To Believe or Not To Believe? (SHOW RESPECT, OR RISK A BAN) - Part 2

[Charlatan]

A claim based on the Bible and a claim based on science are not on the same footing.

Also, the believers you see on the news are often racist or homophobic. You don't see many atheists using their atheism to justify bigoted views.

I've never had an atheist knock on my door and try to convert me either.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

You have a choice.

As children? There is little choice. Choice comes as we discover there are other options to consider. We either continue believing what we brought up in, or believe in something else, or question the totality of it all.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

I've never had an atheist knock on my door and try to convert me either.

Nor are atheists picketing churches for having their belief.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Actually a lot of non religious people I have talked to cite religion as being positive in terms of their upbringing. I don't know that morals, values, and discipline would be as broadly achievable in western society if children were never taught to believe in some form of religion. Even the golden rule has some roots to Christianity after all. 'Love thy neighbor as yourself' right?

 

[Snow Queen]

I've never had an atheist knock on my door and try to convert me either.

I honestly want to know how often that actually works.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Actually a lot of non religious people I have talked to cite religion as being positive in terms of their upbringing. I don't know that morals, values, and discipline would be as broadly achievable in western society if children were never taught to believe in some form of religion. Even the golden rule has some roots to Christianity after all. 'Love thy neighbor as yourself' right?

So without the conditioning of religion people would have no purpose and live terrible lives? I see no evidence to believe that would be the case. There have been acts of war that sprang simply out of religious differences or "right" to territories.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I think war has had less to do with religion and more to do with man's quest for power and control. Politics, trade routes, and conquest of territories have been the major source of modern war imo. Both World Wars and the French as well as American revolutions had little if anything to do with religion.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

^I think there has been a gradual reduction in conquests/wars as science has progressed. The bible is noted with tons upon tons of wars mentioned throughout. Where we are now compared to the Crusades is quite different. Interestingly many of the problem areas of conflict in today's society (middle east) are where science and the secular world has been rejected to a larger scale amongst its people, and faith in God is required for living. What is the punishment for apostasy in Muslim faith? Death.

 

[Marvolo]

Bill maher defintely falls into the mean sprited category. For example, Blake Griffin is a NBA player and it's known he is a Christian. Someone asked if he was on team creation or team evolution. Bill maher on Twitter basiclly implies that Griffin be "cured" of his belifs or be wiped out. His fans responded that he should be hit in the head with a rock ( basically killing him). I am like really? That's appropriate?

Bill Maher is a comedian and host that does not pull any punches. He calls it like he sees it, and for that I can respect and even enjoy his show. And he calls liberals and democrats out on their BS and stupid mistakes as well so thats nice.

He definitely isnt a fan of the catholic church tho. Mainly because he thinks the Church is full of **** and a bunch of old superstitious hypocrites who believe in magical hocus pocus nonsense. Those are his words not mine, but I use to feel much the same way and very strongly about it. Even tho Im not as hostile towards the Church anymore I still like Bill Maher a lot.

 

[Apollo]

As children? There is little choice. Choice comes as we discover there are other options to consider. We either continue believing what we brought up in, or believe in something else, or question the totality of it all.

Choice comes as we discover there are other options to consider - > Which can come when you are a kid. I went to public school and watched Tv that consisted of plenty of diversity and information about the world. I grew up in a democratic society. My parents were/are liberal who never really talked about God at all. I never had to go to church. It was my choice. I was never locked up in a black box and had no choices to consider. I grew up with an open mind and still have one. The internet, the library, next store neighbors that spoke different languages and had difference religions also helped tremendously in shaping my childhood. So yes. My childhood allowed me the option to believe what I wanted.

 

[Shikamaru]

Although there's evidence religion improves people's health, there's no evidence when it comes to the moral aspect. In fact, there's quite the opposite. There's studies that suggest the average religious person is far more likely to endorse things like homophobia, torture and the death penalty than the average atheist.

The way I always saw it was with or without religion, good people will be good and bad people will be bad. But if you want good people to do bad things, you need religion. Or to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens: "Think of one moral action or statement made by a religious person that no non-religious person can make. Now think of an immoral action or statement made that can only be done by a religious person. You've already thought of one."

