Is There a God?

I saw something the other day which used the phrase "Faith is a euphemism for gullibility"

I don't believe in a god, I am not religious, I see no need for it in modern society. I don't believe in fate or that I don't have control over my life. I don't wish to feel that some unseen force is guiding me or my decisions. People can influence my life, and it bothers me that some believe that they are guided by some unseen force and use it as justification for their actions.

You are resonsible for you actions.

You have one life. Live it. We have one planet. I don't believe that this is preparation for something else. I don't believe that there is a god waiting to reward/punish our decisions or on hand to save the human race (or the other inhabitants of this planet). I honestly believe that the word would be vastly improved if people did not use religon and faith as a doctrine of control and political will.

I could not believe in a god that can allow people to act as they do to each other.

I also believe that despite the number of people who may refer to themselves are "Christian" etc on a census form or if stopped in the street, most of these don't actually practice nor believe in the foundation of their stated religon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

I could not believe in a god that can allow people to act as they do to each other.

---

So you would want a god that controls what you think & what you do?

I dont find my answer in your poll. I dont go to church but i do practice the teachings and the verses. I read i believe, and i live the word of god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dunes

I dont find my answer in your poll. I dont go to church but i do practice the teachings and the verses. I read i believe, and i live the word of god.

---

Sounds like option 1 to me.. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

You have one life. Live it. We have one planet.

---

Are you sure? And why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

Are you sure? And why?

---

Are you sure there's an afterlife? Why?

In my life I have been atheist, fundamentalist, I have researched various branches of Christianity, Buddhism and Wicca. My personal opinion is that God exists and has created the Universe. I believe that He is One, but also unknowable to us and it is far more advanced to humans as we are to ants. So different people see him in different ways. Hence different religions. I wouldn't force my beliefs on anyone, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

What record do we have that Jesus was peaceful? The Bible was written 300 years later by a collection of Religious leaders and influencer's headed by Damascus. The rise of Damascus himself is astonishing with murder, riots, civil unrest and massacres preceding his appointment.

These are the authors of the New Testament. It is an amalgamation of doctrine composed by the politicians of the time to solve a civil problem.

Even so, there are many examples of violence and cruelty associated with Jesus in this fiction. For example, all the guff about respecting other faiths rather flies in the face of the assertion that those not baptised should be cast into the fire, or what about the sanctity of burial but Jesus says to ignore the dead and "let the dead bury their dead". We could even talk about when Jesus cast devils into a herd of swine forcing them to drown and the herders to lose their livelihood and they fled into the town and told what happened.

These aren't choice parts from all parts of the New testament but just a few pages of Matthew; a book about one of the disciples which was probably originally written about 100 AD and nobody knows the author even before it was incorporated into the New Testament.

We can look at acts of violence and teachings of cruelty by Jesus in other books but the most prophetic is probably that Jesus will cause Brother to kill Brother and Father to kill Son. This one at least has come true.

This is all in the sanitised version known as the New Testament and not the Blood and Guts, incest, rape, murder and sodomy read known as the Jewish Scripture or Old Testament whichever you prefer.

Was Jesus a peace loving Prophet? Dunno. However, I wouldn't rely on the New Testament to prove your point as I have many, many more examples.

All of which has little to do with God ;)

---

Knock-on wrote:
What record do we have that Jesus was peaceful? The Bible was written 300 years later

You are right here; so I guess it is quite possible that the legacy he left although very subjective is one of advocating amoung other things peace. No one can speak with authority of his day to day life or even what specifically he said. So I guess it depends on whose story you believe.

Quote:

---

Jesus, the messiah, will bring God's new age into being and herald the outpouring of God's salvation by suffering and dying. That the messiah's victory involves his own suffering confounds the people's expectations. It confounds Peter's expectations. Jesus, the messiah, does not stand for power-over others. Jesus, the messiah, does not stand for easy victory and glory before human beings. Jesus, the messiah, has to do with consistent, persevering love and compassion and openness - even in the face of violence from those who resent that kind of love.

