do you believe there is a GOD?

[xMastemah]

<p>

I could care less that a religious person may or may not think I’m going to hell; what I care about is when those beliefs translate into gay people not getting equal rights, stem cell research not getting the attention it deserves. You really think it was just “a pretty extreme wing that is unarguably small” that got prop 8 passed?

</p>

<p>And you know what mate, I’m with you on that one. I’m all for keeping that crap out of other people’s lives. I’m all for religion being a totally voluntary and personal thing. Aside from it making more sense to me, these are some of the reasons I am Atheist and am disgusted by that kind of behavior.</p>

<p>I think some of you are confused: I am merely arguing for their right to exist. Not that any of it is truthful or such, not to defend myself at all, or their actions. Simply that religion, like other things, should have a right to exist in a certain, contained fashion where it isn’t disruptive of others who have different beliefs, or lack thereof.</p>

[gotakun]

<p>

@xMastemah

Semantics B.S. It honestly doesn’t even matter. There IS NO “possible version of reality” as it remains, so why push one out when you have no evidence to the contrary…? You’re no better than the Christian missionaries by telling people they’re illogical for believing in/thinking something when it’s fair to say what you think hardly provides anymore “realistic” answer to the questions people might have.

Honestly, I don’t think you have an argument. Again, I’m not a proponent of any theory. Atheism is about one thing only: the rejection of a higher power. It doesn’t try to explain anything. All it accomplishes is ruling out any religion’s version of reality/history. I don’t have the answers. All I know is that religious fiction is definitely never the answer.

Continuing from the previous example, “How did the universe begin?”

I don’t know. It’s so irrelevant that I question your motives. Maybe you would do better if you declared a side and justified it, instead of whatever you’re trying to do now.

The fact of the matter is, there is a lot of things you and everyone else (and generations of people gone) will never know, and will go to the grave not knowing, and religion is perhaps a more comforting version of reality than the (not-so) blissful ignorance that you call “logical”.

I’m sorry to say this, but you have grossly misused the term “ignorance.” Blindly believing in religious fiction is ignorant; rejecting scientific observations is ignorant; arguing when you are unable to justify yourself is ignorant. When ALL signs point to its untruthfulness, when all evidence that could even remotely help prove its legitimacy is suspected or known to be fraudulent, when it wouldn’t even matter anyway because there are a thousand different religions so what makes this one any different than the rest ;), when religious leaders suspiciously ignore important questions and significant contradictions, or when they cannot stand up to any atheist in a debate, when their only answer is to have faith and stifle curiosity, when every possible red flag is raised, rejecting religion is absolutely not ignorant and absolutely is logical.</p>

[applicannot]

<p>

Christ, for one thing.

</p>

<p>The Greeks thought they had physical evidence of their gods, too. I have little doubt that Jesus existed as a historical figure, however there is little evidence that he was divine. Although some historical documents refer to Jesus, none of them refer to anything miraculous. </p>

<p>You also need to read about what happened at the Council of Nicaea. None of that Dan Brown crap, but the real thing. It’s fascinating how a council of people literally voted on what they felt affirmed the religious doctrine. Remarkably few Christians ever know their own history, but hopefully you’re one of the few. On top of that, do you know why we celebrate Easter in Spring and Christmas in the dead of winter? Those holidays were literally placed by church leaders, so that the pagans would more easily convert (i.e., they were used to “cover” other pagan holidays).</p>

<p>I have found that these three movies are a very interesting starting point (I encourage anyone interested to do their own research). They are just a starting point, but they are excellent.</p>

<p>[YouTube</a> - Zeitgeist [Religion] The Greatest Story Ever Sold (1of 3)](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw)
[YouTube</a> - Zeitgeist [Religion] The Greatest Story Ever Sold (2 of 3)](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc-mrJf45Hg&feature=related]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc-mrJf45Hg&feature=related)
[YouTube</a> - Zeitgeist [Religion] The Greatest Story Ever Sold (3 of 3)](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjAegPhQOUg&feature=related]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjAegPhQOUg&feature=related)</p>

[xMastemah]

<p>

Honestly, I don’t think you have an argument.

