What religion are you?

College Confidential Community
81

<p>or at least they draw most of their morals from them.</p>

<p>Well this is unfortunate - god/religion does not (and cannot) define moral truth.</p>

<p>Icarus: prove that Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny doesn't exist
...Woah, nice one Jimmyeatworld.</p>

<p>Not really... I don't see where you're going with this question. If your aim is to get me to say that I can't prove that SC or the EB doesn't exist, then fine, I will admit that. But all this does is to serve my point that neither can you disprove the existance of god. So... what was your point?</p>

<p>*If a religious text is incorrect then all the beliefs drawn from it have to be analyzed instead of taken at face value *</p>

<p>What do you mean if a religious text is incorrect? Incorrect in what way? Historically? Morally? etc etc. A lot of religious text is, as I pointed out, either stories (which cannot be 'incorrect') or letters between early church leaders that give advice on how to live and such. Please elaborate. But I dispute your point that people believe in god because of religious texts. I think its safe to say that belief in god was around before religious texts, and as such cannot be based on them.</p>

82

<p>To those who hate "religious wars":</p>

<p>Who are the mass-murders of our time:</p>

<p>1) Pope John-Paul II, Dali Llama, etc
2) Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter (all religious men who fought secular wars)
3) Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot (All atheists)</p>

<p>………………………………........answer: 3</p>

<p>As to the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause being equivalent to a first-principal/god:</p>

<p>the first two are logically inconsistent and disprovable; the first principal/prime-mover is not.</p>

<p>As to whether a particular book disproves a concept: </p>

<p>does an incorrect book on science (of which there have been/are many) disprove the scientific method?</p>

<p>To all the know-it-alls:
If you pile a bunch of books on the back of a donkey, does it become something more than a donkey?</p>

<p>arrogance is indeed the folly of the casually uninformed.</p>

<p>In summation:</p>

<p>logically prove the existence of Love when you are done with "dis-proving" the existence of god: it's essentially the same proccess.</p>

83

<p>I think you guys should major in Philosophy...</p>

<p>Icarus, you are a Philosophy major, right?</p>

84

<p>I'm a Mormon, but I can't say that I truly believe everything my faith teaches. Sure I believe in God, and I believe in Christ, but the more detailed it gets the more skepticism I get.</p>

85

<p>My religion is GREAT!!! Atheism - its name!</p>

86

<p>Icarus, you are a Philosophy major, right?</p>

<p>yes I am</p>

87

<p>i was born to hindu parents and brought up in a Catholic boarding school. My roommates since i was 3 until i was 14 were a Hindu, a Jew and a Muslim (coincidence). Every x-mas i go to church to offer my prayers, same way as i go to mosque during Eid or to temple during diwali. i have tremendous belief in god, but i dont know if He/SHE has any form.
Sometimes, i wonder what religion do i belong to or do i even belong to any religion? I dont give money to any religious organization, but save all that money to give it to a local orphanage. People say that i am confused about my religious belief - i tell them that i am happy about my religious belief....</p>

<p>damn, its too late...need to go to sleep or else will have a hangover :p</p>

88

<p>

Me with you.</p>

89

<p>Are agnostics generally indecisive people? Well, I am.</p>

90

<p>"I'm a Mormon, but I can't say that I truly believe everything my faith teaches. Sure I believe in God, and I believe in Christ, but the more detailed it gets the more skepticism I get."</p>

<p>Mormon as well. I believe in the church alright but I like to add my own bit of flair to it as well. What that translates into is a splash of Buddhism here and there. A lot of Mormon folks are pretty weird and intolerant which really irks me considering my grandma is Episcopalian and there is simply no way the Lord will turn her away from Heaven. I'm a big believer in chakras, philosophy (my major), and other such things.</p>

91

<p>**Me:* "Icarus: prove that Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny doesn't exist**</p>

