@Kah Hilzin-Ec: I like to imagine this is how it went down as well.
I also view the New testament (other than a sort of biography for Jesus' life) as a kind of revamp of the rules covered in the Old. What we probably need now is if all religions go back, look into their texts, and find how those essential lessons would apply to the current society. And hopefully keep doing that every decade or century or so; or if there is a major sociological revolution of some kind. It'd be a great way for religions to adapt and still maintain a type of relevance, and would probably assist in removing some of the prejudices they have with people (those of different religions, sexualities, alternative professions, etc.) I'm certain this plan would have some problems as well, I haven't really thought out all the details on it here on the spot.

I was brought up to be a Catholic but nothing in the Bible ever seem real to me, and that was 4th grade for me.
I wont argue with other and their belief´s.
Its their choice, their life, and their right to believe in what they find true.
In my personal opinion though, Im an Atheist as well, so I find everything to be bull.
Ive met people who dedicate their lifes strictly to their Religion, their lives revolve around it.
If there truly were a God, then I doubt he would have made us to worship him in such ways. If he made us, then he made us to lead a proper life, not to leave all our lifes problems to be solved by him.

In the end, we cant change everyones mind.

I believe in everything in the bible. My choice.

Let me paint a picture for you. A man sitting at a table in a restaurant is minding his own business until a friend he knows walks up and says hi, and asks him where he's been. He stops eating a minute and says he's sorry for not calling, but he was in Paris last month. The conversation ends, and the first man goes away. Ten minutes later, another man walks in and says hi, and asks where he's been all this time. Again the man stops, and kindly tells the man he was in Germany last month.

This appears to be a direct contradiction. Only problem is that maybe the man went both places last month. Now if he relates a story about what he did before, during and after those places, depending on how much he says, he can make himself look like an absolute liar quite easily. More so if he even relates things in a different order than they actually happened, which would cause the listener to assume they happened in that order.

This is one of the problems with people reading the Bible without the guidance of someone who actually does know how the details are reconciled, and doubtless, one of the reasons the Catholic Church has always said (officially) that no Catholic should read the Bible without an approved commentary to clarify the things that we might otherwise misunderstand.

Other problems include what you might call "multi-generation" translations (a translation of a translation of a translation, etc... meaning the original words aren't even under your nose anymore for you to be able to even come to the right conclusion), the meanings of words or sayings having changed almost completely since biblical days, and people taking the words and just twisting them around to mean whatever they want.

Or to let the Bible speak for itself:

... As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Now that there are errors in many "Christian" sects is pure logic if nothing else. Since there was only one historical and real Christ, then those who follow what that real man really said and commanded and taught, are the only true Christians... that is, "followers of Christ". Those who are not in agreement with what the real man said and did and taught may call themselves that, and claim to follow Him, but reason tells us that those who don't follow the man in truth can't really call themselves that in truth. By reason, since there was only one historical Christ, then only that which He said, taught, commanded and founded is legitimately His or of Him. So you also have the issue of clarifying WHICH "Christianity" you're referring to. Some man-modified sect from some later century? Or what originated with the historical Person named Jesus, and nothing else? Which are we judging?

Now if you are suggesting that sects that arose later than Christ's time have errors, and asking how they can ignore them, I'm frankly not sure either. If a person claims to believe Christ is God, it is indeed plain idiocy to think some mere man afterwords is going to one-up or correct, or perfect what God Himself founded or said or taught. If it comes to the things, however, that Christ did say and teach, even the Bible says that the Bible doesn't have them all recorded, which is also the most logical reason for Christ to have founded a teaching Church... to pass down what WASN'T written. But as for those things, I see no fallacy in them whatsoever, so I have nothing to ignore.

The narrations of the life of Christ given in the Bible are accounts given by different men, who will tell things according to their point of view. Sometimes those things may seem to contradict one another, just as the story I told to begin with seems to be contradictory. Or what if a person goes to the same place or is in the same situation more than once, and they say "while I was at such-and-such a place, I..." and tell two different accounts? Both can be equally true, even if on the face of them it doesn't seem possible. I can say in one place, "I went to the park but didn't get out of the car," and in another, "I went to the park and got out of the car," but if I've been to the park twice, and I neglect to tell anyone that, one can see where misunderstandings might arise. And these are only a few examples of how something that appears contradictory without any doubt, being absolutely truthful and possible in fact. I'm sure there are countless others.