</p>

<p>Confused or cannot/did not read, whichever.</p>

<p>

I think some of you are confused: I am merely arguing for their right to exist. Not that any of it is truthful or such, not to defend myself at all, or their actions. Simply that religion, like other things, should have a right to exist in a certain, contained fashion where it isn’t disruptive of others who have different beliefs, or lack thereof.

</p>

<p>I get this strange feeling I’m dealing with people now who believe something like “Loose Change” to be taken as fact and truth. :D</p>

[gotakun]

<p>So then you’re done, right? I’ve never heard of “Loose Change.” If you were implying that I was confused or did not read, I’m pretty sure neither is correct, but it’s definitely possible. I read everything you said, but it was meaningless. You can’t equate atheism with a religion. Blindly prescribing to science and modern scientific theories is similar to being religious, but that’s irrelevant, like most of your statements…</p>

[xMastemah]

<p>You’re the one stuck on the irrelevant part! You managed to draw my point so far across the board, you’re right, it doesn’t even make any damn sense! You’re much too caught up with the vocabulary and grammatics of everything, no wonder you’re so lost! </p>

<p>Anyway, I was drawing the point back to what argument I had intended from the very beginning, something you said that I responded to about purging the world of religion or some such nonsense. If by done you mean arguing anything besides the point, sure.</p>

<p>Loose Change is @ applicannot. Conspiracy theories and such. The Zeitgeist Movie starts as something intelligent sounded, but they end up mutilating the entire point in the end into something horrific that isn’t even worth putting your brain to work about.</p>

<p>EDIT: Isn’t there a better section for this? This has nothing to do with “College Life,” really.</p>

[applicannot]

<p>That’s why I said Zeitgeist is a starting point. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories for the most part, but I read about them - I believe it is imperative to always question what is happening around us. I haven’t even watched the rest of the Zeitgeist movie, but I have no doubt it is junk. However, most (not all) of the religion portion of the movie has plenty of evidence to back it up. Additionally, it’s very though provoking. </p>

<p>I get the strange feeling I’m dealing with people who now believe something like “the Bible” to be taken as fact and truth. Oh wait, I’ve heard that before… I think that when Christians take the time to learn about Christian history (Council of Nicaea, for example) and examine Christian beliefs (as the Zeitgeist begins to do), everything falls into place. It’s the reluctance of Christians - indeed, most of the Abrahamic religions - to do this.</p>

[ikillers]

<p>

@gotakun

All I know is that religious fiction is definitely never the answer.

</p>

<p>But how can you be so sure? You make very strong statements, sometimes I just see the same small-mindedness that you pin on religious people.</p>

<p>

@gotakun

When ALL signs point to its untruthfulness

</p>

<p>Are you sure? All signs?</p>

<p>

@gotakun

when religious leaders suspiciously ignore important questions and significant contradictions, or when they cannot stand up to any atheist in a debate, when their only answer is to have faith and stifle curiosity, when every possible red flag is raised, rejecting religion is absolutely not ignorant and absolutely is logical.

</p>

<p>Look at the construction of these sentences. They’re all prefaced by “when”. So yes, when religious leaders want to stifle curiosity, that is a bad thing. But blanket statements shouldn’t be made, and for all the negativity you may have heard or experienced regarding religion, I would just hesitate to reject religion without qualifications.</p>

[ikillers]

<p>I admit that I should watch the Zeitgest, but I again I’ll plug Father Barron who has a commentary on the movie if anyone’s interested:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZk9Lb22KrE[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZk9Lb22KrE&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[ikillers]

<p>

@applicannot

I think that when Christians take the time to learn about Christian history (Council of Nicaea, for example) and examine Christian beliefs (as the Zeitgeist begins to do), everything falls into place.