<p>*Icarus: **Not really... I don't see where you're going with this question. If your aim is to get me to say that I can't prove that SC or the EB doesn't exist, then fine, I will admit that. But all this does is to serve my point that neither can you disprove the existance of god. So... what was your point?"</p>

<p>Nobdoy can disprove the existance of God because nobody can disprove the existance of anything. Thus this following argument that you made is invalid. </p>

<p>**Icarus:"And again, I'm sorry, but it isn't a "solid fact".... seems to me that solid facts require proof. So - prove to me that god does not exist. I can guarantee you right now that you won't be able to"</p>

<p>If we take your idea that "solid facts require proof", then we must agree that the idea that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are imaginary are NOT SOLID FACTS, because you don't have 'proof'. Therefore this cannot be used as a logical argument against atheism.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: I don't mean to demean your (or anyone else's) religion by comparing God to Santa Claus/Easter Bunny...=P I'm using it just for effect, to prove my point, nothing more.</p>

92

<p>"To those who hate "religious wars":</p>

<p>Who are the mass-murders of our time:</p>

<p>1) Pope John-Paul II, Dali Llama, etc
2) Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter (all religious men who fought secular wars)
3) Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot (All atheists)"</p>

<p>How do you know the honest religious beliefs of any of those people? More importantly, Nazism, Stalinism, and many other ideologies work very well as surrogate religions. No one kills in the name of the nonexistance of God. People always seek some external justification for their actions. Nazism relied heavily on various pseudo-religious rituals to keep its followers energized and inebriated.</p>

93

<p>I'm Seventh Day Adventist Wiccan.</p>

<p>Yes... I know.</p>

94

<p>*Nobdoy can disprove the existance of God because nobody can disprove the existance of anything. *</p>

<p>Yes, basically... but now we're treading into deeper philosophical waters than we need to for this discussion. You can't even "prove" that this is a computer monitor that you're looking at right now, or that there isn't a pink elephant in your room. But like I said, this is delving a little bit too much into the realm of skepticism and rationality.</p>

<p>Therefore this cannot be used as a logical argument against atheism.</p>

<p>I was trying to make it clear that I wasn't offering an argument against atheism. I am attempting to point out that neither theists nor atheists can logically prove their point for the existance or non-existance of god, respectively.
I'm not arguing this as a theist or atheist... but from a completely neutral position.</p>

95

<p>"Nazism, Stalinism, and many other ideologies work very well as surrogate religions"</p>

<p>Is that to say that even when avowed atheists start wars it must be religious because wars MUST be religious?</p>

<p>As to Mao and Stalin, it was part of their ideology that religion was a threat that had to be eliminated, which they acted on to the extreme in the deaths of hundreds of thousands for the crime of religion--it is in any history book on the subject.</p>

<p>Hitler claimed complete disdain for Christianity and also suppressed organized religions.</p>

<p>Check out Alan Bullock's monumental book on the Subject.</p>

<p>Some times the facts don't agree with our prejudices.</p>

<p>As to famous peoples religious beliefs, in the abscence of other evidence I take them at their word.....even if it does not help to support an intolerant view of religion.</p>

96

<ol>
<li>Explain why, when slavery is clearly wrong, the Bible clearly supports slavery. Answering this question entails refuting 1 Peter 2:18. NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that slavery is an acceptable way to run a society.</li>
</ol>

<p>--This is all about reverance to each other. Masters are also supposed to show love and compassion to their slaves. Also, it is important to realize that slavery back in biblical times was a lot different. Masters would release their slaves more and it was much more humanitarian in general. The bible is kinda like saying that employees should be respectful to their employers as they are reverant to God, as it is the employee who is putting food on the table etc. It is all about reverance to each other though, and this passage has to be read in context. Also, it doesn't say that slavery is some great institution that should be in place forever, it just talks to the people involved.</p>

<ol>
<li>If heaven is a place where everyone is perfectly happy, then explain how I could be happy in heaven if I had loved ones in Hell.</li>
</ol>