But to me, the problem begins with the fact that every 50th person born seems to have left their own private version of the Bible behind, which means that what you've read might not be anything like what the Bible actually said. If you compare several versions, and think about how many different ways there are to take the same passage based upon the nuances added or taken away or just plain invented by "translators"... you can have a very amusing evening. At the very least, you won't wonder anymore why nobody agrees upon what it says. You can't have 50 different books, and hope to agree on anything, or even hope to come to the right conclusion about anything in the book YOU have, unless you know firstly that what you have is the real article, and not, frankly, a joke.

People can laugh at the 'thees' and 'thous' in a version like the Douay Rheims, but at least with that one you know you've got your hands on the closest thing in the English language to the original texts, whether one can fully understand the old language or not. It pays to be sure of the authenticity of the content before starting to argue about content.

Originally Posted by Liath

I think the main thing i don't understand about christianity is the whole adultery thing. A ot of christians don't believe in having sex before getting married, when that's such an old rule. In biblical times, it was harder to prevent pregnancies and to tell who the father of a child was, etc, etc. But now with birth control, there shouldn't be anything terribly wrong with adultery. And if someone never gets married, does that mean they should never have sex? I think that is silly. But of course, in biblical times, everyone eventually got married, most likely. Today, however, many people never do.

As a Christian, I was brought up to believe that sex was a special thing, and that you shouldn't give your virginity away to just anyone just because you're less likely to get pregnant.

Originally Posted by Lovely Mocochang

Ive met people who dedicate their lifes strictly to their Religion, their lives revolve around it.
If there truly were a God, then I doubt he would have made us to worship him in such ways. If he made us, then he made us to lead a proper life, not to leave all our lifes problems to be solved by him.

In the end, we cant change everyones mind.

If living for yourself was so good, why is it that everyone alive can't seem to grasp lasting happiness, no matter how much money, power, fame, friends, etc. they have? Heck... if living selfishly or for ourselves was any good for us, movie stars and billionaires should be the most ecstatic people on earth. But the fact that they have "everything a person could possibly want" (often including perfect looks and a supermodel spouse) yet most of them end up with drinking or drug problems tells me something about how fulfilling living for one's self really is.

On the contrary I once visited a cloistered convent... that is, where the women have vowed themselves to God alone, and live removed from the world in their convent... and the women I met there were, hands down, the happiest, most peaceful, sweetest people I have ever met in my entire life. They own NOTHING. And they are by far happier than the movie stars or powerful and rich people of this world, who have "everything" and live for themselves. I observed the same phenomenon at a certain seminary, and again in many priests I've known who are living their faith truly, and not betraying it.

Ultimately, the main thing people find distasteful about the idea of God, is the idea of not being able to "do whatever they want" or live wholly self centered lives. But ironically, everyone I've ever seen, heard of or met in this life who has followed their own pleasure has ended up empty, angry, bitter and miserable, even if they are able to fool themselves. I can't think of a single atheist I've ever encountered, or a single person who "has it all" who emanates peace and happiness and sweetness like those nuns I met, or like anyone I've met to whom God is everything, and this world is nothing.

Also, throughout history, those are the people who do the most heroic acts of charity, like some of the Catholic religious who would tend to the sick in leper colonies, knowing it was a veritable death sentence for them, or the missionaries like Isaac Jouges who were sometimes tortured to death while trying to do charity and save souls in foreign lands. Would have been a lot easier and more pleasant to just stay home, right? How many atheists gave anything more than their money for someone else to go take care of the wretches living in hovels in poor countries? How many are out there taking care of people in Africa or Asia with their own two hands, risking disease and watching those people suffer in person because everyone else is thinking only of themselves? Which kind of people are out there doing the dirty work, once people like the red cross run out of cash and go home? Who would, if all they wanted was to have a good time?