</p>

<p>Sure, for some people who read some Christian history and examine Christian beliefs in the Zeitgeist mold (which probably isn’t the greatest) a skepticism will fall into place that could lead to a rejection of the faith and atheism. But, cmon, is it really that cut and dry? People devote their entire LIVES to the pursuit of this truth, to the study of the Christian religion, to looking at Christian beliefs, and yet at the end of the day have as strong a faith (probably stronger) than the average lay-person who just goes to Church everyday. </p>

<p>Do you not think that, over its 2,000 year history in which thousands upon thousands of books have been written on it, people haven’t critically examined Christian beliefs before? How can you account for people like CS Lewis? Lewis became an atheist at 15, and later an esteemed professor at Oxford and Cambridge who was a prolific reader and writer (part of the “Inklings”). This was a man who had no reason to convert to Christianity, and certainly not a man who would do so if he had not critically examined both Christian beliefs and Christian history. He did, though, at age 33, (JRR Tolkien helped him on his path) and became one of the foremost Christian apologists of the 20th century.</p>

<p>Or people like Francis Collins if you want another example.</p>

[gotakun]

<p>

@xMastemah

You’re the one stuck on the irrelevant part! You managed to draw my point so far across the board, you’re right, it doesn’t even make any damn sense! You’re much too caught up with the vocabulary and grammatics of everything, no wonder you’re so lost!

If it wasn’t significant, I wouldn’t have made a distinction. I guess feel free to reiterate your point, because I wasn’t even aware you were still trying to make the same one.

Anyway, I was drawing the point back to what argument I had intended from the very beginning, something you said that I responded to about purging the world of religion or some such nonsense. If by done you mean arguing anything besides the point, sure.

All I’ve been doing is responding to you. My last offensive move was to make the list of the detriments of religion. Now, I’m just waiting for a religious proponent to create an opposite list. (For people who haven’t followed since then, [here’s</a> a link to the post within this thread](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064558095-post247.html]here’s”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064558095-post247.html). Please, read over the list, contribute, dispute, or make an opposite list as described.)

@ikillers

Look at the construction of these sentences. They’re all prefaced by “when”. So yes, when religious leaders want to stifle curiosity, that is a bad thing. But blanket statements shouldn’t be made, and for all the negativity you may have heard or experienced regarding religion, I would just hesitate to reject religion without qualifications.

Lol… The assumption is that they are all already true, my confused friend :). Does your religion not teach you that skepticism is bad? It’s the devil trying to tempt you or some nonsense? The whole premise behind “taking the leap” or “diving in” and trusting your faith is that you don’t question it. In my experience, when religious leaders do encourage questioning of faith, they kind of guide the questioning and keep it within boundaries. Often times, they do the “questioning” themselves and just announce the results to their students. (EDIT: Your Fr Barron is an example of this type of person.) In my honest opinion, if Christians weren’t afraid to ask the important questions, they would not still be Christian. Like I explained before, there are just too many red flags to count.

@ikillers

People devote their entire LIVES to the pursuit of this truth, to the study of the Christian religion, to looking at Christian beliefs, and yet at the end of the day have as strong a faith (probably stronger) than the average lay-person who just goes to Church everyday.

If someone devoted their entire life to finding truth and died a religious person, they obviously never asked any important questions and wasted their life.</p>

<p>ikillers, the problem I see with you is that you don’t give any of our criticisms real thought. You know Josephus is fraudulent, so look for historical evidence in places that don’t also cite Josephus. If Josephus IS cited, then you know the source isn’t credible and should take the rest with a grain of salt. If it was me, my next question would be “Why, when it took almost no effort for me to research and discover that the Josephus historical account was a forgery, am I finding him quoted in otherwise supposedly reputable sources? It’s fricken suspicious.” It is suspicious.</p>

<p>It’s almost like a person in any specific religious community would look like a conspiracy theorist to the rest if he/she questioned beliefs/practices, so no one questions anything, ever.</p>

[applicannot]

<p>

People devote their entire LIVES to the pursuit of this truth, to the study of the Christian religion, to looking at Christian beliefs, and yet at the end of the day have as strong a faith (probably stronger) than the average lay-person who just goes to Church everyday.