<p>-- The happiness that will be experienced in heaven is pretty unfathomable. The bible doesn't actually say a whole lot about heaven other than that it will be a really happy place where we will eternally be with God. I'm not so sure we can relate a human perspective on happiness with what will be in heaven.</p>

<ol>
<li>If your god wants us to worship him through our own free will, why does he threaten us with Hell? If you have someone threatening you with a punishment, it isn't free will.</li>
</ol>

<p>-- Not everyone decides to follow God. In fact, Jesus says it is a narrow path. The consequence of not following God is in fact eternal separation from him, which is probably the best example that we have of what Hell is like. Out of love, God gives us a choice to reconcile our own brokeness and sinful nature to live eternally with him because Christ is the sacrificial lamb. Men have free will to do as they may and many reject the notion of Hell. I certainly think that this is free will here. Also, it's not like Christians follow God just for fire insurance from hell or something. As a result of following Christ, we recieve eternal life, but our new lives start here on Earth through our faith and actions.</p>

<ol>
<li>If Judas was willing to go to Hell for humanity, didn't he make more of a sacrifice than Jesus, who spent only three hours in pain? Shouldn't we then be worshipping Judas?</li>
</ol>

<p>-- Judas was not divine. He betrayed the son of God for money. Christ, who was completely pure and blameless reconciles us with God through his death. It is true that God used Judas's evil to ultimately make the greatest good ever, but Judas didn't know this. He just wanted money.</p>

<ol>
<li>Explain why your "just and merciful" god sent bears to kill forty-two children who called his prophet Elisha "baldhead." (See 2 Kings 2:23-24).</li>
</ol>

<p>-- God is a very merciful God yet he is a "jealous" God and has a wrath. He gets angry when you put other things before him, or when you make fun of a prophet, which is basically making fun of God. This is in the old testament. In the old testament God sometimes punished future generations for their parents mistakes. God does not take sin lightly. So this just makes the sacrifice of Christ even more amazing. God's people do not have to make offerings to atone for their sins anymore, we have complete atonement through the completely sinless messiah, who fulfilled all the prohecies from the old testament.</p>

<p>-- I would not argue that their should be prayer in public schools. I don't think its a good idea and Jesus never advocates prayer in public schools. Some Christians do certainly, but I, and many others, would disagree. Looking at the context, it is important to realize that the pharisees were not after the heart of God, they were after looking Godly to the people. So Jesus says that that's all they're gunna get. This is not to say that we shouldn't be bold in our walk with Christ, but you have to look at the motives, God knows us better than we do. I don't think this really has anything to do with prayer in public schools.</p>

<ol>
<li>In the Genesis story, your god tells Adam and Eve that the day they eat from the tree of knowledge they will surely die (Gen 2:17). The devil tells them that they will not die, but that their eyes would be opened and they would know the difference between good and evil (Gen 3:5). Wasn't Satan telling the truth here? Is your god a liar? Justify your answer in light of Jeremiah 20:7 and Ezekiel 14:9.</li>
</ol>

<p>-- God created humans in his image yet out of their own free will, they turned from God and listened to Satan instead. So now they will surely die. And as we know it, humans do in fact die. Also, the bible says that because of this fall from grace, child bearing will now be a painful experience. The serpent convinced Eve that she would not die by eating the fruit and instead she would become enlightened like God who understands all good and evil. I honestly can't see how Jeremiah 20:7 pertains to the fall from grace. Although I could just be missing something. In the Ezekial passage, God is telling his prophet not to get involved with people whose hearts are far from God and who set up idols, but then pretending to be Godly by seeking advice from prophets. I'm not sure what this has to do with the fall from grace either, maybe I'm missing something.</p>

<ol>
<li>Is Jesus's three days in Hell really an ultimate sacrifice, when more than half of humanity going to spend eternity there (see question #11)?</li>
</ol>