Compare the lives of the saints to the lives of the Hollywood set, and ask yourself which you think the world needs more, or which you would rather know... people who think only about themselves, or people who think only about others, because their hearts are full of a God Who loves those others... sometimes even when no one else on earth would have.

Not trying to start a fight or an argument, but... I just wanted to point out... there's more to "being religious" than "don't do this, don't do that". It's a whole way of life, and a whole mindset. Just imagine if people saw man's law only as useless and unfair chains to bind them and ruin their good time. We could all be barbarians right now. But sane human beings look beyond the laws to things like justice and peace, and that's why they accept them. So, too, there's more to Christianity than, "thou shalt not, thou shalt not". Beyond that, there's a law of love and a perfect justice to compensate for what is unjust in this life.

Yeah, there are a lot of hypocrites in churches. Depending on the church, there are worse things than that. But then if all atheists REALLY believed there was no God, and that morality and ethics are all just a matter of taste, then they're hypocrites too, because "soft" atheists ... who say there's no God (in which case any kind of morality or ethics would be absolute rubbish), and then proceed to try to act like there is, are not acting according to their principals either. You can't really judge a school of thought by it's hypocrites, though. If you want to judge the philosophy, you have to judge a pure example of it... eg, someone who has lived it exactly.

Originally Posted by Yorihiko

If living for yourself was so good, why is it that everyone alive can't seem to grasp lasting happiness, no matter how much money, power, fame, friends, etc. they have? Heck... if living selfishly or for ourselves was any good for us, movie stars and billionaires should be the most ecstatic people on earth. But the fact that they have "everything a person could possibly want" (often including perfect looks and a supermodel spouse) yet most of them end up with drinking or drug problems tells me something about how fulfilling living for one's self really is.

On the contrary I once visited a cloistered convent... that is, where the women have vowed themselves to God alone, and live removed from the world in their convent... and the women I met there were, hands down, the happiest, most peaceful, sweetest people I have ever met in my entire life. They own NOTHING. And they are by far happier than the movie stars or powerful and rich people of this world, who have "everything" and live for themselves. I observed the same phenomenon at a certain seminary, and again in many priests I've known who are living their faith truly, and not betraying it.[/B]

First, the media takes attention on the stars who fall hard to Earth. Since people enjoy watching those they envy fail, they show these and take profit. I bet most live a fulfilling live with a family they love.

These nuns, however, are happy with what they have because everyone has a different thing they want in life. Hell, some people like loud music and dancing, while some others dislike noise and too much people in the same place. So these women's ideal of a perfect life would be what they have. Doesn't mean it's my cup of tea.

Originally Posted by Yorihiko

Ultimately, the main thing people find distasteful about the idea of God, is the idea of not being able to "do whatever they want" or live wholly self centered lives. But ironically, everyone I've ever seen, heard of or met in this life who has followed their own pleasure has ended up empty, angry, bitter and miserable, even if they are able to fool themselves. I can't think of a single atheist I've ever encountered, or a single person who "has it all" who emanates peace and happiness and sweetness like those nuns I met, or like anyone I've met to whom God is everything, and this world is nothing.

Also, throughout history, those are the people who do the most heroic acts of charity, like some of the Catholic religious who would tend to the sick in leper colonies, knowing it was a veritable death sentence for them, or the missionaries like Isaac Jouges who were sometimes tortured to death while trying to do charity and save souls in foreign lands. Would have been a lot easier and more pleasant to just stay home, right? How many atheists gave anything more than their money for someone else to go take care of the wretches living in hovels in poor countries? How many are out there taking care of people in Africa or Asia with their own two hands, risking disease and watching those people suffer in person because everyone else is thinking only of themselves? Which kind of people are out there doing the dirty work, once people like the red cross run out of cash and go home? Who would, if all they wanted was to have a good time?[/B]

First, my parents don't help people because there's a God up there. Actually, my mom who doesn't go to church nor pray everyday has gotten and STILL gets shit from people who do so. Why? Because she doesn't pay their food anymore. That family has now resorted to steal it from my grandmother.

