I have shifted from athiest to agnostic

[Gingerbread Man]

I must say that there are at least 100 mis-understandings about religion here!

Quoting Moony on blind trust of Authorities:
I'd really like to know where it says that. I'm not being snotty by saying that, I'm truly curious. I read the Bible from cover to cover and I never got that impression. Where did my eyes/my boredom grow too tired to see that?

For one, It says it in one of the gospels that people should be constantly questioning what they believe. It may be Luke, I can not remember.

Another misuderstanding by someone saying that the people writing the New Testament were biased towards Jesus. For one, Paul, who wrote a large chunk of the New Testament, was an ex-born and bred Christian Killer. Now think, how much would it take to convert a Suicide Bomber to become a Hebrew? Ahhh, yes. Quite a lot.

Honestly, quite a large number of you are slamming religious people, with reasons that you think you know you are talking about. When I am asked these questions by atheists, I always ask a religious person who knows what they are talking about. So far I have failed to get no answer.

By the way, I also see some others here who are blind in their faith when they dont have to be. Believe in what you believe with reason, for sure I do.

One more point, most Atheists here believe in the Theory of Evolution. But it is no more than a theory. Yet you cannot understand why people believe in a god. Yet, they are simply another theory. Yes, the ToE is backed up by certain scientific discoveries, but even they are biased(I believe hearing somebody recreating a part ape/part man from a tooth, claiming to have found significant proof for ToE. Turns out it was a pig's tooth)

There is actually more proof that Jesus existed than Julius Ceasar existed. The first known historical records of Ceasar were written during the Year something hundred AD (correct me if I am wrong, I am always open to debate). The accounts of Jesus, even outside the Bible, were written in the 2-digit AD. Some of that was written by Pliny, a known Jesus-hater, who even said that Jesus performed miraculous things. Even the high Jewish preists said that.

Just remember - there are some christians who actually believe with reason - they dont cover their eyes and blatantly say "I believe, I believe, I believe". They dont instantly dismiss scientific findings, because they disagree with them. They look, and learn, and debate, and discuss. This is unlike some fanatical Atheists, who immediately dismiss any proof of Jesus' miracles, etc, because they just couldn't physically happen in their eyes.

Oh, and I dont use religion to cover up things I dont understand, either. Its not like that. I could go on forever saying thing, but I will stop here for now.

 

[Moony]

Just to clear my name from the above accusations of Atheists, I would like to say tht I don't hate Christians for their beliefs in anyway, and I do understand where they are coming from. My of my friends, including my ex, are Christians and we tend to have friendly banters about it now and then, but at the end of it we're still just friends with different views.
Oh, and I did bring up the fact that thoughts of Christianity and science are just theories on my second post of this thread, but it was of the universe being created rather than evolution.
I don't think you were accusing me of slander of Christianity, but I just wanted my name clear. I have problems with people not liking me, especially if it's something I don't consider myself to be/do.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

I was only referring to you in the blind belief of Authorities, in the first few lines. Just answering your curiosity

And it's better that you dont belive but dont slander, than you hate all religion completely. I certainly wouldn't attack anyone like that.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man
Another misuderstanding by someone saying that the people writing the New Testament were biased towards Jesus. For one, Paul, who wrote a large chunk of the New Testament, was an ex-born and bred Christian Killer. Now think, how much would it take to convert a Suicide Bomber to become a Hebrew? Ahhh, yes. Quite a lot.

As a non christian AND as a analyzer of the bible from a 100% historical view and 0% religious view, I simply do not think he was converted!

It is so obvious, once you put aside your believe! Saul was a Roman christian killer. And then he starts preaching to pay tax to the Romans and tells every one to obey the Romans!

Strange huh?

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Why? Because at the time they were living on roman land, the Romans owned it. It's not that he is saying 'nay' to religion by saying people should pay taxes to the Governing body of the land.

EDIT: at least you are willing to give reason, and debate, Stapel. I have seen people saying 'No god, full stop, no discussion'. Again, all beliefs need to be rooted in reason and reliability.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man
Why? Because at the time they were living on roman land, the Romans owned it. It's not that he is saying 'nay' to religion by saying people should pay taxes to the Governing body of the land.

