Athiests vs The Religious Conspiracy... Explain to Me Why Believers Believe.

originally posted by: Spacespider
Nobody knows what happens after death, if anything..
A lot of guesses and theories, but in the end nobody can prove it scientific.
So perhaps we are not meant to know, perhaps we just have to wait and see.

So I not a true believer or true disbeliever, what does that make me... human ?

that is the only label that really matters. Many propositions are simply untestable, and that might be the saddest fact that we are faced with. Thank you fellow human.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Woodcarver

Thank you for the good and proper answer .

Oh and there was a second part question about the text .

i'm assuming the second part of your question is about the code of Hammurabi and the parallels in the early Jewish laws and the 10 Commandments. My answer is just read them. There are many parallels. The 10 Commandments are the cliff notes of the code of Hammurabi. It's quite plain to see if you would take the time to read them. There is nothing in the 10 commandments which isn't addressed in the code of Hammurabi.

a reply to: Spacespider

So I not a true believer or true disbeliever, what does that make me... human ?

Agnostic .."a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." The issue now in the definition is the " material phenomena" to understand that you need to understand the quantum world

a reply to: Woodcarver

To be fair they didn't mention a specific God, Pascal's wager doesn't really come into it. It's arguable that it's better to believe in a God in general, regardless of which God it happens to be. I don't necessarily agree with that. But at least it does seem like an easier, more direct way to live.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Nobody makes things real. They are the way they are whether you believe so or not.

You proved my point...nobody knows,we have our own paths.

The question is whether you have the comprehensive ability to determine what is real from what is merely claimed by other people.

Me??
Comprehensive ability....are you trying to shame me??
Meh...terrible tactic and bad form.

Other people have nothing to do with my beliefs....talking to people who don't have any more clue than I do,other than their own beliefs,is kind of like 2 chickens running around with their heads cut off.




Live and let live.

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: Woodcarver

To be fair they didn't mention a specific God, Pascal's wager doesn't really come into it. It's arguable that it's better to believe in a God in general, regardless of which God it happens to be. I don't necessarily agree with that. But at least it does seem like an easier, more direct way to live.

I fail to see why claiming any specific god would make a difference in pascals wager. You can literally plug any untestable claim into it and it works the same.

originally posted by: wmd_2008 forced to learn at school, then forced to go to church

this was my early experience of religion and no doubt helped me decide to junk the whole concept.

not my bag.

originally posted by: DrumsRfun
a reply to: Woodcarver

Nobody makes things real. They are the way they are whether you believe so or not.

You proved my point...nobody knows,we have our own paths.

The question is whether you have the comprehensive ability to determine what is real from what is merely claimed by other people.

Me??
Comprehensive ability....are you trying to shame me??
Meh...terrible tactic and bad form.

Other people have nothing to do with my beliefs....talking to people who don't have any more clue than I do,other than their own beliefs,is kind of like 2 chickens running around with their heads cut off.

There are plenty of things that humans know. There are any number of testable claims that have been proven to be true. I was not shaming you, I was simply pointing out that there are plenty of people who cannot comprehend the tools that science offers.

But if you hold a belief that cannot be tested, as fact, then you do not have those comprehensive skills.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Faith and science are not the same thing.

But if you hold a belief that cannot be tested

Who or what are you testing it against and why does their opinion matter?

Its not about them...its about YOU.

Nobody is living your life for you or doing your thinking for you....thats on you,nobody else.

There are plenty of things that humans know.

There are many things humans do not know.

a reply to: BStoltman

Some people are religious due to the rising decadence in our nation and in the West.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: Woodcarver

To be fair they didn't mention a specific God, Pascal's wager doesn't really come into it. It's arguable that it's better to believe in a God in general, regardless of which God it happens to be. I don't necessarily agree with that. But at least it does seem like an easier, more direct way to live.

I fail to see why claiming any specific god would make a difference in pascals wager. You can literally plug any untestable claim into it and it works the same.

Why not, but my point is that it wasn't Pascal's wager.

You brought up Zenu and Chtulhu, so I assumed your reasoning was that you have to pick a specific God to enjoy your rewards in the afterlife (many religions are intolerant of other faiths, or they have contradictory rules), which is what you are wagering on, but if there are thousands of different Gods then there's only a small chance to pick the right one. And this makes that wager strategy look silly. However, the2ofusr1 didn't say anything about a specific God or about an afterlife. So, you could argue that the earthly benefits of deism outweigh the benefits of atheism. Probably that varies from person to person. For example, if you are the Pope then it's probably beneficial to believe in a God. But that's an extreme caricature of an example, someone could just say they gain hope or peace of mind from belief in a God, or maybe some sort of inspiration, who knows. And maybe even better, the same person could sometimes choose to believe, and sometimes not.