My dad isn't religious. He belies in Jesus but not in a God. And yet he helps people when they are in problems. The guy who stole a couple thousand from him - he received him in his house when he visited us. The guy didn't give a penny back nor apologized [he came to ask for more money], but my dad still didn't give him shit for that. My dad had to accept he just wasn't the kind to appreciate he gave him a job and a lot of trust and that he violated that trust, and all he could do was not trust him again. Easy.

So either you just haven't meet a lot of atheists, or haven't known them enough to know why they're like that in the first place.

As to why you haven't seen big charity actions done by an atheist - how do you know anonymous donors aren't? Or maybe, like my parents, they do little scale acts of kindness. But just because they don't have someone to bow before them doesn't mean they can't lead a fulfilling life. My dad enjoys his life, including his job who most would think of as a shitty one.

Originally Posted by Yorihiko

Compare the lives of the saints to the lives of the Hollywood set, and ask yourself which you think the world needs more, or which you would rather know... people who think only about themselves, or people who think only about others, because their hearts are full of a God Who loves those others... sometimes even when no one else on earth would have.

Not trying to start a fight or an argument, but... I just wanted to point out... there's more to "being religious" than "don't do this, don't do that". It's a whole way of life, and a whole mindset. Just imagine if people saw man's law only as useless and unfair chains to bind them and ruin their good time. We could all be barbarians right now. But sane human beings look beyond the laws to things like justice and peace, and that's why they accept them. So, too, there's more to Christianity than, "thou shalt not, thou shalt not". Beyond that, there's a law of love and a perfect justice to compensate for what is unjust in this life.[/B]

Michael Jackson donated regularly to more than 30 charities, as far as I know. He wasn't a saint, he was a famous christian.

Of course we have laws to maintain order. I think I can agree on this part.

Originally Posted by Yorihiko

Yeah, there are a lot of hypocrites in churches. Depending on the church, there are worse things than that. But then if all atheists REALLY believed there was no God, and that morality and ethics are all just a matter of taste, then they're hypocrites too, because "soft" atheists ... who say there's no God (in which case any kind of morality or ethics would be absolute rubbish), and then proceed to try to act like there is, are not acting according to their principals either. You can't really judge a school of thought by it's hypocrites, though. If you want to judge the philosophy, you have to judge a pure example of it... eg, someone who has lived it exactly.

We are hypocrites because we don't have a God to dictate our morals? Now I find that offending. I don't think it's hard to determine whatever doesn't cause harm or negatively affect me or you or anyone else, can't be bad. My life is based on this rule and the solidarity that was taught to my dad. "Solidarity is that act in which you help someone WITH THE CONDITION that someone helps other people in the same manner it has been done to him/her, as a way to expand this good deed." That would explain why my dad didn't help this guy [he proved he wouldn't].

But really, in the seriousness of the matter, there are assholes in every group, and it doesn't even have to do with religion. It could be skin color, gender identity, whether a Star Trek fan or not.

Why don't so many mortals see the fallacies in their religions? For the same reason teenagers don't see the reality of their mortality: on the whole, it's not good for them.

Your brain did not come into being simply to tell you the "truth" (if you must assume such a thing exists. Of course, since you aren't a fictional character such as myself, you more or less must, so how can I blame you?) The brain only came into being to help you navigate your environment.

As such, the only truths it is really interested in telling you about are the ones you need to know about to survive and reproduce. Religion, even religions like Christianity with their silly anti-genital biases, have helped civilization survive so much that they persist whether or not they reflect "reality." Like the genes that can lead to sickle-cell anemia, it is the result of a move towards a good adaptation that circumstance can take too far.

To refer to my previous example, if teenagers knew how dangerous the world really was, they would never leave the safety of their parent's homes. For another example, if small children did not believe that their parents were super-beings capable of anything, then they would be too terrified to grow up into proper adults. Similarly, some people need religion to give meaning to their lives, or to provide social structure, or to offer them an opportunity to eat crackers on the weekend. As such, they need it even more than they need to feel like they know how the world works (which is really all "truth" can do for you,) and the belief persists even in the face of evidence against it.

In other words, since irrational trust is sometimes more likely to cause one to survive and reproduce than critical skepticism and the pursuit of the truth, evolution often selects for the type of biology that encourages religious belief. Psychology might also select for it, in select cases which do not include your own.

