On the Existence of "God"

I’ve missed a lot in this thread since I had to leave for while. Can someone fill me in on what has happened since I left?

@Anonymous:

well i could give you a lot of answers for that.

1. Im an idea man, I dont do the details (true in some cases)
2. It doesnt matter if that occurs (the end justifies the means)
3. Removing religion is one of those things that may not be possible. Even if you think its a good idea, like I do, you may have to accept the possibility that it wont be accepted

Id say its pretty much a combination of all three, Im sure it could be done, even if werent too popular. But I think its pretty much unimportant. Because like most of my grandiose ideas, I realize it will probably never come to pass.

so how would this all benefit you if it came to pass? And have you considered the consequences on religion’s adherents?
If you think that getting rid of religion would solve the world’s problems, then its really time to take your head out of your a$$. People are going to be mean, rude and ugly to each other, and if they can not do it under the banner of a religion, then they will do it under the banner of a principality, ruler, money, or just plain orneryness. It’s like blaming Van Halen for some punk killing someone who loves rock and roll.

interesting comparison CC, but its not quite the same. actual wars have been conducted in the name of religion, as have terrorist acts. while i see where you are coming from, dont even try to compare it to the van halen scenario you posed, they are not at all the same. if you think that i think it will solve all the worlds problems, then you should take your head out of your own a$$. no one thing could solve all the world’s problems, there are too many of them, and many of them are unrelated. but lets not digress. you asked how this would benefit me, well it wouldnt necessarily, but it doesnt have to. there could be a direct benefit to me, other than me being happy that religion is gone, but i think it is just a good idea, so i dont need any direct benefit from it

@Janus1:

… actual wars have been conducted in the name of religion, …

but for the sake of power

Janus1 wrote:
… actual wars have been conducted in the name of religion, …

but for the sake of power

the terrorists like al qaeda are conducting a jihad in their eyes. they are fighting a holy war, in the name of religion, and about religion as well. they are seriously screwed up in their interpretation of the religion, but that just further serves my point

But anyone can abuse any institution, idea, event, or person. In fact, taking something inherently good and defacing it with violent action is even more reprehensible (IMO) than random jerk-ness. So what do we destroy after religion is gone, in order to remove another way for people to be evil? The Van Halen example was just to demonstrate that not only may people act evil-ly no matter what they claim to follow/believe in etc., but people are quick to point at the vehical as the problem. In fact the violence of the person is the problem, and religion is simply bastardized.
So: For what reason would getting rid of religion be a “good thing”? and
Why would this make you happy?

I can see where you are coming from CC, often I would find myself agreeing with you. But in the case of religion, Im not blaming it for all the problems, like so many people are so quick to do with rock music, and violent videogames (though you may have gotten that impression). What I mean to say is, religion is clearly the cause of many specific acts of war and violence, and bloodshed, and terror. The overwhelming majority of it is not a bad thing, unless you dont like people feeling good about themselves. But there is also another kind of bad with religion. The religious fanatics, who instead of going to war with others, try to force others to follow their beliefs, through political means, and that applies sometimes to atheists as well (namely, the morons trying to ban the pledge of allegiance because the word “god” is in it). Again, these people are part of the minority. But religion, above all other things, is something which inspires great emotion in people, be it good or bad. Be it hope, anger, happiness, whatever. I think for individual people, religion is often one of the best parts of their lives, or at least a great thing for them to have in it. But when you look at people as a group, religion more often than not is a bringer of problems and conflict. Would people truly be better off without religion? Maybe, maybe not. I personally think so, because anything that inspires great emotion can be a wonderful thing, or a terrible thing, and the line is paper thin. All of this will probably amount to nothing more than rhetoric anyway, as I think it is unlikely that there will ever be a widely accepted attempt to remove religion. If it ever is abolished, more likely it will be the will of some dicatator, or authoritarian government, rather than a popularly accepted practice. If it happens that way, than it will not be truly representative of how it could be, as it will have been taken forcefully from people.

@Janus1:

I can see where you are coming from CC, often I would find myself agreeing with you. But in the case of religion, Im not blaming it for all the problems, like so many people are so quick to do with rock music, and violent videogames (though you may have gotten that impression). What I mean to say is, religion is clearly the cause of many specific acts of war and violence, and bloodshed, and terror.