Even if it were true that religions make people more moral, that still wouldn't validate any religion by default.

 

[CaptainWagner]

So without the conditioning of religion people would have no purpose and live terrible lives? I see no evidence to believe that would be the case. There have been acts of war that sprang simply out of religious differences or "right" to territories.

Most "religious" wars had nothing to do with religion at all, but corrupt religious leaders used it to recruit soldiers for personal agendas.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

I am a strong believer but I don't totally disregard science. Like most people I appericate the scientific advances and discoveries we have made over the years. However, I don't believe that science can or ever will disprove the existence of God. And I strongly believe the things that have happened to me that falls under the super natural didn't just happen because of luck, or some hallucinations. So I never be a person who abandons my faith just because of a theory or whatever. And even in the the event that I am wrong , which I personally don't believe that I am, I still lived an awesome life and lost nothing.

 

[Marvolo]

I think war has had less to do with religion and more to do with man's quest for power and control. Politics, trade routes, and conquest of territories have been the major source of modern war imo. Both World Wars and the French as well as American revolutions had little if anything to do with religion.

The call to abolish all religion or the notion that taking religion out of the equation of mankind will solve all our problems has always seemed like a dubious assumption to me. If it wasnt religion it would be something else. Religion just happens to be a path of least resistance to get a following and control of a group. But if religion didnt exist psychos and warlords and tyrants would find some other path of least resistance to gather followers and gain power.

Religion like all things has good aspects and like all things it can be perverted and twisted by anyone. Thats not enough reason for me to ever condone abolishing religion entirely.

If we look at the West, we see proof that an educated modern society can be religious without waging religious wars.

 

[Apollo]

Most "religious" wars had nothing to do with religion at all, but corrupt religious leaders used it to recruit soldiers for personal agendas.

If people suddenly had no aspect of religion or God. Hate will still exist.

People will still kill each other over race, gender, looks, drugs, sexuality, political background, money, power, and territory.

If I were to put religion and or God back into the picture.. would there be a change? would things get worse?

or would things get better?

 

[ShadowBoxer]

It is a lot grittier I think than other types of religious programs like what Human Torch was saying. With the very high viewership I am surprised Nat Geo isn't repeating it any time sooner. I guess they can't change around future programs. I mean I am sure they were shocked it got the most views than any other program in the history of their channel. This will also to lead to more Christian and other religious themed programing down the road.

I see. Human torch wasn't the biggest fan of it from what I recall due to the graphic violence. What's your take Apollo?

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

I am a strong believer but I don't totally disregard science. Like most people I appericate the scientific advances and discoveries we have made over the years. However, I don't believe that science can or ever will disprove the existence of God. And I strongly believe the things that have happened to me that falls under the super natural didn't just happen because of luck, or some hallucinations. So I never be a person who abandons my faith just because of a theory or whatever. And even in the the event that I am wrong , which I personally don't believe that I am, I still lived an awesome life and lost nothing.

According to Jc example you are a blind follower

How do you have a constructive argument with a less informed blind believer though? A theologian can make an interesting argument. Those that just believe for comfort are kind of scary though.

blind believer --> My faith in God carries me through. Science can't provide evidence there is no God.

someone questioning belief --> There is no evidence of God either. Science has at least developed our knowledge through the years. The Earth is no longer flat and you won't fall off of the end.

blind believer --> Nah, science still can't tell us how we got here. It had to be God.

questions belief --> What about natural selection? Evolution?

blind believer --> Fantasy. It was Goooooood. [revolving door]

 

[Tempest]

The call to abolish all religion or the notion that taking religion out of the equation of mankind will solve all our problems has always seemed like a dubious assumption to me. If it wasnt religion it would be something else. Religion just happens to be a path of least resistance to get a following and control of a group. But if religion didnt exist psychos and warlords and tyrants would find some other path of least resistance to gather followers and gain power.

Religion like all things has good aspects and like all things it can be perverted and twisted by anyone. Thats not enough reason for me to ever condone abolishing religion entirely.