(2) We believe Jesus is the model human being, who asks us to follow his way of living. Practical life is central to theology. How we live and what we believe go together hand-in-glove. What do we believe about Jesus Christ? We believe that our confession of Christ as savior and our following Christ in discipleship together make up our Christology. What matters about Jesus Christ includes his life, death, and resurrection. Jesus matters because he won us salvation by dying for our sins and because he showed us how to live.

(3) We believe that Jesus is God-with-us, who shows us that the power of love is the most important kind of power. In Jesus' life, we see God's chosen one revealing human life as it is meant to be lived. In Jesus' death, we see Jesus' faithfulness standing the ultimate test, the "rulers of this age" crucifying him (1 Corinthians 2:8). In Jesus' resurrection, we see God's vindication of Jesus' life. We learn just how faithful God is to his promise of eternal life for those who trust in his mercy. Jesus shows us that the power of love is the most important kind of power

---

I'll take this opinion that refers to:
Mark 8:27-38; Philippians 2:1-11; I Corinthians 2:1-10
As you say we know very little about the man!
BTW I believe this could all be BS ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

Are you sure there's an afterlife? Why?

---

No. I'm not sure. But I have doubts. That's why when I talk about such issues I do it like " I think that..." not like " I believe that..."

I don’t think someone could be a true atheist without a solid religious education. Otherwise he could be only the prisoner of an irrational idiosyncrasy and has no credibility.
On the other hand to have a mature talk about faith require ample readings of sacred texts, a speculative apparatus and a complicated experience of life.

Don’t think that most of us are in this position. Unfortunately most of those who proudly claim themselves atheists have an attitude like: God should look for me and persuade me and if he finds me I’m assured a warm place in heaven without any effort. Personally i don’t have to do anything. I have nothing to find, nothing to doubt. I’m just happy to meet myself.

Some people pretend evidence of God’s existance..... But there are many other unknown things about the Universe. We also dont’t have evidence of life in other parts of Universe but we still admit it may exist.

@ Knock-on I found this Top 10 Peaceful Men
I should be more specific and say that Jesus' legacy is peace and who is to say when a revolution of humanity ends?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz

Knock-on wrote:
What record do we have that Jesus was peaceful? The Bible was written 300 years later

You are right here; so I guess it is quite possible that the legacy he left although very subjective is one of advocating among other things peace. No one can speak with authority of his day to day life or even what specifically he said. So I guess it depends on whose story you believe.



I'll take this opinion that refers to:
Mark 8:27-38; Philippians 2:1-11; I Corinthians 2:1-10
As you say we know very little about the man!
BTW I believe this could all be BS ;)

---

Totally agree. We can choose to 'believe' parts of the Bible that reflect our individual beliefs, morals and convictions while ignoring those passages that contradict our principles. It's human nature after all. Look at the arguments we have on here with some Americans cherry picking parts of their constitution to suit their arguments and ignoring others that contradict them. Similarly, I personally get irate and judgemental about bloody mothers that park on School Zone lines and make the entrances dangerous for children but other driving laws such as speeding at 80 MPH on the motorway i quite readily flaunt. Hypocritical non?

The Bible is no different is it? In many ways it is a subjective work of fiction with little basis in fact other than the underlying framework similar to a Dan Brown novel.

Nope the Bible, or any religious teaching for that matter, is no evidence of fact or fiction, right or wrong. It's just a teaching from the past that we can learn lessons from but should be used advisedly.

As to whether Jesus and the early Christians were peaceful and non-aggressive? Very unlikely when the socio-economic situation at the time would rather preclude this. Could you imagine that any such tribe would survive without fighting and conquering it's enemies? Peace and Love? Yeah right! Tell that to the Romans ;)

Either way, all of this has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of a God. In my opinion, a God and Religion are mutually exclusive. It's beyond reason and logic that any organised Religion is derived from the existence of a supreme being or whatever God is (if it exists).