That's a bit too philosophical though, really I just wanted to point out how I didn't think your point about the other Gods was relevant. Can't speak for what the2ofusr1 believes in either, maybe it was a specific God.

Edit: Maybe I just like to play God's advocate

originally posted by: DrumsRfun
a reply to: Woodcarver

Faith and science are not the same thing.

But if you hold a belief that cannot be tested

Who or what are you testing it against and why does their opinion matter?

Its not about them...its about YOU.

Nobody is living your life for you or doing your thinking for you....thats on you,nobody else.

There are plenty of things that humans know.

There are many things humans do not know.

Is the proposition that gods exist a testable claim?

you dont need religions, just remenber that in the origin of the universe equal amounts of matter and antimatter, were created so someone added an little more matter, so they would not cancel each other

originally posted by: Cutepants

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: Woodcarver

To be fair they didn't mention a specific God, Pascal's wager doesn't really come into it. It's arguable that it's better to believe in a God in general, regardless of which God it happens to be. I don't necessarily agree with that. But at least it does seem like an easier, more direct way to live.

I fail to see why claiming any specific god would make a difference in pascals wager. You can literally plug any untestable claim into it and it works the same.

Why not, but my point is that it wasn't Pascal's wager.

You brought up Zenu and Chtulhu, so I assumed your reasoning was that you have to pick a specific God to enjoy your rewards in the afterlife (many religions are intolerant of other faiths, or they have contradictory rules), which is what you are wagering on, but if there are thousands of different Gods then there's only a small chance to pick the right one. And this makes that wager strategy look silly. However, the2ofusr1 didn't say anything about a specific God or about an afterlife. So, you could argue that the earthly benefits of deism outweigh the benefits of atheism. Probably that varies from person to person. For example, if you are the Pope then it's probably beneficial to believe in a God. But that's an extreme caricature of an example, someone could just say they gain hope or peace of mind from belief in a God, or maybe some sort of inspiration, who knows. And maybe even better, the same person could sometimes choose to believe, and sometimes not.

That's a bit too philosophical though, really I just wanted to point out how I didn't think your point about the other Gods was relevant. Can't speak for what the2ofusr1 believes in either, maybe it was a specific God.

Edit: Maybe I just like to play God's advocate

I chose Xenu and Cthulhu because most people would agree that it is absurd to believe in either one. However some people do believe in those. I used two examples to show you that any number of examples would work in this formula. It doesn't have to be specific god, and any untestable claim can be inserted in formula. If you were not familiar with pascals wager, I would invite you to check that out and also The arguments against it.

originally posted by: Cutepants

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: Woodcarver

To be fair they didn't mention a specific God, Pascal's wager doesn't really come into it. It's arguable that it's better to believe in a God in general, regardless of which God it happens to be. I don't necessarily agree with that. But at least it does seem like an easier, more direct way to live.

I fail to see why claiming any specific god would make a difference in pascals wager. You can literally plug any untestable claim into it and it works the same.

Why not, but my point is that it wasn't Pascal's wager.

You brought up Zenu and Chtulhu, so I assumed your reasoning was that you have to pick a specific God to enjoy your rewards in the afterlife (many religions are intolerant of other faiths, or they have contradictory rules), which is what you are wagering on, but if there are thousands of different Gods then there's only a small chance to pick the right one. And this makes that wager strategy look silly. However, the2ofusr1 didn't say anything about a specific God or about an afterlife. So, you could argue that the earthly benefits of deism outweigh the benefits of atheism. Probably that varies from person to person. For example, if you are the Pope then it's probably beneficial to believe in a God. But that's an extreme caricature of an example, someone could just say they gain hope or peace of mind from belief in a God, or maybe some sort of inspiration, who knows. And maybe even better, the same person could sometimes choose to believe, and sometimes not.

That's a bit too philosophical though, really I just wanted to point out how I didn't think your point about the other Gods was relevant. Can't speak for what the2ofusr1 believes in either, maybe it was a specific God.

Edit: Maybe I just like to play God's advocate

why do you believe in God? This is usually the best place to start if you've never been down this road before. Please give an honest and detailed answered for the reasons why you have faith.

originally posted by: BStoltman

I began my personal journey in this life, believing in the "God" of the Bible. I read every word of the Bible, and took it so seriously that I even attained a mediocre ability to read the text in its original Hebrew & Greek Language. My journey into this turned me into an Atheist. Let me make this clear, The reading of the Bible literally turned me Atheist.