EDIT: at least you are willing to give reason, and debate, Stapel. I have seen people saying 'No god, full stop, no discussion'. Again, all beliefs need to be rooted in reason and reliability.

I used to be a devoted christian for quite some years. If only search-option would be on...

About Saul/Paul. Try to see it from this way:

Assume for one moment he was a roman spy. The message of his letters fits perfectly into this strategy. It makes sense to me! I know this theory cannot be proven to be true, but from a historical perspective, to me, it makes more sense than Saul seeing a vision, becoming a devoted christian and preaching obeyance to the Romans.

Who were NOT the legal governors of Israel / Judea from a jewish perspective btw at that time! Jewish resistence was enormous at the time. And the suppresion of it was cruel!

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Again, much of this thread is based on theories, equally on both sides of the argument!

OK, so explain why the Romans arrested Paul, only for Paul to ask for a trial (being a Roman citizen), and sent to Ceasar? BTW, what happened to him? I think he was executed - only one of the apostles died a normal death, IIRC. I dont think the Romans would try to arrest and suppress a spy working for them.

As for the cruel opression - I will have to find out about that. For one thing, Paul was trying to change Jewish perspective. I will have to ask a knowledgable Christian (not a 'you just have to have faith' one) about that. I know some people who studied these things for a few years at university.

 

[Pikachu]

Originally posted by Moony
The argument wasn't about whether the Pope was human or not, but whether someone's religion affects others.And not believing in birth control is not a mistake, but merely an opinion. But, him being the Pope, what his opinions are affect others, i.e., the condomless people of Africa.

Yes, the Pope made a mistake by preaching his disbelieves in birth control, because it hurts people in Africa. He is just a human, and if people realized that they would not listen to him in matters where they think he is wrong. As Jesus said: Be on your watch against the scribes!

Originally posted by Moony

I may have missed something, I probably did, but how do you think the universe was created? If you believe God has always been around, you would believe in Genesis, no?
Genesis is part of the Old Testament, of which you think is obsolete.

Didn't I tell you that what I believe in is not important? Ok, I will tell you anyway. I think the world was created with the big bang, and that God triggered it. If I find a better explanation, I will change my mind. Jesus only told me that God created the world, not how he did it. And frankly I don't need to know how he did it. I did not say that all of the Old Testament is obsolete. There are some good stories there, and it could help us to understand the background for what Jesus preached, but we don't really need it. Jesus said everything we need to know about religion.

Originally posted by Moony

And Pikachu, sorry for being so blunt with this, but Christianity is much more than good morals. Yes, he did preach that, but he also preached about much more, i.e. the goodness of God. I have good morals, but not because Jesus said it, and I do not believe there is a God, thus he cannot have any goodness. I am a good person, I think, but I don't believe everything Christ preached and I don't believe in a God. Thus, I am not a Christian, but just because I say I'm not, but because I don't have the same beliefs as a Christian.

You have good morals because our culture has developed good moral standards based on what Jesus preached. As long as you follow Jesus moral standards you are as good as a Christian. Faith is worthless unless it makes us behave well, and faith is superfluous if we behave well anyway.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Pikachu - your point on 'it doesn't matter how God created/influenced the creation of the universe, the point in the bible is that he did'. For those who dont understand, there has been some debate on whether the start of Genesis was literal, or poetic. But the point the writer was trying to convey remains the same.


EDIT: I'll post something on-topic. Antagonistic is an I-dont-knower right? Well how come the main religions are all saying 'you will burn in hell' or something to that intent, if you most probably not going to go to any of them? Is the basic belief that there is some spiritual being in this world, because this all couldn't be random, and that we cant explain it, no matter how much the religions say they can?

And I assume that this is in contrast to Atheists, who say no religion, no spiritual prescence, no afterlife, if we cant explain it and prove it with formulas and archaeology, it cant be true? And if not, then why is religion dismissed so quickly?