Good post knockie
We know most of both the old and New Testament was cherry-picked. And there is no doubt that that there was ugly goings on after Jesus' death and before Christianity was the official religion of Rome. But what is cherry picked about jesus in his life points to him being very strong on the side of non-violence. I don't think we will ever really know however.
:s ailor: Peace bro ;)

If Jesus had had a machine gun, would he have won? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by studiose

If Jesus had had a machine gun, would he have won? ;)

---

Last week I found this sticker when I was in Ghent, Belgium:

http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/...8/P1010448.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz

Good post knockie
We know most of both the old and New Testament was cherry-picked. And there is no doubt that that there was ugly goings on after Jesus' death and before Christianity was the official religion of Rome. But what is cherry picked about jesus in his life points to him being very strong on the side of non-violence. I don't think we will ever really know however.
:s ailor: Peace bro ;)

---

Cheers mate.

As for whether Jesus was peaceful, it matters little if the people that choose to follow Christianity adopt the "good" parts of the bible's teachings. What has or should have been is not as important as what is or shall be. Can't change the past but the future is ours to command.

Same is true about the past of Countries and Race. We can't influence what happened before we were born but are responsible for what we can influence and change ;)

If religion has an important role to play in tody's world, it is to make things better for everyone and not to be a weapon in conflict to prove one sides beliefs are more relevant than anothers.

All of which has no bearing on any type of God of course.

:s ailor: Amen!! ;)

Religion according to the OED is:
2. "a particular system of faith and/or worship",
3. "a controlling influence on a person's life"

Religion for want of a better word is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith. To put it more simply: Faith is where and what you believe in; Religion is what you do about it. That definition is flexible enough to include many/few/one/zero God/god/s.

If all of this is logical, then even I must concede that religion breeds intolerance and ignorance, because: "everyone from the lowliest peasant, to kings and princes are motivated by self-interest"
- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book 1.

The thug who robs a 7-Eleven, a lazy plumber who takes too long to do a job, the bankers on Wall St, even the priesthood who do "naughty things", are all "motivated by self-interest"; because of this, the religion that has caused more mistreatment and unhappiness than any other is surely the religion of self-interest? I'd say that it's caused both far more bad and good than any organised church, or codified religion ever has. Even if you want to look at the examples of jihad and the crusades, we still find people operating from the motivation of self-interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Either way, all of this has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of a God. In my opinion, a God and Religion are mutually exclusive. It's beyond reason and logic that any organised Religion is derived from the existence of a supreme being or whatever God is (if it exists).

---

I think that the two questions of "is there a God?" and "what is a religion? are separate and distinct but not necessarily mutually exclusive. The answer of how one goes about their religion is predicated by the first question. I can for instance be argued that Richard Dawkins as an atheist is following his own brand of religion because his practices (including putting adverts on buses) are the result of what he believes in; likewise I go to work five days a week based on the belief that the rewards derived from working pay for the electric, gas, grocery bills etc. Is it a religion? Under the loosest definition that it is a set of practices based on I believe, it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Totally agree. We can choose to 'believe' parts of the Bible that reflect our individual beliefs, morals and convictions while ignoring those passages that contradict our principles. It's human nature after all. Look at the arguments we have on here with some Americans cherry picking parts of their constitution to suit their arguments and ignoring others that contradict them. Similarly, I personally get irate and judgemental about bloody mothers that park on School Zone lines and make the entrances dangerous for children but other driving laws such as speeding at 80 MPH on the motorway i quite readily flaunt. Hypocritical non?

---

I don't see how any human except the most tiresomely righteous moralist could have the slightest objection to any of this.

May I make an important theological contribution here?

"God is... a gas."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49j2Y_680D0&

Y'awl boys are cracking me up :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

I don’t think someone could be a true atheist without a solid religious education.

---

Indeed, the more I learn about different religions the more odd religious beliefs appear to me.

Yes I think there is. And his name is

Lionel Messi

Yes there is,his name? Who else but Hef. Forget about virgins he sleeps with twins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

I don't think someone could be a true atheist without a solid religious education.