Other than learning some Hebrew or Greek, this is pretty much what happened to me. I didn't read the Bible from front to back, but I must conclude that over the first 12 years of my life having Christianity (Baptist) driven into my head like a nail on a cross (too soon?), then going apathetic for a few years, then actually starting to research world religions and their origins and the commonalities and borrowing and myths and legends and stories and how so many run in congruence with each other, I could only come away with two conclusions, IMO:

1. That the major religions of the world have continuously borrowed from earlier versions of stories and "explanations" for the unknowns, tweaking and refining the gods, stories, and legends as the leaders of the time and place saw fit (in order to control a population, IMO), or

2. That there is an underlying truth that has yet to be found/discovered/known/proven/accepted and is the basis for all of the major religions around the world, meaning that there are actual extraterrestrial ("other-worldly," or "supernatural," or "divine," or whatever term tickles one's fancy) beings that once existed contemporarily with man, and the stories got verbally passed down, then written down, then watered down, then elaborated on, then misinterpreted, then turned into what we have today with our religions.

Personally, I think that the odds are that number one reflects reality much better than number two, but it could be a mix of the two, I suppose. Obviously, there are other conclusions that can be derived, but those are the two main ones for me.

After decades (at this point) of researching the history of many world religions (current and those deemed "mythology" these days), my conclusion is that religion and its characters were created as a way to both explain the inexplicable AND to control a population and instill 'divine morality' on groups for fear of eternal or immediate divine punishment.

In ages where so much of the natural world was unknown, and where superstition was as common as Trump's tweets, buying into systems of belief would have been easy to do, especially when they purported to explain everything (that was necessary to know at the time) and promise eternal bliss in one form or another to those who subscribed to the system.

I know that this isn't the answer to your question that you seek in the OP, but I thought that I would share with you that it was through relatively deep research into religion's history that I, too, went from pretty intense believer to an atheist. Well, I would say that, at my core, I'm agnostic, as my two conclusions allow for, but if I had to choose, I'd go with atheist.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: BStoltman

"Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God."
Cicero

I think God is a universal concept that all men 'know', however, the form and influence that God has are up to the individual seeker and no one should tell another how and what to believe.

Well I certainly don't know that. And I am a man, so your proposition is patently false.

Nature must have skipped you.

I’m sorry.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
you dont need religions, just remenber that in the origin of the universe equal amounts of matter and antimatter, were created so someone added an little more matter, so they would not cancel each other

God is the why the laws of physics exist at all and repeat religiously the same way every time.

originally posted by: DrumsRfun
a reply to: Woodcarver

Faith and science are not the same thing.

But if you hold a belief that cannot be tested

Who or what are you testing it against and why does their opinion matter?

Its not about them...its about YOU.

Nobody is living your life for you or doing your thinking for you....thats on you,nobody else.

There are plenty of things that humans know.

There are many things humans do not know.

why would any opinion about an untestable claim matter? Why do christians use their beliefs to push legislation through our government?

Here's why I believe in the existence of God. First you have to consider the nature of human language. People use words and sounds to represent ideas in the mind. If you consider the idea of "apple", you can hold an apple in your hand. Each of us has many memories around the word apple. We have smells, tastes, images, emotional feelings, memories, all kinds of associations with the idea of apple. If I hold and apple in my hand with both of us looking at it, I can say "apple". Nobody denies the existence of apples because we all experience the idea of apple.

People do not accept the existence of God because we do not have a shared experience of God the way we have a shared experience of "apple". However, if you accept the word God is just a word, then where does the word "God" exist? God exists in our language, our minds, our imaginations. "God" is just a word. Being just a word, nobody denies the existence of the word God. Now what the word "God" means is where everything breaks down.

The word God is unlike every other word in our language. The word God represents a special meaning different than every other word. The word God represents everyone possible thought one can have. God represents every possibility that can be known and experienced. God is a container word for every possible experience. God is a container word for every possible meaning of every possible word. God is the alpha and omega of all language. The meaning of the word God a representation of every possibility exists in our minds similar to the way the word infinity exists in our minds. People use the word God in sentences all the time with this omni-semantic meaning. If we consider the word "God" is just a word, then the word "God" is defined by every sentence in which the word is used. So God clearly exists in the realm of language.

Now consider the idea of God as described in the Bible. Every dogma has two parts. First, for a dogma to exist, you must have axioms of truth. Along with axioms then you have assertions that are either true or false based on the axioms. For example, if you accept the axiom you must accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior in order to be saved. Then the assertion whether you will be saved or not will make sense in terms of language. If you accept the axiom that after you die you will be judged by God, then you will either go through the gates of heaven or will end up in Hell is a meaningful assertion. So as a dogma, once you identify the axioms, everything in the Bible is true and meaningful.

The problem with dogma is most people do not identify what axioms they accept as being true without proof. But based on their axioms they are constantly filtering assertions as being true or insane based on their axioms. For someone who does not accept the existence of an anthropomorphic God in reality as being true, people who do accept this axiom will appear as insane.

Just remember my dogma is the only right one and the rest of you are insane.