For All Those Opposed To Organized Religion..

[matrix]

You wanna know what's fucked up?

 

The concept of Jesus.

 

God sent a part of God to something God created to sacrifice a part of himself to himself to change a rule he made himself.

 

 

While this is the most incorrent thing I've ever read, it does make sense.

 

Why, you ask?

 

I don't believe in organized religion, especially Catholicism and Christianity. I do believe in a higher power, just not the one the bible refers to. And, I don't believe in that 'God' because the bible itself is very contridicting. There are numorous verses that talk about God being all loving and such, yet the religion itself is full of predujice. People put all their faith into a book that was supposedly written two thousand years ago and hold it as fact.

 

If I went to my bookshelve, took a copy of Harry Potter and took off the coversleeve and buried in my backyard; when people found it hundreds or thousands of years from now, would they hold it as truth and fact? I'm willing to bet yes. The same can be said for the bible. As a matter of fact, I believe the bible to not have been written at the time of Jesus. I believe it to be fully written by the Catholic Church later on to create a story and create such fear in people that if they don't believe their souls will burn forever. The greatest hoax in human history.

 

Ok, debate.

[wonks]

uh...as far as I know, some of the books in the new testament date to the period around the death of Christ. As a whole, the bible wasn't consolidated until quite a bit later, but whatever.

 

of course, the old testament has been around for far longer...

 

one more thing...I'd be willing to bet that quite a few people don't actually read the stories in the bible and believe that they're facts. When one reads the bible, one has to actually take the time and think about things for his or her self, i.e., you have to interpret things on your own. It's all the extremists (of all faiths) that take things as fact and really fuck us all over.

[ecnarf]

Explain how that's incorrect, please.

[matrix]

uh...as far as I know, some of the books in the new testament date to the period around the death of Christ.  As a whole, the bible wasn't consolidated until quite a bit later, but whatever.

 

of course, the old testament has been around for far longer...

 

one more thing...I'd be willing to bet that quite a few people don't actually read the stories in the bible and believe that they're facts.  When one reads the bible, one has to actually take the time and think about things for his or her self, i.e., you have to interpret things on your own.  It's all the extremists (of all faiths) that take things as fact and really fuck us all over.

Yes, I know most of the new testament was supposedly written after his death and the old testament was before, such as Genesis. And then all the testaments were put together later. My point being that the whole bible was not written until much later on, and the Church has made us believe it was written much earlier then it was.

 

Also, I'm not pointing anyone out for being a Catholic. I don't discriminate against people because of their religions choices. I just don't like organized religion in general.

 

 

edit: Adam, not incorrect....incorrent.

Edited August 13, 2006 by matrix

[ecnarf]

I stand by my first statement.

 

EDIT: The Gospels were not written until several decades after the supposed death of Christ.

Edited August 13, 2006 by ecnarf

[matrix]

I stand by my first statement.

 

EDIT: The Gospels were not written until several decades after the supposed death of Christ.

Are you talking about my first post, or the other guy's?

[supercanuk]

My point being that the whole bible was not written until much later on, and the Church has made us believe it was written much earlier then it was.

Who made you believe it was written earlier then it was? No offense but your making generalizing statements about ( what seems like ) your religious upbringing/experience. I was never fooled by my priest on when it was written, in fact when i was in "confirmation" class i was constantly asking him about the validity of the bible and he'd answer all my questions. For the record i was brought up as an Anglican but am now atheist, all Salvationist religions are simplistic ( in my view) and give

Edited August 13, 2006 by supercanuk

[matrix]

Yeah, I did read The Di Vinci Code, and loved it as a matter of fact. Point being that...and someone said it on another thread...it's no more far fetched that the Catholic Church hatched this as a plan to keep people in check then them getting me to believe Jesus walked on water. Or turned water into wine. Or came back from the dead.

[supercanuk]

Yeah, I did read The Di Vinci Code, and loved it as a matter of fact. Point being that...and someone said it on another thread...it's no more far fetched that the Catholic Church hatched this as a plan to keep people in check then them getting me to believe Jesus walked on water. Or turned water into wine. Or came back from the dead.

Whose getting you to believe such things? You do have a choice in such matters.

The Da Vinci Code really is a great book and movie, i enjoyed it as well.

Again, we can bitch and complain about the possible conspiracy theory's or we can all get on with life and stop going to church.

[matrix]

I have stopped going to church. I'm not really trying to bring up any conspiracy theories, that was just a byproduct of my intitial statement. My thing is more of how a lot of people follow religion, and any religion at that, not nessicarily because of their beliefs, but because that's all they know. And, that's all they know because their religion has instilled in them that other religions are wrong. Does that make sense?

[ecnarf]

I stand by my first statement.

 

EDIT: The Gospels were not written until several decades after the supposed death of Christ.

Are you talking about my first post, or the other guy's?

My post in response to your initial statement. Please explain why my statement was incorrect.

[matrix]

It wasn't incorrect, I agreed with it. I said it was incoherent (which I intitially spelled wrong). I meant the sentance with all your double talk was hard to understand. You are a hard person to agree with, you know that.

[ecnarf]

I still fail to see how I'm wrong.

[matrix]

I never said you were wrong......you know what, forget it.

[ecnarf]

I win!

 

678

[matrix]

Did you intentionally do that from the beginning to piss me off? Cause it worked.