If we look at the West, we see proof that an educated modern society can be religious without waging religious wars.

Attempting to do away with religion hasn't worked in the past, and has in fact, made for some immensely corrupt political practices. When the state is the high authority on morality, you run into all kinds of problems.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Shadow, I haven't been in this thread for as long as some of you guys. Can you share an example of something supernatural that happened to you?

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Attempting to do away with religion hasn't worked in the past, and has in fact, made for some immensely corrupt political practices. When the state is the high authority on morality, you run into all kinds of problems.

Yet we have separation of church and state, in order to avoid problems that religion can cause.

 

[Tempest]

Yet we have separation of church and state, in order to avoid problems that religion can cause.

Oh, no.

The separation of church and state isn't just about the abuse of religion. It's about protecting the rights of people to worship how they choose. The purpose to keep the state from imposing religion was indeed to prevent a particular faith from gaining power...but it was mostly about allowing people of different faiths to be able to continue to worship freely, without fear of the state forcing them to follow a particular faith.

It should also be noted that at the time, the founders did not force states to adopt this law. So while the federal government couldn't force people to worship in services, states could (and did) impose certain religious regulations, up until the late 1800s.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

How do you have a constructive argument with a less informed blind believer though? A theologian can make an interesting argument. Those that just believe for comfort are kind of scary though.

blind believer --> My faith in God carries me through. Science can't provide evidence there is no God.

someone questioning belief --> There is no evidence of God either. Science has at least developed our knowledge through the years. The Earth is no longer flat and you won't fall off of the end.

blind believer --> Nah, science still can't tell us how we got here. It had to be God.

questions belief --> What about natural selection? Evolution?

blind believer --> Fantasy. It was Goooooood. [revolving door]

I have been that person, several times, but after some of the things I've been through it's hard for me to continue living with the perception that there is no god.

 

[Marvolo]

Colonial america, pre-separation of church and state days, had some insane laws in the 1600s.

These quotes are taken from Founding Faith by Steven Walden.

Quakers in 17th century Puritan Massachusetts

For the crime of being a Quaker who refused to leave Massachusetts, the punishment on the first offense was usually whipping; on the second offense, an ear was cut off. For a third offense, the criminal would be executed. In a 1703 book called New England Judged by the Spirit of the Lord, George Bishop, an English Quaker, cataloged some of the punishments inflicted on New England Quakers, sometimes for intentionally defying banishment orders and sometimes for just worshipping privately. Behold the sheer viciousness of the Puritan approach:

• William Brend, “a man of years,” was locked in irons for sixteen hours and then whipped 117 times with a pitched rope, “so that his flesh was beaten black and as into a jelly, and under his arms the bruised flesh and blood hung down, clotted as it were into bags; and it was so beat into one mass, that the sign of one particular blow could not be seen.”

• Josiah Southwick compounded the crime of being a Quaker with refusal to remove his hat in the presence of a magistrate (Quakers kept their heads covered in deference to God). The General Court directed “the executioner” to strip him from the waist up, “tie him to a cart-tail, and whip him ten stripes out of Boston and deliver him to the Constable of Roxbury” who was, in turn, supposed to repeat the procedure and deliver him to the constable of Dedham, who would do it again.

• Alice Ambrose, Mary Tomkins, and Ann Coleman had taken to preaching their gospel at the Piscataqua River. They were arrested, “stripped naked, from the middle upward, and tied to a cart, and after a while cruelly whipped…, whilst the priest stood and looked on, and laughed at it.”

A young mother living in Boston, Dyer in 1637 had been attending Anne Hutchinson’s Sunday meetings. Viewing the group as heretical, the Puritans saw an opportunity to send a message after Dyer gave birth to a deformed stillborn baby. Her minister, the Reverend Joseph Wilson, preached from the pulpit: “We have been visited of late by the admonition of the Lord. One Mary Dyer of our midst, who has lately become addicted to heresy, has produced not a woman child but a monster. God himself has intervened and pointed His finger at this woman at the height of her sinful opinions."