Here is one place where we disagree. Men’s evil and tendency to violence is clearly the cause of many specific acts of war and blah blah blah. Religion may be the battle-cry, but so is “king and country”, patriotism, money/diamonds, power, hatred, revenge, righteousness (the allies in WW II committed war, violence, bloodshed and terror) and violence itself.

The overwhelming majority of it is not a bad thing, unless you dont like people feeling good about themselves. But there is also another kind of bad with religion. The religious fanatics, who instead of going to war with others, try to force others to follow their beliefs, through political means, and that applies sometimes to atheists as well (namely, the morons trying to ban the pledge of allegiance because the word “god” is in it). Again, these people are part of the minority. But religion, above all other things, is something which inspires great emotion in people, be it good or bad. Be it hope, anger, happiness, whatever. I think for individual people, religion is often one of the best parts of their lives, or at least a great thing for them to have in it. But when you look at people as a group, religion more often than not is a bringer of problems and conflict.

I was agreeing with much of what you said until this last point here. I would suggest that people’s reasonability and lack thereof, brings problems and conflict. People of different religions really do not need to be in conflict with each other. If they are, it is usually because:

1. they are unreasonable, quick to violence, or have some other character flaw
2. their religion commands it. Jews and Christians, i am quite certain, have no commands to commit violence on other people (the opposite, in fact). The same, i believe, is true of Hindus and Buddists
3. a religious figure takes advantage of people’s ignorance, devotion and/or ability/willingness to commit violence.
   There may be more, but i’m tired right now.

Would people truly be better off without religion? Maybe, maybe not. I personally think so, because anything that inspires great emotion can be a wonderful thing, or a terrible thing, and the line is paper thin. All of this will probably amount to nothing more than rhetoric anyway, as I think it is unlikely that there will ever be a widely accepted attempt to remove religion. If it ever is abolished, more likely it will be the will of some dicatator, or authoritarian government, rather than a popularly accepted practice. If it happens that way, than it will not be truly representative of how it could be, as it will have been taken forcefully from people.

Well, it may well never be more than repressed. “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church” is a well known line in religious history circles. Look at the places where a religion was being stamped out - The early church in the Roman Empire (pre-Constantine), the Mennonites/Anabaptists in Holland, Germany, Switzerland, etc., communist countries - i.e. USSR, most formerly eastern block, China . . . . I know of many Christians persecuted in the former USSR but never gave up their faith, imported bibles, went to prison, Siberia, and “other places” rather than give up their God.
The only thing that will stamp out religion will be the end of time.

@Janus1:

Janus1 wrote:
… actual wars have been conducted in the name of religion, …

but for the sake of power

the terrorists like al qaeda are conducting a jihad in their eyes. they are fighting a holy war…

Did you notice that i might have cut my quote that way, that the notion of terrorists attacks is kept out?
And please explain: how is this “holy war” not about power? How is it not a war against the power of the USA esp. and the west in general??

@cystic:

Men’s evil and tendency to violence is clearly the cause of many specific acts of war and blah blah blah. Religion may be the battle-cry, but so is “king and country”, patriotism, money/diamonds, power, hatred, revenge, righteousness (the allies in WW II committed war, violence, bloodshed and terror) and violence itself.

@Janus:

The religious fanatics, who instead of going to war with others, try to force others to follow their beliefs, through political means, and that applies sometimes to atheists as well (namely, the morons trying to ban the pledge of allegiance because the word “god” is in it). Again, these people are part of the minority. But religion, above all other things, is something which inspires great emotion in people, be it good or bad. Be it hope, anger, happiness, whatever. I think for individual people, religion is often one of the best parts of their lives, or at least a great thing for them to have in it. But when you look at people as a group, religion more often than not is a bringer of problems and conflict.

I fear the fanatics of “economic laws are natural laws” much more, with “profit”, “efficiency”, “profit” and “shareholder value” as battle cries. There power and money (and fear of being punished by their fellows) inspires a whole lot of things, mostly bad.
And, why do you accept the “group” notion, action and responsibility here, in contrast to the “guilty of being white?” thread? There all is a question of individuals. here it isn’t. Please explain how you can judge “guilt by religion” for groups and “guilt by society” by indivuals only?