So evangelizing for atheism is rather like pointing out to my fangirls that Edward from Twilight is sort of a jerk. They may make one grind one's teeth, but pointing it out to them does little more than allow one to voice one's disgust.

And for them, he really is that wonderful.

i'm not entirely sure about whether there's a heaven and all that. i don't like to think about where i go when i die. it frightens me. i'm hoping for reincarnation. like, you get a different body after you die? even if you can't remember you're last life, at least you don't just vanish for all of eternity! i'm hoping for that one, but heaven and hell could exist. if so, i hope i'd go to heaven. i mean, we're all born sinners, correct? well, wouldn't that mean we'd all have to be punished?.....reincarnation is what i want to beleive. but i don't know...

Originally Posted by Yorihiko

Let me paint a picture for you. A man sitting at a table in a restaurant is minding his own business until a friend he knows walks up and says hi, and asks him where he's been. He stops eating a minute and says he's sorry for not calling, but he was in Paris last month. The conversation ends, and the first man goes away. Ten minutes later, another man walks in and says hi, and asks where he's been all this time. Again the man stops, and kindly tells the man he was in Germany last month.

This appears to be a direct contradiction. Only problem is that maybe the man went both places last month. Now if he relates a story about what he did before, during and after those places, depending on how much he says, he can make himself look like an absolute liar quite easily. More so if he even relates things in a different order than they actually happened, which would cause the listener to assume they happened in that order.

This is one of the problems with people reading the Bible without the guidance of someone who actually does know how the details are reconciled, and doubtless, one of the reasons the Catholic Church has always said (officially) that no Catholic should read the Bible without an approved commentary to clarify the things that we might otherwise misunderstand.

Other problems include what you might call "multi-generation" translations (a translation of a translation of a translation, etc... meaning the original words aren't even under your nose anymore for you to be able to even come to the right conclusion), the meanings of words or sayings having changed almost completely since biblical days, and people taking the words and just twisting them around to mean whatever they want.

Or to let the Bible speak for itself:



Now that there are errors in many "Christian" sects is pure logic if nothing else. Since there was only one historical and real Christ, then those who follow what that real man really said and commanded and taught, are the only true Christians... that is, "followers of Christ". Those who are not in agreement with what the real man said and did and taught may call themselves that, and claim to follow Him, but reason tells us that those who don't follow the man in truth can't really call themselves that in truth. By reason, since there was only one historical Christ, then only that which He said, taught, commanded and founded is legitimately His or of Him. So you also have the issue of clarifying WHICH "Christianity" you're referring to. Some man-modified sect from some later century? Or what originated with the historical Person named Jesus, and nothing else? Which are we judging?

Now if you are suggesting that sects that arose later than Christ's time have errors, and asking how they can ignore them, I'm frankly not sure either. If a person claims to believe Christ is God, it is indeed plain idiocy to think some mere man afterwords is going to one-up or correct, or perfect what God Himself founded or said or taught. If it comes to the things, however, that Christ did say and teach, even the Bible says that the Bible doesn't have them all recorded, which is also the most logical reason for Christ to have founded a teaching Church... to pass down what WASN'T written. But as for those things, I see no fallacy in them whatsoever, so I have nothing to ignore.

The narrations of the life of Christ given in the Bible are accounts given by different men, who will tell things according to their point of view. Sometimes those things may seem to contradict one another, just as the story I told to begin with seems to be contradictory. Or what if a person goes to the same place or is in the same situation more than once, and they say "while I was at such-and-such a place, I..." and tell two different accounts? Both can be equally true, even if on the face of them it doesn't seem possible. I can say in one place, "I went to the park but didn't get out of the car," and in another, "I went to the park and got out of the car," but if I've been to the park twice, and I neglect to tell anyone that, one can see where misunderstandings might arise. And these are only a few examples of how something that appears contradictory without any doubt, being absolutely truthful and possible in fact. I'm sure there are countless others.

