• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

The Hype Religion Discussion and Debate thread!

What is your religion?

  • Christian

  • Jewish

  • Mormon

  • Muslim

  • Buddhist

  • Scientologist

  • Atheist

  • Agnostic

  • Hindu

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your "beside the point" comment dismissed my opportunity to substantiate my claim before I could even do so.
In fact, my "Beside the point" comment indicated that your claim was... beside the point. However, I am perfectly capable of discussing more than one matter at once, which is why I also asked you to substantiate your claim. As I said before, whether you failed to do so because you were unable or because you were too busy talking out your ass about my character doesn't sway me either way; the result is the same.
 
I'm glad that Stephen Hawking in challenging Sir Issac Newton's theory that God must have been involved in the creation because our solar system couldn't have come out of chaos simply through nature.

The discovery other planets orbiting a star other than the sun makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions far less remarkable and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings.

Even what people refer to as "chaos" isn't some chaotic process that could, at any moment, go out of control. They usually misstate the Big Bang as an explosion and assume that the process is chaotic as a conventional combustion explosion. It was an expansion of matter. Supernovae, which they would consider an explosion, produces new stars. Would that be order from chaos? Or is chaos a term inappropriately applied to the processes at work? I think that's the case.
 
In fact, my "Beside the point" comment indicated that your claim was... beside the point. However, I am perfectly capable of discussing more than one matter at once, which is why I also asked you to substantiate your claim. As I said before, whether you failed to do so because you were unable or because you were too busy talking out your ass about my character doesn't sway me either way; the result is the same.
I disagree, you disagree back. I say you hit me, you say I hit you first. Let me know when you're ready to grow up and move on.

I need to go take a dump.

I
 
I'm not sure if you really made this claim or not, but there is no religion that has never changed, or been splintered. All religions have made some concession or adapted some of their practices to the modern era. I would defy you to find an example of one that hasn't, unless you picked something extremely esoteric and specific or had some overly lofty definition of "change".

Religions are not constant, they're just generally very stubborn, and do not have a formal revision process like science. The reason people feel science is ever changing, and is in constant flux is two fold: One the science community is very open to and very open about change. You can easily track how theories have been modified and abandoned over the years by following the credible science literature. The science community readily admits error, and opens itself up constantly to criticism in hopes of strengthening their theories. The second reason is people just plain don't understand the difference between aspects of a theory being wrong or incomplete and the notion that the theory itself is complete bullsh**. Religion is like a house of cards, as you disprove one or more of the aspects the rest just topples because religion demands a certain inerrancy from the texts and figureheads. Science is like a puzzle, one piece doesn't necessarily change the entire picture.
 
Last edited:
I disagree, you disagree back. I say you hit me, you say I hit you first. Let me know when you're ready to grow up and move on.

Yes, the individual who can't keep the big boy pants on long enough to admit that he made a ridiculous and fallacious claim (and has been giving me the runaround with posts like this ever since) wants to talk about maturity.

Groan.
 
Even what people refer to as "chaos" isn't some chaotic process that could, at any moment, go out of control. They usually misstate the Big Bang as an explosion and assume that the process is chaotic as a conventional combustion explosion. It was an expansion of matter. Supernovae, which they would consider an explosion, produces new stars. Would that be order from chaos? Or is chaos a term inappropriately applied to the processes at work? I think that's the case.

Plus at least in his news interview, he ignored defining what the god particle is.
 
Even what people refer to as "chaos" isn't some chaotic process that could, at any moment, go out of control. They usually misstate the Big Bang as an explosion and assume that the process is chaotic as a conventional combustion explosion. It was an expansion of matter. Supernovae, which they would consider an explosion, produces new stars. Would that be order from chaos? Or is chaos a term inappropriately applied to the processes at work? I think that's the case.

Yes, and no I do not believe the term is inappropriately applied.
 
I don't get it. Why do some people subscribe to the theory that the existence of evil and strife is evidence of the non-existence of God?

I don't, and I don't think it's a sound arguement at all.

God doing nothing about evil has never been a factor in my disbelief of his existence. I believe there is a natural and neccesary balance between good and bad.

Ummm... because God rewards?

This is where I start laughing at the simplicity of some people's religious beliefs.

Weirdly, I think i respect this more.

You believe in God, and think it will make you happier, because the bible says if you do you get a reward. Well good luck, I hope you win.

People around you...who also eventually die and cease to be and are forgotten. So nothing that anyone does matter in the long run. Life and death itself has no ultimate meaning, and is pointless. Having an afterlife or somehow being immortal would be the only way it is truly worth it to live at all. If neither exist (and obviously I am not saying either does) then everyone's ultimate fate is to fade away and I thing a huge reason religion developed in the first place was to give people hope for a next life...a next life that no one can proves exists and may well be a lie.

Religion offers an afterlife and to me, that's it's big hook...not that I buy it myself, but that is the hook of it and at one time I did buy it.

I don't get it. I truly don't understand the obsession with afterlife.

As I've said before, I find my life means more BECAUSE it will end, and is fleeting and rare. I find that I am enthusiastic about doing more with it, because i don't have much time and I don't have anything else to look forward to but all the happiness I can bring myself in this life.

Why spend your whole life just looking forward to the afterlife, because you'll be happy there. Why can't you just be happy here?

You keep saying it's pointless because it ends...

Would you be happier if you were immortal? Would that give your life more meaning? More purpose?

I just don't think it would.

Yes.