@CC:

I would suggest that people’s reasonability and lack thereof, brings problems and conflict. …

1. they are unreasonable, quick to violence, or have some other character flaw
2. their religion commands it. Jews and Christians, i am quite certain, have no commands to commit violence on other people (the opposite, in fact). The same, i believe, is true of Hindus and Buddists
3. a religious figure takes advantage of people’s ignorance, devotion and/or ability/willingness to commit violence.

Don’t forget that Islam also preaches peacefulness, IMO as much as Judaism. Buddhists surely are more peaceful, as they don’t have “eye for an eye” (like Jews) nor “spread the word” like Christianity or Islam.
For the first, you forgot one thing that is the only thing which i could accept against religions:
If you start from some assumptions (no matter wether they are "right or “wrong”), and firmly believe in them, so firmly that you cannot doubt them,
then you may the totally reasonable (in your frame then), and still commit acts that others (who don’t believe those assumptions) would see as violent, criminal, unreasonable.

“An eye for an eye” in Jewish law means one must pay the equivalent sum of the eye to the person who one maimed. It is not physical payment but monetary compensation.

@EmuGod:

“An eye for an eye” in Jewish law means one must pay the equivalent sum of the eye to the person who one maimed. It is not physical payment but monetary compensation.

How much is an eye worth?

not about power? no war is not about power, look at what CC said that I was responding to, for the sake of power, the sake of power being to get power, their war may be against power in your opinion, but it is not for the sake of power.

No one is saying guilt. Or at least, im not. I in fact said that Im sure the overwhelming majority of all these religions (except for some of those ones that are not widely accepted religions, because some of them have some pretty bizarre practices)
What Im saying is, I think the world would be better without religion, and Im using the acts of individuals as examples.

I fear the fanatics of “economic laws are natural laws” much more, with “profit”, “efficiency”, “profit” and “shareholder value” as battle cries. There power and money (and fear of being punished by their fellows) inspires a whole lot of things, mostly bad.

I dont totally disagree with that, but it has no relevance to this discussion. I do not claim that religion “scares me the most” or is anywhere near the worst problem

@Janus:

…but it is not for the sake of power.

Sorry for the using the wrong expression. I did mean what came up in the second posting, and we seem not be that far away of each other there.

…What Im saying is, I think the world would be better without religion, and Im using the acts of individuals as examples.

There power and money (and fear of being punished by their fellows) inspires a whole lot of things, mostly bad.

I dont totally disagree with that, but it has no relevance to this discussion. I do not claim that religion “scares me the most” or is anywhere near the worst problem

Well, if you want to abolish the minor threat, why do you leave the bigger threats unharmed? This is relevant.

Its called staying on topic. As the topic of this thread is God, and religion, I am mentioning this on this thread. I am not mentioning other problems, though they may be more serious, because that would be off topic. If you want to discuss them, make another thread, and I will gladly discuss them there.

@Grigoriy:

@EmuGod:

“An eye for an eye” in Jewish law means one must pay the equivalent sum of the eye to the person who one maimed. It is not physical payment but monetary compensation.

How much is an eye worth?

We do not know anymore. In ancient times they had ways of measuring how much people and parts of people were worth as slavery existed (though for Jews it was in the form of servitude to pay reparations for damages).

@Janus1:

Its called staying on topic. As the topic of this thread is God, and religion, I am mentioning this on this thread. I am not mentioning other problems, though they may be more serious, because that would be off topic. If you want to discuss them, make another thread, and I will gladly discuss them there.

grins ….
well, you are about the first here who really pays attention to stay on topic then :)

well (puffs up chest) it is my thread, i feel a certain, <grasps for=“” something=“”>thing for it.</grasps>

Im currently reading a very interesting book, titled “God?”. It is a debate between a Christian and an Atheist. Both provide some very good points, and argue them very well. Naturally, I think the atheist debater does a better job, but the christian debater does very well also. Personally, I found the Christian’s style to be much like Falk’s, though you may interpret for yourself if you choose to read it. When I finish, Im going to present some of the arguments on here for those of you who do not read it, and hopefully, we can get another debate going. (I will provide both sides, so as to be fair)

I believe that there is a God,and that He created everything that is. And for you Janus, the Big Bang didn’t create God, God created the Big Bang.