But to me, the problem begins with the fact that every 50th person born seems to have left their own private version of the Bible behind, which means that what you've read might not be anything like what the Bible actually said. If you compare several versions, and think about how many different ways there are to take the same passage based upon the nuances added or taken away or just plain invented by "translators"... you can have a very amusing evening. At the very least, you won't wonder anymore why nobody agrees upon what it says. You can't have 50 different books, and hope to agree on anything, or even hope to come to the right conclusion about anything in the book YOU have, unless you know firstly that what you have is the real article, and not, frankly, a joke.

People can laugh at the 'thees' and 'thous' in a version like the Douay Rheims, but at least with that one you know you've got your hands on the closest thing in the English language to the original texts, whether one can fully understand the old language or not. It pays to be sure of the authenticity of the content before starting to argue about content.

I QUOTED THE WRONG POST.
PLEASE NOTE THE POST THAT QUOTES MY OTHER POST.=_=(That sounds confusing).
I understand you dont want to start an argument.
Neither do I.
I'll make an attempt to somewhat address every subject you brought up though thats technically impossible.

With all due respect, and I don't intend to sound harsh or as though Im insulting, I find really religious people for the most part, annoying and disrespectful at most times.
Whether its at school or at a Plane flight, it is always those who are really religious who tend to bring the topic of religion up. They either ask " Do you believe?", like Ive been asked so many times and it gets on my nerves. If i tell them im Atheist, which Ive done so already, they criticize me for my choice on what to believe. They tell me im bound to go to hell, they tell my a sinner, etc.
Who are they to decide my life and what will happened to it?

What Im trying to arrive to is, you can't convince everyone, you can't have everyone believe in one thing.
This world, this image of "Peace" and happiness that everyone wants is never going to happen. Religion is not the key to that, so don't expect it to be that way. Its asking for the impossible.

I respect all Religions, but I do mind when I am being respectful towards this people and they are always up in my case.
I dont find all Christians/Catholics, etc to be a niuscance, but due to my past experiences with people who are really, and I mean we are talking about "Fanatics", it has led to me just not taking it anymore.

Im also aware that Christian's are responsible for many charities and foundations and what not. So what if Atheist don't? You're going to judge us because we dont desire to help the world?

On your topic of celebrities and nuns.
Like my Grandma said: Theyre brainwashed.
She doesnt mean it literally, but its an expression.
She attended an all girls Catholic school and she's 68. I tend to base some of the stuff I say from what she has told me.

One of my closest friends attended an all boys Christian school and turn out as a Satanist and he happens to be Gay at the same time.
What Im trying to demonstrate by the two examples above is, even if people where in this case, to be educated on Religion or brought up to worship a specific god, not everyone is meant or bound to believe in it.

What Im really trying to say, since I am trying to return my response In a Wall of text, Is that there really is no point in arguing about religion.
There will always be the Catholics/Christians, and on the otherside, the nonbelievers.
Im not trying to change your views and opinion, just stating out mine.
If you go off calling non-believers hypocrites then you're offending and you did mention that you don't want to start an argument, so take a brief look at how you type.
Dont insist, Im not insisting on making everyone a Non-believer or calling people hypocrites, that will only cause others to avoid you or not care for what you have to say.

I think that this is a rather touchy subject for some people as well. But not for me. I was born and raised Roman-Catholic, but I don't really believe in any of it, so really I don't have a defind religion. Some people will believe anything and call it a miracle. It is human nature.

I've never read "the book" or any of "them".
They were all written by man.
In my eyes.. Christianity is a cult more than a religion.
If you don't "follow the word" then you're not accepted.
You don't have to be religious to be spiritual..

@Yorihiko: This is directed to your (presumably) first post in this thread. I've been away and haven't been keeping track of this one, and don't really feel like reading everything that's cropped since I've been gone. Either way, it's post number 79 on page six. You make the same point that a lot of Christians have made to me over and over...and over again. I realize the book is a little under two thousand years old. I realize it has been translated, copied, translated again, and copied again thousands, if not millions of times. The fallacies I'm talking about are fallacies based around known facts such as the Nativity Story as told by Luke and Matthew, which has dating incongruences. You would think that two followers of Christ would at least know the year he was born. Especially since we KNOW when John the Baptist was born, and Luke states that John and Jesus were born around the same time. This is a sound and logical fallacy in the texts of the Bible, and it's kind of hard to get dates like this mixed up in translation...