</p>

<p>People devoted their entire lives to turning lead into gold, but that doesn’t make it any more possible. Taking the wrong paths or being unfortunately blinded by religion does not equate finding the truth. Not to mention that you can have faith (in a higher power) without religion.</p>

<p>

Do you not think that, over its 2,000 year history in which thousands upon thousands of books have been written on it, people haven’t critically examined Christian beliefs before?

</p>

<p>Actually, not very often. Until the last hundred or two hundred years, questioning the Church was literally punishable by death. Anything that pushed the limits of Christianity was considered heresy. This is still true in fundamentalist nations of other Abrahamic religions. Even non-believers had little choice but bow their head, lest they be burned at the stake. Free-thinking was hunted as witchcraft for centuries. If Christianity is the truth, why do Christian leaders feel the need to persecute those who do not believe or who question the Church?</p>

<p>

How can you account for people like CS Lewis? Lewis became an atheist at 15, and later an esteemed professor at Oxford and Cambridge who was a prolific reader and writer (part of the “Inklings”). This was a man who had no reason to convert to Christianity, and certainly not a man who would do so if he had not critically examined both Christian beliefs and Christian history. He did, though, at age 33, (JRR Tolkien helped him on his path) and became one of the foremost Christian apologists of the 20th century.

</p>

<p>What do you mean, how can I account for them? They chose to believe religious fiction. That doesn’t make the religion any more plausible; it merely makes that person more vulnerable. How do we account for bright people who join cults? Religion is comforting. It’s scary to think that there isn’t a purpose to life or that when we die, it really is over. When people are uncomfortable, they seek comfort. It’s a natural reaction, but it’s dangerous. Imagine this. You’re driving down the road in the middle of the winter. You hit an icy patch and start sliding all over the place. Your instinct is to hit the brakes. You know if you hit the breaks, in theory, the car will stop. Unfortunately, this isn’t true (on the ice). Slamming your brakes will cause more harm than good. The idea of the brake may be comforting or instinctual; that doesn’t make it a good idea.</p>

[LogicWarrior]

<p>

I admit that I should watch the Zeitgest

</p>

<p>Don’t. It’s conspiracy theorist garbage.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The least bad, argues that Jesus didn’t exist historically. While there is secular evidence of Jesus’ life, not to mention a new gospel from Jesus’ time recently found, this section would have the most support from mainstream academics.</p></li>
<li><p>9/11 was an inside job by the US government. Yeah, I have no idea how this ties in either.</p></li>
<li><p>There is a secret cabal of international bankers (conspiracy theorist code for Jews) that control everything.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>A complete waste of your time. Also see: [Historicity</a> of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus]Historicity”>Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia) for a more balanced view of the first part.</p>

[applicannot]

<p>So I’m watching that Father Barron video, but it doesn’t make sense. Basically, Father Barron just tried to say that Christianity isn’t a part of mythology. By definition, this isn’t true. Of course Christians don’t think Christianity is a myth; they believe it to be true. That isn’t an argument, that’s just preaching to the choir (possibly literally). If the Bible isn’t a “literary expression of the great natural necessities” or “literary expression of great fundamental political and social realities,” then what is it? I’m 100% certain that the Bible expresses “great fundamental political and social realities” by outlining ideal behaviors and a greater government hierarchy (i.e., god as the king or slave master). It also explains “great natural necessities” such as death.</p>

<p>He then goes on to say that Jesus can’t be a mythical figure because he recently existed. Again, this is not true. There are historical documents relating to Jesus’ existence; he was almost certainly a man somewhere, at some time. However, there are no historical documents referring to his divinity or miracles (you would think that walking on water and feeding a thousand people with bread and two fish would catch some attention, but it didn’t). So there’s no reason to believe that Jesus was the son of God just like there’s no reason to believe Horus was the son of God.</p>

<p>Then he goes on to say that we can identify the people in the Bible like Paunchus Pilot. That’s true. We can also identify some of the times in places in the ILIAD or the ODYSSEY. That does not make either of those literary works true - why would we say the same of Jesus and the Bible? There are a LOT of characters in, say, HIS DARK MATERIALS or Dan Brown’s books that are identifiable; that doesn’t make them any more feasible. Father Barron says we have “these vivid historical accounts of Jesus” - the Gospels. What kind of reasoning is that? “We can use the Bible to prove that Jesus existed!” I’m not using THE SORCERER’S STONE to prove that Harry Potter existed.</p>

