futurism and premillenialism.
The beginning chapters of a book by Steve Gregg, Revelations/Four Views, would give anyone interested an understanding of the many 'isms' (methods of
interpretation) of eschatology.
I don't have time for a long technical discussion, but I'll explain a bit of where I'm comming from. I use the law of probability for an understanding of why the earth is in this one optimum position in the milky way with the corresponding laws of the universe supporting it. I can't consider this obvious, pinpoint accurate design for sustenance of life as a mere coincidence. When asked about this subject, most Darwinists sidestep the issue with 'there must be millions of planets like this out there somewhere'. The DVD, ThePrivileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe by
Jay W. Richards, is a good place to start on this topic, IMO. It can be found at http://www.equip.org/store/topical.asp?Div=Types&Da=y&Author=&TopID=&Keyword=&K2=&DeptID=204&SubID=&List=all .
I have no real problem with the idea of an old earth, as many Christians hold to a day/age, old-earth belief. It's spontaneous generation and macro-evolution that I see no shred of evidence anywhere for. It's a shame those two doctrines were forced upon students for a number of years. The DVD Unlocking the Mystery of Life (can be found at http://www.equip.org is excellent. The DVD does a great job in showing how evolution gives no account for the origin of genetic info for either protein or the flagellar motor assembly. It seems clear to me that a law of probability points to creation being the cause of such sophisticated life. I challenge any evolutionist to view the DVD with an open mind.
On the subject of archeopteryx, the following info is definately worth a read.
From Hank Hanegraaff's book, The Bible Answer Book
Vol. 1:
"Is Archeopteryx The Missing Link Between Dinosaurs
And Birds?</P><P>Whenever I say (during my radio show) that there are
no transitions from one species to another, someone
inevitably brings up Archeopteryx. This happens so
frequently that I've decided to coin a word for the
experience: pseudosaur. Pseudo means false and saur
refers to a dinosaur or reptile (literally lizard).
Thus, a pseudosaur is a false link between reptiles
(such as dinosaurs) and birds. Myriad evidences
demonstrate conclusively that Archaeopteryx is a
full-fledged bird: not a missing link.</P><P>First, fossils of both Archaeopteryx and the kinds
of dinosaurs Archaeopteryx supposedly descended from
have been found in a fine-grained German limestone
formation said to be Late Jurassic (the Jurassic
period is said to have begun 190 million years ago,
lasting 54 million years). Thus, Archaeopteryx is not
a likely candidate as the missing link, since birds
and their alleged ancestral dinosaurs thrived during
the same period.</P><P>Furthermore, initial Archaeopteryx fossil finds gave
no evidence of a bony sternum, which led
paleontologists to conclude that Archaeopteryx could
not fly or was a poor flyer. However, in April 1993 a
seventh specimen was reported that included a bony
sternum. Thus, there is no further doubt that
Archaeopteryx was as suited for power flying as any
modern bird. </P><P>Finally, to say that Archaeopteryx is a missing link
between reptiles and birds, one must believe that
scales evolved into feathers for flight. Air friction
acting on genetic mutation supposedly frayed the outer
edges of reptilian scales. Thus, in the course of
millions of years, scales became increasingly like
feathers until, one day, the perfect feather emerged.
To say the least, this idea must stretch the credulity
of even the most ardent evolutionist.</P><P>These and myriad other factors overwhelmingly
exclude Archaeopteryx as a missing link between birds
and dinosaurs. The sober fact is that Archaeopteryx
appears abruptly in the fossil record, with
masterfully engineered wings and feathers common in
the birds observable today. Even the late Stephen Jay
Gould of Harvard and Niles Eldridge of the American
Museum of Natural History, both militant
evolutionists, have concluded that Archaeopteryx
cannot be viewed as a transitional form. </P><P>For further study, see Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The
Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, Calif.: Institute for
Creation Research, 1995); and Jonathon Wells, Icons of
Evolution: Science or Myth? (Washington D.C. Regnery,
2000).</P><P>Genesis 1:25
God made the wild animals according to their kinds,
the livestock according to their kinds, and all the
creatures that move along the ground according to
their kinds. And God saw that it was good."
The answer lies in obedience theory.
According to obedience theory, a vast overwhelming majority of people will obey a perceived "authority" even when it means sacrificing their own personal beliefs.
This was proven in the Milgram experiments, whereby volunteers were coerced into committing what they believed was serious, deadly, bodily harm to an unwilling individual simply because they were being "instructed" to by an authority figure.