i believe that they don't care, they are so religous that they just believe in one thing and ingnore the rest. they are stubborn

i'm an Atheist, but i was also born an Atheist. my whole family doesn't believe in God. i sometimes think that if i were born into a Christian family i would believe in God and the Bible. i think that if parents are good at it they can really enforce things like that into their kids so that they truly believe it. if the parent it isn't as good at it, or their kid is being a rebellious teenager--then you get converted Atheists.

i really think that if started from a young enough age, kids are brainwashed into believing what they believe. and when you are told something for your whole life, you will make everything in the Bible and things they say at church make sense no matter how hard it is. if a kid is told that the sky is purple for his whole life he will legitimately believe that the sky is purple, and then tell his kids that the sky is purple, etc.

@rakwel: the problem would be that kids nowadays are rarely taught how to analyze the premises they're told and decide for themselves whether it's worth learning/beliveving/doing or not. Like the story about a girl who asks her mother why she twist the chicken's legs, and she tells her that it was because the girl's grandmother taught her so. The little girl and her mom go to the grandmother and she tells them that her mother taught her so. The three women go to the great-grandmother, and she tells them that it was because in her times the oven was too small for the chicken to fit in.

And the final result would be a classroom of 38 students telling me that God exists because he exists. That doesn't even have the structuration of an argument, which makes me more sad at their incompetence in their analitic skills.

my family is Atheist because they are all scientists, they have scientific reason for not believing in God. but i'm ignorant in that all of their reasons are way too complicated and complex for me to understand. i choose to be an Atheist because it is what makes the most sense to me and seems the most real. if i wanted to believe in God i would, i just choose not to.

i was talking to a very religious friend of mine and she said that she believes in God because she can't imagine not believing in God. she also said something about if God does exist and she chose not to, then she would go to hell and she's not risking that. to me that just seems horrible. if there was a God he wouldn't go and punish every person that doesn't believe that he exists.

also, i have a question. if there are so many religions in the world, what makes the one that you believe in "right"? christianity, hinduism, Buddhism, shintoism, etc. all believe in completely different things, so how can we choose which one is the one that is right?

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

@rakwel: the problem would be that kids nowadays are rarely taught how to analyze the premises they're told and decide for themselves whether it's worth learning/beliveving/doing or not. Like the story about a girl who asks her mother why she twist the chicken's legs, and she tells her that it was because the girl's grandmother taught her so. The little girl and her mom go to the grandmother and she tells them that her mother taught her so. The three women go to the great-grandmother, and she tells them that it was because in her times the oven was too small for the chicken to fit in.

And the final result would be a classroom of 38 students telling me that God exists because he exists. That doesn't even have the structuration of an argument, which makes me more sad at their incompetence in their analitic skills.

Although at the same time it is worth mentioning the people who see something as carrying the label of 'science' and assume this in itself equates it to being 'truth'. Yet they neither take the time to address their own cultural biases, those biases of the people who performed the research or the biases which come as a result of the funding system. It does not cease to amaze me when I come across people who think that A) culture does not bias science and B) Science is uninfluenced by the political and social environment in which it is performed. One only needs to look at fields like socio-biology to see how politically charged it can be. Post-modernist thinking has even demonstrated how biased many fields have been due to the patriarchal system, take a bow primatology as you are a text book example.

*shrugs* I just know that even though 2+2=5 is possible, it isn't something the vast majority would be able to live by, or would try to. Both 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 are true, but only when used in very different contexts where each have their own use and work efficiently according to the expectations and the way they're applied on their own fields. So if I were to convince someone who thinks 2+2=4 that 2+2=5, I would have to explain how it works, why, and in what ways is it useful to the other field. Otherwise, I would feel that they're just playing tricks on me. If I didn't ask for details, I would probably still believe that the ropavejero [I think you call it boogeyman?] is coming for me.