<p>He then starts talking about Peter, Paul, James, etc. Well, we wouldn’t use “witnesses” of UFOs to explain UFOs exist, would we? How does the existence of Paul prove, in any way, that Jesus was miraculous? They proclaimed the truth of what they had seen and heard. Every day, Muslims die proclaiming that they know the truth. Wouldn’t you, as a Christian, know that they were wrong? So how then can you say that Peter and Paul are not wrong, deluded, confused, lying, uncertain, etc?</p>

<p>And what does he mean there were no missionaries of Horus or Dionysus? What about the priests that catered to those figures?</p>

<p>Father Barron says that these are “poorly argued” but he hasn’t done such a good job himself.</p>

[applicannot]

<p>

Don’t. It’s conspiracy theorist garbage.

</p>

<p>I wouldn’t say that. Conspiracy theories are thought provoking. Unless you are particularly vulnerable (which, unfortunately, some religious people seem to be), you won’t believe everything you hear. Zeitgeist is one instance in which you should definitely not believe everything you hear. That is not to say, however, that the entire religion section (I haven’t bothered to watch the rest) is garbage. Zeitgeist should open the doors for more research; not solve everything. Conspiracy theories are all about questioning what happens in the world around us. Yes, many people take them too far. That doesn’t mean they have no basis in reality, or that they can’t be used as a tool.</p>

[NinjaPlz]

<p>Protestants of the Westboro Baptist Church believe in God. So do headline-making Catholic priests.</p>

[trumpetgrl]

<p>Absolutely. Christianity FTW! :]</p>

[GoOakland]

<p>sry gotakun I haven’t given any thought to a list yet but I had some comments that needed rebutal before I got too far behind. This thread is movin real quick.</p>

<p>-“I can think of no other reason why anyone in their RIGHT MIND would vote for McCain/Palin.”
No need to make this political. Leave them out. But there is a pun there in saying anyone in their right mind would vote republican. Well guess what? Republicans are of the right. Had to point that out
-“Are you just another crummy example?”
I strive not to be. But yes I struggle with various things just like everybody else. Nobody is perfect. Which is why I think your denial of a god based on his followers faults is wrong.
-“You are agreeing with and trying to justify the detriments, but they are still detriments.”
They are detraments caused by human error/stupidity. They may have religous connections but if the people were diligent in their faith the problems would not be there. But guess what, people aren’t perfect and never will be. You called this collateral damage but that is still wrong. Your aunts situation for example. I forgot what relation of yours said to “pray and everything will be better” but if she wasn’t religous then she would STILL be that passive person. So instead she may just say to “give it time and things will get better”. But in the end she will still find some excuse to not deal with the problem head on. Its a detrament caused by humans NOT religion.
-“In my honest opinion, if Christians weren’t afraid to ask the important questions, they would not still be Christian”
Wrong… EVERY convert’s testimony has to deal with this. They always say something along the lines of: “My life was hard and I was struggling. I had problems with question x, question y, and question z. But when I joined this church I found answers to these questions of mine”. Its answering these questions that PULL people to religion. Yall have stated that atheists really don’t have answers to these burning questions but only question ours. Want to talk about being non-productive? Simply saying someone else’s opinion is wrong without having your own belief is non-productive AND illogical. So here’s my challenge to you. FIND these answers. Don’t simply try and prove someone else’s beliefs wrong until you actually find a tangible answer/belief of your own. It takes more balls to not only find, but to stand by, your own beliefs than it is proving another person’s belief is wrong. Start from a clean slate and ask what is the answer to some sort of core question. Don’t just say “of the options the world presents me I like none of them” and have that cynical attitude that all atheists have. Actually try and find your own independent answer, be pro-active, and see if it matches another belief already established. Saying “O I don’t know what my opinion is but the religious one sure isn’t right” is not only non-productive but lazy on your part.
-The understanding yall have stated that christians believe all non believers are going to hell, whther spoken or not, is atleast somewhat false. Your summarizing and grouping too much. I can’t speak for other churches in the christian faith but in my church we believe that EVERYONE will have an opportunity to accept the gospel (and thus inherit god’s kingdom) whether it be here on earth or in the afterlife.
-“On another note, why hasn’t God spoken to his people since approx. 20 C.E.?”<br>
Now your splittin hairs. This is one of the many things that seperate the various denominations in the christian religion. There are two churches (christian that is. I can’t speak for asian/middle eastern religions because I honestly know very little about them) that believe god DOES in fact speak to us currently: catholics and mormans. Everyone else doesn’t. I personally believe god still speaks to mankind. But this is irrelevant to us as this is a question more suited to Church A vs Church B not Theist vs Atheist. If someone wants to start a thread about Church A vs Church B then I’ll comment further there. And I agree… isn’t there a better category than “college life” for religion?</p>