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man
Again, much of this thread is based on theories, equally on both sides of the argument!

As I said! We cannot prove anything. But we can judge for ourselves what is possible, what is not possible, what is likely, or what is not likely.

OK, so explain why the Romans arrested Paul, only for Paul to ask for a trial (being a Roman citizen), and sent to Ceasar? BTW, what happened to him? I think he was executed - only one of the apostles died a normal death, IIRC. I dont think the Romans would try to arrest and suppress a spy working for them.

Was he arrested? Or was the rumour spread? In anyway there is, iirc, 17 years missing in Paul's life. AFAIK the bible, nor other sources have a decent explination for this.

As for the cruel opression - I will have to find out about that. For one thing, Paul was trying to change Jewish perspective. I will have to ask a knowledgable Christian (not a 'you just have to have faith' one) about that. I know some people who studied these things for a few years at university.

Israel/Judea was a hard nut to crack from a Roman point of view. That nasty story of living jews being catapulted by the Romans into an under siege town actually has some historic value.

From a biblical view: The jews at the time (and still are???) were waiting for a Messias. What would be the most desirable Messias? One that preaches to be good and heals a sick man here and there? Or a military leader kicking the Roman's arses?

I don't expect (nor want) you or others to see this theory as the truth. It is just a theory. To me, this theory simply makes more sense than the theory of God sending his son to earth.

 

[Gothmog]

@Henrique – just so we don’t get into a semantic argument here is the OED definition of agnostic again: “One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.”

Thus as I said before it would certainly be possible to be a practicing Catholic and an agnostic, you can believe in God and still be agnostic. The contradiction for most organized religions is that they have some sort of gospel that they believe is the word of God. Now if you think that the truth about God is unknowable then how can you accept that the gospel is anything but a human creation? Of course this is not an impossible hurtle, I know some agnostic people who are very religious (but not any Catholics).

@floppa – There are denominations of Christianity that allow you to go to Heaven without accepting Christ as long as you act according to his “laws”. Heck there are so many flavors of Christianity here in the US that it is really unbelievable.
As an aside, you may want to check out Unitarianism. Do a google search or something. It is not a Christian sect, but it is pretty cool and shows the breadth of organized religious faith. Note that I am not a practicing anything and am not saying you should be. I just thought you might be interested per your statement about ignorance.

@ Pikachu: “I hate to disappoint you, but the Pope is just a human. He makes mistakes like everybody else. Therefore he should not be given too much power. Jesus did not want religion to be used for political power.”

I’m not disappointed at all! Though it would be cool if the Pope were from outer space, now that would make me like him. We can agree to disagree about the Pope’s overall effect on global politics – though I do wonder what good you think he has done in that context. I really don’t like him and if I knew him any better I think I might hate him. He has way way way too much power without any system of checks and balances to mitigate the damage he does. If religion is the opium of the masses then the pope is the dealer. Presumably he would disagree with you about what Jesus wanted wrt religion and political power, and I would think he is quite an authority.

It’s actually kind of funny what you say about the gospels and lots of eyewitnesses. If you look at the Old Testament you will note that God spoke to the whole Jewish nation after Moses led them out of Egypt. He spoke to them all collectively and many Jews look at that as the best proof of God’s existence. How could anyone (i.e. Moses) fake that? Of course that doesn’t hold water in my book, but each to his own.

Not everyone is agnostic; many many people ‘know’ that there is a God and that the bible (or other religious text) represents true knowledge of God. You have implied as much when you said that people do speak to god and that miracles do happen.

@Gingerbreadman – see the definition of agnostic above. Basically no one can have true knowledge of God, no one has spoken to God, and there are no writings that represent true knowledge of God. “because this all couldn't be random” why couldn’t this all be random? I’m not saying if I think it is or is not, I just don’t see why it couldn’t be.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Originally posted by Stapel

Israel/Judea was a hard nut to crack from a Roman point of view. That nasty story of living jews being catapulted by the Romans into an under siege town actually has some historic value.