Just mentioning, in my classroom we have a class called Theory of Knowledge where we are taught how to form arguments and why question everything we're told, and it truly saddens me when they try to convert me with a "He exists because He exists." It's like me saying "He doesn't exists because he doesn't/ I can't see him!" That takes me nowhere, because I'm not supporting my beliefs. What could these kind of answers make me think? Either that they're brainwashed, that they think they're too superior to give any proof to their statements, or even both, though I'm conscient they probably don't even notice my side of the fence because they're looking at it from the other side, are just too used to their system of beliefs that they find it harder to form arguments. Hell, how can I know, I'm biased just by being part of a religion.

::EDIT:: Explain me how can Math and Chemistry be politically biased, cause I find it too mindblowing to be true xD;;

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

::EDIT:: Explain me how can Math and Chemistry be politically biased, cause I find it too mindblowing to be true xD;; [/COLOR]

I will give one reason by returning a question in your direction. Namely how is it that research in these fields find the funding that they require to perform research? As the funding issue is one way in which many fields become quite politically charged. Another area can be seen by examining who it is that is performing the research and which backgrounds do they come from? As through active exclusions of various members of society, we have seen this bias the research performed quite strongly. Take a look at how statistics have even been manipulated at times to justify the exclusion of various groups in society. The Bell curve is another good example of how maths has been politically biased.

I don't understand you. The Bell Curve talks about how intelligence affects your life more than the social/economical level you're born in [or so I understood]. Would you inform me in a more detailed way how does this prove your point?

Not everything in the world makes sense. If you believe in something, it's not because there's hard earned evidence, it's called belief for a reason.. It's not "knowing" it's believing.. they are the same thing but more emotional things are attached to believing.

I know there are inaccuracies, and a lot of things that don't make sense..but I believe in the bible and god.. I don't understand it...but I also don't understand how a baby can be in it's mother's stomach and be in liquid, then when it comes out it can breath but it can't breath in liquid.. so.. I don't know.. I think there are miracles everywhere that show me that there has to be something more out there.. Whethers it's God or Gods or whatever..I don't know, but I do believe in God because of my own experiences.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

I don't understand you. The Bell Curve talks about how intelligence affects your life more than the social/economical level you're born in [or so I understood]. Would you inform me in a more detailed way how does this prove your point?

I will address this by asking a few questions of my own. Firstly what do you believe that intelligence is and do you think that the IQ test sufficiently measures this? Secondly concerning the nature of intelligence, do you believe this is something acquired or perhaps it is in our genetics? Finally an observation, the Bell curve is built quite strongly on the notion that not only is the concept of Race Science valid, but because of genetic differences and intelligence being determined by differences the social stratification system in society is simply the result of natural equalities. As such attempts to try and elevate marginalized and subordinated peoples will be going directly against nature which will do little more than give them false hope and waste valuable resources. (See the demise of the Head start programme in U.S.A for an example of this.)

@reddeath26 - You can't answer questions with questions. I'm guessing that the point you've been trying to make in the past...page? really?...is that science can be skewed as well, so we us Atheists can't say that religion is skewed. WRONG! Whether the funding comes from pro-religious, or anti-religious groups or persons, there is usually more than one person doing research in every field. This leads to debate, which leads to the breaking down of facts and opinions, which leads to the truth eventually. There are anthropologists (or anthroapologists, rather) out there who believe that the first proto-humans were placed there by God as a test...Whichever side of the fence you're on, there is always someone on the other side screaming something completely different at you. Eventually it gets boiled down and one is found to be true. Skewing happens in some cases, but they are righted eventually as others take up the task of fixing the purposeful mistakes.

Now stop asking unimportant questions and start answering some...

I am personally baffled by people who pick and choose in the Bible. If I were to believe in something, I'd want to believe all of it, not just what works for me. I'd think there was something wrong with it if it had to be revised and rewritten and whatnot--how trustworthy could it really be? I figure, if God really existed, he'd make a clean-cut Bible for us to follow. Why make us so confused as to what is sin and what isn't?

However, as long as they do not shove their beliefs down my throat, or use their religion to gain influence in the government (separation of church and state please), I say, let them do what makes them happy.

I am worried that some people are so unquestioning towards the Bible though. I like to see people who think and challenge ideas presented to them, not those who swallow them without a second thought.