<p>I’ll put some thoughts together for that list tomorrow.</p>

[ikillers]

<p>

@gotakun

The assumption is that they are all already true, my confused friend

</p>

<p>For all religions, always, at all times? Really?</p>

<p>

@gotakun

Does your religion not teach you that skepticism is bad? It’s the devil trying to tempt you or some nonsense?

</p>

<p>No, and no.</p>

<p>

@gotakun

The whole premise behind “taking the leap” or “diving in” and trusting your faith is that you don’t question it.

</p>

<p>And how in the world would you KNOW the “whole premise” of having faith? Faith is not some easy, spur of the moment thing, as if once I “dive in” and take that leap of faith I get to live my whole life brainwashed in bliss never questioning things. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. There are days when I get up and I have doubts, when I’m not exactly sure that God is hearing me or I’m praying the right way or whatever. I mean on some level I don’t think I’d be on here debating if I didn’t have doubts. But in the end I keep believing and keep praying because while faith is a struggle it is the right one, because deep down I believe that God is Love, and there’s nothing in the world that makes more sense to me than that. </p>

<p>You are missing the texture of faith and religion by skimming cynical observations off the surface. </p>

<p>

@gotakun

In my honest opinion, if Christians weren’t afraid to ask the important questions, they would not still be Christian

</p>

<p>And you are entitled to it, but there ARE countless Christians who have questioned their faith, and in the end have remained Christian because they find it to be the truth. (See CS Lewis or Francis Collins).</p>

<p>

@gotakun

If someone devoted their entire life to finding truth and died a religious person, they obviously never asked any important questions and wasted their life.

</p>

<p>Ugh, that is really condescending and arrogant. How can you be so, so, so sure? </p>

<p>

@gotakun

ikillers, the problem I see with you is that you don’t give any of our criticisms real thought.

</p>

<p>That’s not true. I do. I read web page that purported to debunk all the evidence of Jesus. I know where you’re coming from. Until I look into it any further I’ll agree that Josephus was a forgery. I just think that for every piece of evidence that you dig up against Jesus’ existence I can find a reputable scholar who believes in the historical existence of Jesus based on historical facts and texts.</p>

<p>

@gotakun

so no one questions anything, ever.

</p>

<p>No, never ever ever. Try to cut down on the superlatives.</p>

[Goodbyehello]

<p>The reason I’m not Christian/Catholic/Muslim is b/c I don’t want to be a hypocrite…there are so many people who preach goodness (not all…but a lot) yet do not act upon their own teaching (like the sex scandals in the catholic church right now). Sure no one is perfect and “going to church” is supposed to make you more, but (no one can exactly reach “perfect”) really anyone can come close to “being perfect” w/out religion. To me actions are more important than faith. Also, I am very flawed and fear that religion may cause me to be less tolerant (as many religions are famed to be)… </p>

<p>There are many atheists/non-believers who commit many crimes, but many religious do also…which is worse b/c often times they contort their religion into a reason for causing harm (ex. Crusades, currently w/ the Islamic groups, violence to “gays and lesbians” b/c it is “wrong”).</p>

<p>Don’t know if I made any sense :(</p>