It proved that the holocaust could happen anywhere because it is human nature to follow orders in spite of there being a moral conflict involved.
People are naturally social beings. That is, we survive by being social. We learn from birth that we need a family to survive, and we insinctively "admire" our parents because they are the caregivers who know what's best for us.
And that is how the concept of a god is born. God is merely the manifestation of our need to admire something. Our need to admire something is derived from our need to seek a sense of safety within a society.
Religion capitalizes on that need to admire a "greater" thing by creating the ultimate caregiver (aka parent), which is god. God is anything that is "good" for society.
And thus is the dichotomy of our sense of morality. On the one hand, we respect life. On the other, we need the lives of others to sustain our own.
In the process, we lose sight of what it is that truly makes us compassionate human beings. While we recognize individual human beings as possessing characteristics similar to ourselves, we also recognize the "greater good" that is achieved by putting the needs of our "neighbors" before ourselves.
That "greater good" is a concept which at times can dilude our own sense of self. That is also the birth of culture. It is why people, rather than identifying with their own individual characteristics, would rather identify with the culture in which they were raised.
This lost sense of self leaves a question mark in the backs of their minds, and that question mark is answered with "God."
Religion is, essentially, immoral. It is for those who lack beliefs -who lack a solid foundation for the appreciation of life and the development of the individual human will.
And that's why I always say...the question is not whether or not there is a god. The question is why people need to believe in one in the first place.
You'll find that the types of personalities that look to religion for answers generally happen to be extremely naive and overly simplistic when it comes to understanding human nature and the intricacies of societal behavior.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I doubt you will see God's face in the sun one day while hearing a ground shaking command to accept Christ as your savior. Here are some (not all) of the ways He has made Himself known:
Creation: The earth in all it's complexity has
design written all over it. If a basketball needed created
then how much more the earth and beyond? Put a
watch in a paper bag and then take a sledge hammer
to it. The pieces aren't going to go into place and
function no matter how much time passes. There is nearly an infinite amount of scientific creation evidence extant for anyone who's interested to check it out.
Darwinism is teetering and it's inevitable demise is
foreseen by a rapidly increasing number of scientists worldwide. Darwinism is outdated in an advanced scientific era. Scientists
today know he had no clue of the complexity of a
single human cell (stretch one out and the genetic
information reaches for miles) when he spoke of
spontaneous generation. Why doesn't SG happen
today within or outside of a lab? Billions of normal
fossils and skeletons have been found but nothing at all
transitional. Darwin himself said if this missing
link wasn't soon found (which has long passed) then his theory would be debunked.
Archaeological evidence: Cities, specifics like
monuments, buildings, artifacts, etc. match O.T.
history.
Fulfilled Bible prophecy: The O.T. prophecy of the
temple to be destroyed was fulfilled in N.T. times.
There are many other similar examples.
Fulfilled messianic prophecy: More than a hundred were listed
in the O.T. and Jesus fulfilled them all, including
many he couldn't have possibly controlled: his leg was
not broken by Roman soldiers despite that being the
customary norm for anyone on a cross, a crown of
thorns was placed on his head, his clothes were
gambled for, etc. etc.
Bible harmony: There were close to a hundred authors involved
in writing the Bible who were from different races, linguistic barriers,
time periods, regions, and cultures, but a common
gospel theme and total harmony is found from cover to cover. Each book
totally harmonizes with the whole in each aspect. No
claimed Bible contradictions have ever been proven.
The empty tomb and evidence of the gospel accounts:
Jame's, the brother of Jesus, abrupt turn from his
pre-resurrection adamant rejection of Jesus' claims
of being the messiah to dying for his faith after
witnessing the resurrected Christ, Peter's and the
disciples' cowardice and rejection of Christ pre-resurrection
but post-rez being bold as lions and dying for their
faith (Peter, with humility, even requested to die upside down rather than be hung upright on a cross like Christ) , God choosing Mary Magdalene to be the first eye witness of the resurrected Christ despite the fact
that womens' testimonies weren't even allowed in
court in that day (she would have been the worst candidate
to be used for a hoax story. She was not only a
woman but a former prostitute), God's sovereignty which
insured the rise of Christianity despite severe
government persecution by both the Jewish and Roman
governments, etc. etc. See Lee Strobel's book "Case for Christ" for much more.