From a biblical view: The jews at the time (and still are???) were waiting for a Messias. What would be the most desirable Messias? One that preaches to be good and heals a sick man here and there? Or a military leader kicking the Roman's arses?

For one thing, Isiah, the book that pretty much described the job description for the messiah, didn't say anything about roman but-kicking. It said a lot about a person who preaches and heals, though. Maybe Paul was saying to the jews 'I'm not here to kick roman but, I'm here to tell people the good news'.

Originally posted by Stapel

I don't expect (nor want) you or others to see this theory as the truth. It is just a theory. To me, this theory simply makes more sense than the theory of God sending his son to earth.

I dont see the apes and evolution theory as feasable (seeing that there is actually more chance of a boeing constructing itself in a junkyard, with out any help), but you have one good moral that a lot of Atheists dont. Classing religious people in general idiots because what they believe cant be true in the Atheists eyes, is very intolerant. All I want to say is that we are not idiots, who ignore science and the facts.

At least you understand that people have their reasons for believing. I am so sick of meeting people in R/L who say, very childishly, 'Religion? That just couldn't happen. You're an idiot, I dont like you any more'

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by Pikachu
Some suggests that it was created by a big bang. They even have physical observations to support their theory. You may believe that the universe has always existed. I believe something else.

No. That theory does not imply that matter was "created". It only says that matter/energy has "dispersed" from that central point.

Originally posted by Pikachu
What is an agnostic? If it is somebody who doesn't now whether God exists or not, everybody are agnostics. I think that the differences between Atheists, Agnostics and Christians (or maybe any religious people) are what we call ourselves, not what we believe. How sure do you have to be that there is no God to become an Atheist and how sure do you have to be that there is a God to become a Christian? 100% sure, 90% sure or 51%? As you know, I think what we believe and call ourselves is irrelevant. It tells more about where we live than who we are.

An atheist is someone who completely denies any claim of existence of gods. An agnostic is someone who is not sure, but is sure that everybody who is sure is deluded. A theist is someone who believes in any religion.

Me? I'm an agnostic in principle but an atheist in practice. While I do acknoledge that every single religion, however infantile and stupid, has a chance of actually being true, I do not in practice worry myself with that possibility, as it is way too improbable and irrational of a choice.

 

[gael]

Double post.

 

[gael]

Gingerbread Man, I'm a firm believer in evolution, but i have no set in stone beliefs on religion.
Tell me this, what is your theory on all the religions that have come before Christianity (2000ad), and all the religions that have come after it. What about the ones that seem to have made up the core structure of Christianity like Zoroastrianism.

Is this all bullsh*t, was God just leading them on, are they all burning in hell?

Do you consider Muslums, Jews and all the rest to be products of satan?

This sounds like I'm picking a fight, I'm not, I genuinely want to here a serious and educated opinion on this. These are the questions that bug me.

 

[gael]

Three in a row.

Edit: This is open to anybody, but i want good replys not the same old story.

 

[Gothmog]

"I dont see the apes and evolution theory as feasable (seeing that there is actually more chance of a boeing constructing itself in a junkyard, with out any help)"

I must say this seems a bit intolerant to me. You are rejecting what a majority of scholars agree upon, that the theory of evolution is feasable and worth testing. It's like you are classing scientific people in general as idiots because the theory that some of them spend their lives testing and hashing out can't be true and isn't worth their time.

"I am so sick of meeting people in R/L who say, very childishly, 'Religion? That just couldn't happen. You're an idiot, I dont like you any more"

Replace religion with the theory of evolution here and it seems you have described yourself.

 

[gael]

Gingerbread Man, no offence, but your argument against evolution started off on a null argument.

quote:
"(I believe hearing somebody recreating a part ape/part man from a tooth, claiming to have found significant proof for ToE. Turns out it was a pig's tooth)"

This obvously is refering to the Piltdown man (sp), Piltdown Man consisted of two human skulls, an orangutan jaw, an elephant molar, a hippopotamus tooth, and a canine tooth from a chimpanzee.

It is well known that this was a hoax, even i knew this. Your whole argument on evolution, if based on this, seemed to suggest your pretty ignorant on the subject.