<p>-- We are all sinful broken people. Christ is the pure sacrificial lamb and only through him can we be atoned. Jesus was both man and divine at the same time who did not derserve any punishment yet he took it for us. This is the ultimate sacrifice that the son of God should lay down his life for us. He was not just another sinner, he was completely perfect. We all deserve to be eternally separated from God.</p>

<ol>
<li>If it was foretold that Jesus was to be crucified, and if he knew this, and if he was the son of your god, why did he do everything he could to avoid being crucified? (See, for instance, Matthew 26:39).</li>
</ol>

<p>-- Jesus was both man and divine. He felt real pain, and was scared of what he would have to endure so he pleaded to God to not have to go through the pain an agony, keeping in mind his completely pure nature. Even though Jesus was certainly not looking forward to the agony that he would face, he knew that it was in God's will and he did. All he had to do to not be crucified was deny that he was the son of God. If he really weren't the son of God, wouldn't he just deny it? Why die an excruciated death for nothing? The only counterargument is that he was crazy. Do crazy people go around healing the sick, raising the dead, claiming to be the son of God, forgiving sins, and casting demons out? </p>

<ol>
<li>Throughout the Bible, your god commands his followers to wage merciless war on unbelievers (Luke 22:36, Deuteronomy 13:8, Exodus 20:23-25, Deuteronomy 20:16, Matthew 10:34, Numbers 31:17-18, etc). If you are one of his followers, why aren't you out waging merciless war on unbelievers?</li>
</ol>

<p>-- In the Old Testament passages, God says to destroy the evil unGodly people who have turned from him. God is a "jealous" God. He takes rebellion against him very seriously. For the New Testament passages, Jesus says there will not be peace in the sense that family members will turn against each other over him. And it's true that people who go against what their family traditionally believes to follow Christ often are disowned by their families. Still happens today. In the Luke passage, Jesus had previously told his followers to not take anything with them so that they could learn how to completely rely on God. As Jesus realized that he would die, he knew that things were gunna get crazy and so he told Peter to be prepared and to take the supplies he would need. It is important to read all of these passages in context cause just picking out one verse on a topic doesn't do justice to God's word.</p>

<p>Hey, I know you aren't being antagonistic. It's cool. I am no super biblical scholar or anything, but I tried to answer these questions to the best of my ability. I hope that if nothing less this is thought provocative. Cheers.</p>

97

<p>That's my point - or, I suppose, a corollary of it. Maybe I misunderstood your initial argument; I got the sense from reading it the first time that you felt that, since it was impossible to disprove God's existance, that atheists were irrational in their beliefs as such. Glad we're on the same page now (hopefully). </p>

<p>I was trying to make it clear that I wasn't offering an argument against atheism. I am attempting to point out that neither theists nor atheists can logically prove their point for the existance or non-existance of god, respectively.</p>

<p>How is this different from agnosticism? I know there are subtle differences but this sounds like agnosticism's overriding philosophy.</p>

<p>Anyone else find it interesting that someone who argues from the perspective of "not a theist or atheist... but from a completely neutral position", using logic, adopts the position of agnosticism? (refer to my large block of text a page or two back =P)</p>

98

<p>Religion is one of the most effective methods to control individuals, families, nations... It's moral and political impacts are felt around the world.</p>

<p>When half of Europe was struggling through the Dark Ages, what managed to find a way to control the masses? The Catholic Church along with excommunication!</p>

99

<p>Oh...</p>

<p>"neither theists nor atheists can logically prove their point for the existance or non-existance of god, respectively."</p>

<p>That IS agnositicsm. Period.</p>

<p>Definition of Agnosticism, through Google:</p>

<p>"The philosophical belief that knowledge of God is impossible because of the inherent, insuperable limitations of the human mind. The term was coined by T.H. Huxley about 1870, who, though not the concept's originator, was perhaps its most widely known champion in the latter half of the 19th century."</p>

100

<p>Looks like yackityack beat to me to the post. And I'd have to agree with pretty much everything that yackityack posted.</p>