Who doesn't believe in religion?

[SonofBone]

One thing that I find interesting is that if the Bible is so great then why does man get to pick and choose what goes in it as time goes on? I was recently watching a program on the History channel where they were talking about missing books such as the Book of Jubilee. That one discusses Christ's childhood & there was another one where the angels mated w/human's and created giants.

If we're going to have ancient stories in there, we should have all of them...not just the ones that religious leaders felt were appropriate at the time.

[NewbieChris]

i'm not trying to be a dick here, but have you read the bible? There is some reprehensible stuff in there.

The tale of Lot is an interesting one. He offers his daughters to be raped by his village in order to spare his male guests and is rewarded by God for it. Abraham almost murders his own son, something that, if it were true, would certainly be scarring to say the least.

I don't think we need a religious book to be moral creatures. While it may help some people, there are enough contradictions in there as to make it almost irrelevant...unless you ignore the bits you don't like, in which case, how do we decide what is relevant?

You're missing the point of the book. If you believe we need a book to be moral creatures...how can you argue we are moral when the bible has such resounding immorality in it. I don't believe the book was given by divin inspiration. Nor should anyone if you ask me. However, it is a tale of morality in history. At one point in time it was considered highly moral to do some things we think of now as completely immoral.

It is then a book of moral tale, or rather moral history. Where we come from, etc. That doesn't mean I have to believe it word for word. It also does not mean I can't leave out portions I don't like. I don't believe that without it we will fall to shambles, but the theme of the book is, IMO, one of reminder. That we are not here for ourselves. That we live in a community and that we have to be aware of that.

That is what I took from the parts of the bible that I have been forced to read.

[curtus e flush]

hail satan:evil:

[goliath]

many theists argue that religion is needed in order to maintain a moral order. but this isn't the case at all. morality is defined by culture and or religion. culture can maintain moral order in the absence of god. all you need to do is look at crime statistics to realize that religion does not equal moral behavior as defined by western culture. we are estimated to have an 85% christian society yet we also have one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. per capita, it is the highest (believe it or not). morality is set by culture, not religion. if that culture defines itself through religion, it is still the culture itself defining it's own moral code and the religious text is simply a set of rules by which that culture agrees is moral. but it is still defined by culture.

as for the existence of god, not only is it improbable, but it is logically impossible for god to exist in the way which man has defined him.
without getting into some long drawn out explanation as to why i see it this way, i'll try to summarize.

god, according to the bible is:
omni potent - all powerful
omni present - everywhere all the time
omni benevolent - all loving
infallible - perfect in being
yet, there is the problem of evil. evil exists in the world and can be generally divided into two distinct classes. natural evil - that which exists in nature, and moral evil - that which is perpetuated by man. evil is defined as that which causes harm.
god controls the natural world as it operates independent of free will. if god controls nature, he just killed over 50 people in the south with tornadoes. fundamentalists would argue that these people were punished by god for their sins. but what about all of the animals (cows, dogs, etc) - were they bathing in sin as well? of course not. yet they have been killed by the hand of god!? so, if god really exists, he could be said to be an evil being because he causes immeasurable harm through nature. even if this argument were false, he still could not exist as defined in the bible because of the fact that evil exists in the world and either a.) he is not omnibenevolent because if he loved all of his creatures, he would not allow them to be harmed in this way thus b.) cannot be omnipotent because he seems powerless to stop it.
due to the free will argument, moral evil is more difficult to debate.

infallibility - this does not hold true either. to be infallible is to be perfect. if the perfect being exists, he is perfect to just, well...be. the perfect being needs nothing. no food, water, love, creation - nothing. things are created due to need. the perfect being, lacking in nothing, would have no need to create anything - he is perfect. thus, creation would have never happened. especially not in 6 days if he were to be omnipresent, transcending all space in time. for a being to exist outside the bounds of time - those 6 days would not exist. or a second for that matter. and an omni potent being would certainly not need a 7th day to rest.

there are also problems of logic existing in the ten commandments...they cannot logically co-exist. but i'm tired of typing...

[mindstar]

I don't believe the book was given by divin inspiration. Nor should anyone if you ask me. However, it is a tale of morality in history. At one point in time it was considered highly moral to do some things we think of now as completely immoral.

It is then a book of moral tale, or rather moral history. Where we come from, etc. That doesn't mean I have to believe it word for word. It also does not mean I can't leave out portions I don't like. I don't believe that without it we will fall to shambles, but the theme of the book is, IMO, one of reminder. That we are not here for ourselves. That we live in a community and that we have to be aware of that.

That is what I took from the parts of the bible that I have been forced to read.

why use the bible then? why use a book that has some good things in it and some reprehensible things in it as a moral compass?

if it is merely a historical text, then fine, but if it provides moral instruction and you only use bits of it, why not use Aesop's fables instead? Maybe a philosophy book? Maybe something from the new age section?