But don't be naive that it's only a phenomenon apparent in people who subscribes to religion. We all serve someone or something with the promise of a reward. The only difference is that divine reward is far more fulfilling which goes beyond financial gains.

That is not the only difference.

The biggest problem I have with this reward is the idea that you get it if your a good little christian/muslim etc. If you are obedient. If you follow all the rituals and you are very very sorry when you mess something up, then you will get a reward.

I always get this image in my head of the goody two shoes annoying brother, who always dobs you in, sucks up in every way possible, and seems to look at you as if to say 'nahnahnahnahnah' every time he gets 'rewarded.'

And with this religious reward, there is this sense that the people who think they are going to get it, and deserve it, are looking down at the rest of us.

And that bothers me a lot.

The afterlife is the coolest club on the block, God is the bouncer, and the line to get in is your life. Are you now filled with meaning and purpose? When God decides whether you get in, does this validate your existence?

Personally, I think the afterlife sounds bloody boring. I'd much rather die.

I have nothing against other people making religion a large part of their lives, but I absolutely abhor when people insinuate they my life is less fullfilling than theirs because I don't. How can they make a judgement on how content I feel? Makes no sense.

Agreed.

You make the assumption that religion is needed for ethics, this is not the case.

Agreed alot.

For many people, life is never rewarding and nothing but an exercise in pain. At least an afterlife gives them hope of a good life after a bad life. I feel the promise of an afterlife is the appeal of religion above anything else. The thought of nonexistence is the the most horrifying thing I can contemplate. But I'm not saying it is so or that it isn't.

But can you not hope that THIS life will turn into a good life at some stage in your development?

That's what keeps me going daily. I always have hope that my life is going to get better, and that all of my dreams will eventually come true in one way or another.

But when I refer to people whose lives are nothing but exercises in pain, I mean those who are oppressed in countries across the world for various reasons, some (not all) for religious reasons. I don't know if the removal of religion itself would improve the world but I do believe secularism and religious tolerance in all nations is essential.

This is definitely a difficult one. I think people who are in a life situation where there is little or no hope of it getting better do need religion. Whatever makes them feel better, to me, is fine.
 
I don't, and I don't think it's a sound arguement at all.

God doing nothing about evil has never been a factor in my disbelief of his existence. I believe there is a natural and neccesary balance between good and bad.
This is true. The problem of evil doesn't have any bearing on the existence of the monotheistic representation of god. All it postulates is this: The monotheistic God is either not all powerful, not all loving, not all knowing, or is deprived of all three attributes.
 
Last edited:
Or, is allowing us to make our own dumb ass decisions... because he didn't create puppets to do his will, he created flesh breathing people who are allowed to make their own decisions...

I have no idea what the deal is with good and evil, I just know that I try and live my life as best I can.....and whatever stupid decisions I make, I have to live with....
 
I don't think God forces us, I think He wants us to choose Him, but gives us free will.
 
This is a slightly dubious claim when reading certain passages in scripture.


I don't believe everything in Scripture. I believe the Bible was written by man and is therefore not the 100% pure word of God.
 
I don't believe everything in Scripture. I believe the Bible was written by man and is therefore not the 100% pure word of God.
Pardon my confusion but if this is the case, why are you still a Christian? Do you merely find parts of scripture you enjoy, and implement in your life without the need to label yourself; or is there some other method?
 
Pardon my confusion but if this is the case, why are you still a Christian? Do you merely find parts of scripture you enjoy, and implement in your life without the need to label yourself; or is there some other method?

I actually take Jefferson's view of the Bible...

It's pretty interesting reading...

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative.
 
And that's fine, I adhere to the opinion that......."we all have one..."
 
Pardon my confusion but if this is the case, why are you still a Christian? Do you merely find parts of scripture you enjoy, and implement in your life without the need to label yourself; or is there some other method?


Well I somewhat loosely define myself as a Christian, and wavered between agnostic and atheist for most of my life, but I consider myself a Christian at least in its most basic sense because I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ and I view them, not the Bible, as the core of Christianity.
 
Well I somewhat loosely define myself as a Christian, and wavered between agnostic and atheist for most of my life, but I consider myself a Christian at least in its most basic sense because I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ and I view them, not the Bible, as the core of Christianity.
Now this is something I'd like to hear more often; A lot more often.
 
Well I somewhat loosely define myself as a Christian, and wavered between agnostic and atheist for most of my life, but I consider myself a Christian at least in its most basic sense because I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ and I view them, not the Bible, as the core of Christianity.

Schlosser, have you read The Jefferson Bible? If not, I would highly recommend it to you.....I think you would find it very interesting.
 
Basically, I believe the Bible may have been "inspired" by God but was written by man, who misinterprets things and fudges things according to his own prejudices and his own political agendas, and it's gone through many translations and editions and versions over the centuries.

I look at Christ's teachings as more pure and straight from the source.
 
Schlosser, have you read The Jefferson Bible? If not, I would highly recommend it to you.....I think you would find it very interesting.

No, I haven't, but I will see what I can find out about it.
 
Basically, I believe the Bible may have been "inspired" by God but was written by man, who misinterprets things and fudges things according to his own prejudices and his own political agendas, and it's gone through many translations and editions and versions over the centuries.

I look at Christ's teachings as more pure and straight from the source.
Claims of inspiration from gods are not uncommon throughout human history. There are many texts on offer that have similar teachings; along with many more philosophers uttering the same instructions as Jesus centuries before his existence. One is free to choose whichever he/she likes, of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,262
Messages
22,074,275
Members
45,876
Latest member
kedenlewis
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"