---

I don't agree. A religious education simply means that you've studied the doctrine of a particular religion. All that will allow you to do is consider the merits of one religion against another. As somebody pointed out earlier, there is a difference between religion and faith. To believe in god(s) you have to have faith. You don't have to follow a religion.

Personally, I don't believe in god(s) so I guess that makes me an atheist. The reason I don't believe in god(s) has nothing to do with religion but is rather a reflection of the fact that I simply don't need faith in a god to live my life.

Atheism in America: Why won

It is interesting reading this thread as an American, because while I can certainly understand agnosticism, atheism seems completely foreign to me and unnatural. Here's an interesting quote from the article linked:

Quote:

---

A Gallup poll last year showed that, while 9 per cent of Americans would not vote for a Jewish presidential candidate, 22 per cent wouldn’t support a Mormon and 32 per cent would not vote for a gay or lesbian candidate, 49 per cent would refuse to back an atheist for president.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexamateo

Atheism in America: Why won

It is interesting reading this thread as an American, because while I can certainly understand agnosticism, atheism seems completely foreign to me and unnatural. Here's an interesting quote from the article linked:

---

The difference between Europe and America is certainly interesting when it comes to religiousness in politics. As the article implies, an atheist can pretty much forget about being President in the US. Or he has to lie..

Not so in many European countries.

I know that in Estonia -- as perhaps an extreme example, but nevertheless -- if a presidential candidate started talking about God and faith, he/she would be seen by most as some sort of dangerous nutter. Even at Christmas when politicians make a point of being seen in church, it comes across as somehow unnatural.

I must admit, when I see politicians going to church in the UK, it makes me uneasy.

I want my politicians to make decision based on reason, facts and logic, not some 'belief'. That scares me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

I must admit, when I see politicians going to church in the UK, it makes me uneasy.

I want my politicians to make decision based on reason, facts and logic, not some 'belief'. That scares me.

---

I agree completely. Look at how Blair only converted to Catholicism after he ceased to be Prime Minister, and attempted always to deflect questions about his faith. When he was asked by Jeremy Paxman whether he and George W. Bush had prayed together, all he could do was refuse to answer what he said was a stupid question, or words to that effect. Not being stupid, he knew that a lot of people, right across the political spectrum, would consider him a religious nutter if he discussed his faith publicly. Some may consider this sad; I see it as entirely sensible. It was one matter on which he was entirely right.

You're right Ben. In America, you're weird and unelectable if you're not religious. In the UK, the opposite is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

I must admit, when I see politicians going to church in the UK, it makes me uneasy.

I want my politicians to make decision based on reason, facts and logic, not some 'belief'. That scares me.

---

Conversely, I would see a politician with no faith as groundless and lacking a frame of reference. In other words, there would be no anchor points from which to make decisions from. Atheism just seems so nihilistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexamateo

Conversely, I would see a politician with no faith as groundless and lacking a frame of reference. In other words, there would be no anchor points from which to make decisions from. Atheism just seems so nihilistic.

---

I'm afraid I consider your point of view quite offensive, personally. In no way do I consider my own atheism 'nihilistic'. What do you, with respect, know of the motivation behind my lack of religious belief?

And, quite honestly, how dare you suggest that the sense of judgement of someone who has made up their mind that there is no higher being must be rendered somehow inferior to that of any believer? I would rather people, including politicians, took decisions based on fact and reason rather than religious belief of any form. Your sense that religious belief makes an individual superior to a non-believer is not just patronising, but also groundless. In the context of politicians, how sad that you, and those like you, would ignore any good an atheist politician had ever done in favour of a spurious moral judgement in which their lack of religious beliefs overrides all other personal qualities they may have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexamateo

Conversely, I would see a politician with no faith as groundless and lacking a frame of reference. In other words, there would be no anchor points from which to make decisions from. Atheism just seems so nihilistic.

---

And therein is perfectly encapsulated the problems of religion in policy.