For anyone interested in finding a good church or Christian advice, good examples can be found at the following link. I'm not an affiliate. I'm just a listener.
http://www.gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=231013
Then there are many others who go to church to worship God because of who He is and the eternal life they have through Him.
"because they admire power and want to live forever"
that is, after all, what you're saying.
It's just hard for a lot of people to act like decent human beings without being able to associate such behavior with something "greater" than just being a decent human being. That's why they need religion.
They lack a natural sense of morality. They are empty, belief-lacking shells of people they may have once been before being brainwashed by...whomever. Religion is immoral. Churches are houses of self-deception.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Two cents for ya, even though you weren't typing to me. Yeah, that would be the first instinct, along with the instinct to say "but who cares". Unless God draws someone, the desire to have an intimate relationship with Him isn't there. The real question is, do people have to be completely rewired to have this desire. In other words, does God throw out a lifeline and lead us to grab it. Or, as the calvinist would believe, does God see a lifeless body at the bottom of the ocean and breath life into it.
The Bible teaches a gospel that is totally at odds with the messages of the other religions you mentioned.
A mature Christian doesn't follow God because of fear. Also, we don't "behave" on our own. God is responsible for the gradual changes.
[quoteWhat makes us humble is our ability to see ourselves who for we really are, not for who we'd like to believe we are and acknowledge in other people the parts of ourselves that we see in them [/quote]
That is part of it. I agree.
[/quote]Often I hear of the religious talking as if they know something about humility just because they recognize that a god exists and follow his supposed wishes.[/quote]
So are you arguing that a Christian (with God's help) isn't capable of actually being humble due to the fact that they've read about humility in the Bible?
.[/quote]Even the simplest pattern of thinking that we all exhibit, the hierarchy of needs, was discovered in relatively recent history.
The concept of a god and religion steps in and fills the holes of understanding for which people yearn to be filled. That's why we see comments like this:
They refuse to acknowledge the HUMBLE nature of our simple existence..[/quote]
Our existance is anything but simple though. Ask any scientist, atheist or Christian. So if a person believes it's wise (benificial to himself and others) to ponder the origin of life, it's somehow his/her pround yet insecure crutch?
[/quote]If "God" was not a "higher" "supreme" being who is "all-powerful", then there would be no appeal. .[/quote]
If "God" was not a "higher" "supreme" being who is "all-powerful", then He wouldn't be God and wouldn't have the ability to create.
.[/quote]Religion is, in fact, immoral. It teaches people to take on an immoral style of thinking towards their fellow man and to other living things..[/quote]
Since you don't believe in God, who changes the heart which leads to change of behavior, then ok. I believe otherwise. Are there also instances of Christian immaturity and failure? Yes, of course.
[/quote]A most recent example that I can think of is something I saw on Animal Planet the other day. A veterinarian was saving the life of a stray cat, and she goes, "This cat deserves to live because it is one of god's creatures."
In other words, she did not have any true sense of compassion for this cat. Instead, she used her desire for a sense of "greatness" to motivate her to save the cat's life. Instead of, "I feel compassion for this cat because it is another living thing, and therefore I feel an emotional connection," she essentially went, "Because a supreme, all-powerful being wants me to keep this cat alive, it therefore deserves to live."[/quote]
So are you arguing that a Christian (with God's help) isn't capable of actually being compassionate due to the fact that they've read about compassion in the Bible?
."[/quote]Sad, really, that religion does nothing more than suck any chance of a true humanitarian sense of well-being from a person's good-naturedness, and replaces it with a desire to fulfill the supposed wishes of a supreme being.."[/quote]
What 'need' would there be to feel a sense of well-being after doing a good deed? Would there be pride and/or insecurity involved in that? Isn't the good deed all about the need of the person on the receiving end?
If that were true, then it wouldn't matter if a creature was that of God's making or not.
According to the veterinarian in my example, the cat deserved to live not because there is a natural sense of well-being to be derived from doing a good deed, but because a supreme being commands it so.
Alas, I am disappointed once again in religion's ability to persuade me that God's will represents a true sense of morality.
It seems that you, mikesguitar, couldn't respond without loaded, rhetorical questions that side-stepped the points that I was making. Why am I not surprised?
The answer is that religion is simply an instrument of control for people who lack a natural sense of morality. I'm very sorry to put it that way, but I do BELIEVE that it is in your best interests if there is any hope for you to eventually discover the good within you that exists without the crutch of religion.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825