[cringleman]

I'm not even going to pretend that there's any actual point in debating whether or not the supernatural exists; I would hope that no one here would bother with that -- it is equally a leap of faith to believe that there is, as fact, no god (small-g, big-G -- whatever you like to not believe in) as it is to believe that there is.

 

Where Southern Baptist Evangelicalism is faith that Jesus is God, Scientific Atheism is just the belief, essentially, that Occam's Razor is.

 

That being said, not all organized religions are convinced that all other religions are 'wrong;' look at lots of Buddhists. In fact, there are, indeed, a great number of people following Judeo-Christian faiths (which seem to be the focal point, here) who don't have any interest in telling anyone else that they're 'wrong.'

 

Of course, the great downfall is that organized anything tends to become bloated, and often corrupt. Everything from organized religion to organized sport has its levels of unbridled bureaucratic BS.

 

And when matrix says that you were 'incorrent,' ecnarf, I believe what is meant is 'incoherent,' not incorrect.

 

Of course, the statement he cites is confusing, but certainly not incoherent -- as was the intended effect, I imagine. That is a strange thought -- just like a country propping up a dictator in Iraq to fight Iran, only to later wage two wars on Iraq -- the second of which to remove said dictator that they had put up, and clean up the mess he left, all so that they could continue to have influence in that country ... that they messed up by wielding a subversive influence in the first place.

 

It's an old story.

 

In any case, not all organized religions take their chosen book to follow literally (and some don't follow books, really) -- most don't, in fact, I would wager. It just happens that, as in all cases, the nutjobs are way louder at yelling than the sane folk. Crazy people like to yell, after all. Same thing with soccer fans -- they don't all riot, but you never hear about the boring, pleasant ones, do you?

[ecnarf]

And you played right into my hands.

 

EDIT: Cringleman, I'm not so sure about scientific atheism (which describes me) being the belief that occam's razor is the answer. I think what defines scientific atheism is the lack of belief in anything. A vacuum, if you will. I'm not going to lie... it takes what can only be described as a "leap of faith" in order to maintain my position, but I really hate it when people mischaracterize atheism as believing in nothing. Rather, it's not believing in something.

 

Or, as James Joyce would put it, having your mind supersaturated with that which you profess you disbelieve.

Edited August 14, 2006 by ecnarf

[matrix]

Yes, and it's usually the loud ones who cite their religion as reason to wage wars and such. When in reality, and if many of those said people actually cared to look further into it, their religion states not to kill and 'love thy neighbour'. But whatever.

 

And when matrix says that you were 'incorrent,' ecnarf, I believe what is meant is 'incoherent,' not incorrect.

 

And, I did have a post stating that I did indeed spell that wrong. But, Adam just loves to be the bastard that he is.

[Prometheon]

The whole athiesm vs religion debate is already so horribly horribly overdone, there's really no point in discussing it further.

 

The point is, that the nature of religion, and of any god that you believe in, is a perfect being or message, and the churches and followers of that perfect ideal or message are imperfect. I, like Adam, am an athiest, but that doesn't mean I don't respect people who choose to believe, just as long as they don't tell me I'm 'wrong' or foolish for not sharing their opinion.

 

In the end, neither side will EVER know for sure, and thus there is NO point in debating about it. It's a matter of faith by definition, and some will believe it while others don't. I hate the approach people usually take to this debate, as if when they win their opponents will suddenly throw down their beliefs, exclaim "oh god! you're right!" and then make a complete spiritual 180.

[matrix]

Haha, that would be funny to see though. And, maybe if a lightbulb went off over their head.

[ecnarf]

I will say, Owen, that I do tend to lose a bit of respect for people when they say something religious or spiritual that is below what you expected their intelligence to be.

 

Especially when it comes to this new age spirituality bullshit. Astrology is not real, and "fate" is just the epitomy of "I can't think straight".

[matrix]

I will say, Owen, that I do tend to lose a bit of respect for people when they say something religious or spiritual that is below what you expected their intelligence to be.

 

Especially when it comes to this new age spirituality bullshit. Astrology is not real, and "fate" is just the epitomy of "I can't think straight".

I'm assuming you've lost all respect for me, seeing as my point in this thread didn't really have the impact I was hoping for. Nor was my original idea as formed out as I wanted it to be.

[Prometheon]

In the end, think about it: does it even matter if god exists?

 

If the belief in god (and an afterlife) makes people do good deeds in life (more on this later, but I'm referring to Mother Teresa style goodness) then it is obviously a good thing. However, if a belief in a certain book written by flawed humans causes us to reject each other and commit acts of evil (crusades, homophobia, racism, etc.) then it is obviously a burden on our souls. The real question is, when you balance out the scales of consequence, has religion caused more happiness in the world than it has caused destruction?

 

Also, I do NOT believe that it is right for people to do good deeds solely because that's what god wants them to do. You should decide not to murder someone because you're a good person and believe murder is wrong, not because you're scared of going to hell.

Edited August 14, 2006 by Prometheon

[ecnarf]

I will say, Owen, that I do tend to lose a bit of respect for people when they say something religious or spiritual that is below what you expected their intelligence to be.

 

Especially when it comes to this new age spirituality bullshit.  Astrology is not real, and "fate" is just the epitomy of "I can't think straight".

I'm assuming you've lost all respect for me, seeing as my point in this thread didn't really have the impact I was hoping for. Nor was my original idea as formed out as I wanted it to be.

Oh, I saw your point, I just like a good argument.