Some, because they have picked a few things to fixate on and who rationalise ignoring huge portions of their own sacred commandments, believe that they are superior and have superior judgement---in advance---because ultimately they believe their ONE WAY is the ONE WAY for all people, all questions...

While others who see their extremely selective concentration on just a few points in their Holy Book, while utterly ignoring direct commands from their Savior, believe those people to be cynical hypocrites at best, and dangerous and delusional people ready to do anything somebody might convince them is their Gods Will"

In short: "those that can make you believe in absurdities and concince you to commit atrocities".


You are a dangerous person Alex M. Your belief in a Zombie Jesus puts my liberty, my 2 little girls liberty and indeed the political process in this country in danger.

Why do you hate America?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexamateo

Conversely, I would see a politician with no faith as groundless and lacking a frame of reference. In other words, there would be no anchor points from which to make decisions from. Atheism just seems so nihilistic.

---

Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison were probably all atheist.
Political Nihilism at least is based on the assumption that governments, the law and the enforcement of law, be done away with (and possibly replaced). It's funny that especially over the course of the primaries of late, we've seen supposedly Christian candidates, espouse and trumpeting policies which fit very very well within the philosophy of Political Nihilism. Yet in the case of Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison, they wanted to build a "more perfect" system of government.
Currently we have a Prime Minister in Australia who is an openly declared Atheist. I wouldn't say that she's necessarily groundless and lacking a frame of reference either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexamateo

In other words, there would be no anchor points from which to make decisions from.

---

Another question. I do not go out and commit crime. Does this surprise you, given the lack of 'anchor points' I as an atheist supposedly have as regards decision-making?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

You're right Ben. In America, you're weird and unelectable if you're not religious. In the UK, the opposite is true.

---

Knockie that is not a belief held unilaterally. The west coast and other eastern urban areas are more than tolerant. Yes some of "my fellow Americans" understand that they are not promoting a candidate because of his religion or lack of it. We have a lot of citizens that are pro choice in this country and I bet a good proportion of those are non believers. It is true as you say though, given the entire demographics of the US, a belief in god is a requisite to getting elected President, or at least it has been until now.
Its freakin’ evangelists gone wild up in here :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexamateo

Conversely, I would see a politician with no faith as groundless and lacking a frame of reference. In other words, there would be no anchor points from which to make decisions from. Atheism just seems so nihilistic.

---

i too am quite offended by the thought that because i lack religous belief i lack the grounding to make moral or other decisions. I don't need religon to tell me not to kill, steal, discriminate or how to treat people generally. general common decency is plenty of a grounding, relying on someone elses "anchor points" just seems to be refusing to take personal responsibility for your actions or decisions imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

I don't agree. A religious education simply means that you've studied the doctrine of a particular religion. All that will allow you to do is consider the merits of one religion against another. As somebody pointed out earlier, there is a difference between religion and faith. To believe in god(s) you have to have faith. You don't have to follow a religion.

Personally, I don't believe in god(s) so I guess that makes me an atheist. The reason I don't believe in god(s) has nothing to do with religion but is rather a reflection of the fact that I simply don't need faith in a god to live my life.

---

I agree. One does not need to read Alice in Wonderland to know that it is not true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexamateo

Conversely, I would see a politician with no faith as groundless and lacking a frame of reference. In other words, there would be no anchor points from which to make decisions from. Atheism just seems so nihilistic.

---

No, just no.

What you are basically saying here is that you wouldn't like a politician who can think for himself/herself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison were probably all atheist.

---

I have read similar historic assertions, and believe them to be true. I think the biggest misconception about our inalienable rights endowed by god, also referred to as "Natural Rights" is the intent of the meaning. I think the intent of these very determined men included these words with a full understanding that if there is not a god than there is no one left to deny them; i.e. all bases are covered

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

What you are basically saying here is that you wouldn't like a politician who can think for himself.

---

What also seems to be being said is that they would be perfectly happy with a radical Muslim politician, but not an atheist.