[NewbieChris]

why use the bible then? why use a book that has some good things in it and some reprehensible things in it as a moral compass?

if it is merely a historical text, then fine, but if it provides moral instruction and you only use bits of it, why not use Aesop's fables instead? Maybe a philosophy book? Maybe something from the new age section?

Because i can't control how other use it or how I was raised...

[goliath]

Because i can't control how other use it or how I was raised...

so if you were raised to be an alcoholic wife-beater, would you be?

[NewbieChris]

so if you were raised to be an alcoholic wife-beater, would you be?

To a certain extent, yes. However, the person you are is a function of more than simply environment. Social acceptability is another influencing factor. Personal belief in a system, yet another. I have no problem with the Bible. It has taught me lessons and it has given me an overall theme I believe to be good. I don't have the time, nor inclination honestly, to delve into this situation fully.

However, you are over simplifying society and God in itself. I don't believe you have actually taken an unbiased look at the subject. Religion is personification of society. Modern day Christianity may be 'dated' to you, but its simply a replication of societies of the past.

[Shibby]

many theists argue that religion is needed in order to maintain a moral order. but this isn't the case at all. morality is defined by culture and or religion. culture can maintain moral order in the absence of god. all you need to do is look at crime statistics to realize that religion does not equal moral behavior as defined by western culture. we are estimated to have an 85% christian society yet we also have one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. per capita, it is the highest (believe it or not). morality is set by culture, not religion. if that culture defines itself through religion, it is still the culture itself defining it's own moral code and the religious text is simply a set of rules by which that culture agrees is moral. but it is still defined by culture.

as for the existence of god, not only is it improbable, but it is logically impossible for god to exist in the way which man has defined him.
without getting into some long drawn out explanation as to why i see it this way, i'll try to summarize.

god, according to the bible is:
omni potent - all powerful
omni present - everywhere all the time
omni benevolent - all loving
infallible - perfect in being
yet, there is the problem of evil. evil exists in the world and can be generally divided into two distinct classes. natural evil - that which exists in nature, and moral evil - that which is perpetuated by man. evil is defined as that which causes harm.
god controls the natural world as it operates independent of free will. if god controls nature, he just killed over 50 people in the south with tornadoes. fundamentalists would argue that these people were punished by god for their sins. but what about all of the animals (cows, dogs, etc) - were they bathing in sin as well? of course not. yet they have been killed by the hand of god!? so, if god really exists, he could be said to be an evil being because he causes immeasurable harm through nature. even if this argument were false, he still could not exist as defined in the bible because of the fact that evil exists in the world and either a.) he is not omnibenevolent because if he loved all of his creatures, he would not allow them to be harmed in this way thus b.) cannot be omnipotent because he seems powerless to stop it.
due to the free will argument, moral evil is more difficult to debate.

infallibility - this does not hold true either. to be infallible is to be perfect. if the perfect being exists, he is perfect to just, well...be. the perfect being needs nothing. no food, water, love, creation - nothing. things are created due to need. the perfect being, lacking in nothing, would have no need to create anything - he is perfect. thus, creation would have never happened. especially not in 6 days if he were to be omnipresent, transcending all space in time. for a being to exist outside the bounds of time - those 6 days would not exist. or a second for that matter. and an omni potent being would certainly not need a 7th day to rest.

there are also problems of logic existing in the ten commandments...they cannot logically co-exist. but i'm tired of typing...

That is one of the greatest things I have read in as long as I can remember.

[Shibby]

One thing I have always found interesting is all these definitions

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers:
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

[Shibby]

What are those definitions of ^......... "Cult"

[goliath]

actually, i have. my parents are divorced but i lived with my dad for several years and he is a baptist. i went to church every sunday, and often wednesday as well. i was falling for it - but at 13/14 years old, i started noticing that things didn't add up...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the whole thing is a farce. and yes, it is that simple...from it's inception, religion has been used as a means of control. 'religion is the opiate of the poor'. it is a device by which the have's are able to control the have-not's. fret not for your suffering here on earth for you will be rewarded handsomely in the kingdom of heaven.

give me a break. people who claim to speak to god are nuts. depending on what the voices say, we either lock them up or label them as profits and men of god...they're all the same brand of crazy if you ask me.

[Shibby]

and now do they sound much different than this

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.


^definitions for "Religion".

[goliath]

That is one of the greatest things I have read in as long as I can remember.

lol - why thank you. :D

this is a topic that i spent a significant amount of time studying in college. i was a bio major, but my passion has always been philosophy and human/cultural studies...

[Shibby]

The way you talk about it just makes so much sense to me. There is a guy at work that always discusses his side (christian) with me. Lately though he has kind of kept quite. The last couple questions I asked either made him give up or he found himself asking inner questions he didn't like. And by didn't like I mean if he really considered it, it would throw his world into unstoppable spin.