 

[Stapel]

I can say this on the ToE: If tomorrow hard evidence is shown to me that the whole ToE is complete nonsense, I still see no reason to believe in the biblical creation theory.

 

[Pikachu]

Originally posted by Stapel

From a biblical view: The jews at the time (and still are???) were waiting for a Messias. What would be the most desirable Messias? One that preaches to be good and heals a sick man here and there? Or a military leader kicking the Roman's arses?

The Jews expected Messiah to be a king who would free them from the Romans. It would be easier to convince Jews that Jesus was Messiah by making him into a Roman hater. Wouldn't that have been in the interest of the gospel writers?

Originally posted by Gothmog
@floppa - There are denominations of Christianity that allow you to go to Heaven without accepting Christ as long as you act according to his "laws". Heck there are so many flavors of Christianity here in the US that it is really unbelievable.

No denominations of Christianity allow anybody into Heaven. That's up to God, but there are Christians who believe that God would let people into Heaven even if they don't believe in him. Nobody knows who is going to Heaven and not. I see nothing that indicates that not believing in God is a sure ticket to Hell.

Originally posted by Gothmog

I'm not disappointed at all! Though it would be cool if the Pope were from outer space, now that would make me like him. We can agree to disagree about the Pope's overall effect on global politics - though I do wonder what good you think he has done in that context. I really don't like him and if I knew him any better I think I might hate him. He has way way way too much power without any system of checks and balances to mitigate the damage he does. If religion is the opium of the masses then the pope is the dealer. Presumably he would disagree with you about what Jesus wanted wrt religion and political power, and I would think he is quite an authority.

Yeah, it would have been cool with a supernatural Pope. At least he looks like he has come back from the dead.

I agree with you that he has way too much power, but I don't know much about what the Pope do in international politics. I think the Pope tries to follow the 'you shall not talk big about yourself' thing. I am sure all the bad things will come on the news, but very little of the good things. I haven't gotten especially much bad news about the Pope, so I think he is doing just fine. One good thing he did was to warn about the Iraq war. He has also done a lot to reduce the tension between religions.

Originally posted by Gothmog

It's actually kind of funny what you say about the gospels and lots of eyewitnesses. If you look at the Old Testament you will note that God spoke to the whole Jewish nation after Moses led them out of Egypt. He spoke to them all collectively and many Jews look at that as the best proof of God's existence. How could anyone (i.e. Moses) fake that? Of course that doesn't hold water in my book, but each to his own.

I don't remember that event, but it sounds like a creditable story. What did God say?

Originally posted by Gothmog

Not everyone is agnostic; many many people 'know' that there is a God and that the bible (or other religious text) represents true knowledge of God. You have implied as much when you said that people do speak to god and that miracles do happen.

Ok, maybe some people know the truth. Still most of them would not be absolutely sure that what they experienced was real. You can call yourself whatever you want. It doesn't change anything.

Originally posted by nihilistic

No. That theory does not imply that matter was "created". It only says that matter/energy has "dispersed" from that central point.

That the universe was created doesn't nessesarily imply that the matter/energy was created. A world without time and space is not much of a world in my opinion.

Originally posted by Gothmog
"I dont see the apes and evolution theory as feasable (seeing that there is actually more chance of a boeing constructing itself in a junkyard, with out any help)"

I must say this seems a bit intolerant to me. You are rejecting what a majority of scholars agree upon, that the theory of evolution is feasable and worth testing. It's like you are classing scientific people in general as idiots because the theory that some of them spend their lives testing and hashing out can't be true and isn't worth their time.

"I am so sick of meeting people in R/L who say, very childishly, 'Religion? That just couldn't happen. You're an idiot, I dont like you any more"

Replace religion with the theory of evolution here and it seems you have described yourself.

What is intolerant with saying that you don't believe in a theory which is far from proven? How could what Gingerbread Man said be more intolerant than saying that you don't believe in God? By saying that God does not exist you are rejecting what a majority of scholars in that subject agree upon.