VIRGINIA’S LAWES DIVINE

Spoiler

The twin goals of converting Indians and defeating Catholics provided a strong rallying cry for Virginia’s settlers. Prospective settlers were instructed to bring “no traitors, nor Papists that depend on the Great ****e.”

An Anglican promotional booklet argued that if the Spanish had so much luck pressing their corrupt religion, imagine how successful the English could be with their noble goals of saving “those wretched people,” drawing them from “darkness to light, from falsehood to truth, from dumb idols to the living God, from the deep pit of hell to the highest heaven.”

King James’s charter for Virginia in 1606 made it official: The mission was to promote Christianity to those living “in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God.” The faiths of the settlers were tested even before they landed in Virginia. One-third of the immigrants on the Godspeed, the Discovery, and the Susan Constant in 1607 died en route. Once in America, their goal of converting Indians soon took a backseat to survival. In 1609 and 1610, the period known as “the starving time,” the colony almost perished. Settlers ate dogs, cats, rats, and one another in order to survive. One man was executed for killing his wife for food.

To try to salvage the colony, the Virginia Company in May 1611 sent Lord Thomas de la Warr and Thomas Dale, who swiftly issued a new set of laws to bring order, in part through forced religiosity. The laws declared that the job of the king is “principal care of true Religion and reverence to God” and that the settlers themselves were “especial souldiers in this sacred cause.”

The new “Lawes Divine, Morall and Martiall” required worship twice each Sunday. Those who failed to do so would lose their daily allowance; a second infraction would draw a whipping, and the third offense would put them in the galleys at sea for six months.

Settlers who failed to observe the Sabbath lost provisions for a week (first offense), received a whipping (second offense), or were executed (third offense). Women convicted of sexual misdeeds were required to wear white gowns, hold white wands, and “stand on chairs or stools during public worship.”

Blasphemy—the use of “unlawful oaths” and “taking the name of God in vain”—was a serious crime, sometimes punishable by having a hot iron plunged through the tongue, and sometimes by execution.

Eight settlers were put to death in Jamestown for violations of Dale’s laws. Though alien to us, the idea behind forced worship was practical: Pervasive worship would secure God’s favor and give settlers the strength and moral wherewithal to cope with the crushing burdens of disease, Indian attacks, and internal squabbling.

The settlers did survive in part because of their strong faith, and in surviving, they prevented encroachment from French and Spanish Catholics who settled west and south of Virginia. At that moment in history, the Catholic Church was viewed in England not as a competing form of Christianity but as a fraudulent faith.

Not surprisingly, the Virginia government attempted to squelch Catholicism within the colony. In 1640, it prohibited Catholics from holding public office unless they “had taken the oath of allegiance and supremacy” to the Church of England. It decreed that any popish priests” who arrived in Virginia “should be deported forthwith.”

Virginia certainly didn’t limit itself to punishing just Catholics and Indians. In 1660, it forbade ship captains from importing Quakers; Puritan clergy were banished; and Jews were kept out entirely for two generations.

 

[Apollo]

I am a strong believer but I don't totally disregard science. Like most people I appericate the scientific advances and discoveries we have made over the years. However, I don't believe that science can or ever will disprove the existence of God. And I strongly believe the things that have happened to me that falls under the super natural didn't just happen because of luck, or some hallucinations. So I never be a person who abandons my faith just because of a theory or whatever. And even in the the event that I am wrong , which I personally don't believe that I am, I still lived an awesome life and lost nothing.

Yes same here. When I was 7 I had a tremendous fascination with dinosaurs and space. Science really interested me and still does. In fact science went hand in hand with my fascination with religions ideas. Yet I have no problem with believing in a higher power.

Do you ever think that God has made it so that even in 10,000 years of scientific advancement from now we still won't be able to disprove or prove God? In that being hidden is actually important to God's grand design? Like Christ said that God has hidden himself so well that he would only be revealed to little children.

 

[Apollo]

Yet we have separation of church and state, in order to avoid problems that the state can cause.

fixed.

The state can also cause problems for those with religious faith, that is why the separation was important.