If mankind is to survive, then religion must continue., page 9
Pages: <<  6    7    8    9    10    11    12  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 31 times


reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 10:43 PM by iamcamouflage
Originally posted by Alienmojo
Originally posted by JustInCase101
Religon causes wars, wars are fought in the name of religon to reliquish and turn people of other religons. anyone remember the crusades? catholic/christians against muslims/islamic people? i bet they still remember and its probably preached to them thats why they constantly yell holy war.

I'll give you the Crusades to a certain point. But I still contend that the majority of wars that are fought under the pretense of 'religion' are actually being fought for greed... not God. People just say religion is the reason they are fighting. Even the Crusades turned into a greedy war as belongings and homes were taken.
Do you think George invaded Iraq more for God or oil? I think his god is actually the oil. What do you think? Thanks for your post brother and have a good one.


I think you are missing the point here. yes wars are fought for greed much of the time but in order to rally the base, many wars put a religions spin on things to show the people you are fighting against as different or alien in their beliefs, this makes it easier to view them as un human or so diffferent that its ok to kill them. As one other poster mentioned the problems arise with the group think mentality. Leaders use religion to manipulate the masses and why are the masses manipulated with religion, because many think alike(group think) and they dont question their religion or beliefs and so they do not question the motives of killing for religions purposes. Leader want their country to believe in one religion because then they can use that one religion to manipulate a large number of people based on the beliefs that they are taught not to question. It becomes much harder for leaders to manipulate people when they think for themselves or do not follow a unified set of rules.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"
Napolean


reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 10:54 PM by iamcamouflage
Originally posted by Alienmojo
Originally posted by pureevil81
reply to post by Alienmojo


I want to share something with you.

I have come to the conclusion that the bible is too good to be true in a sense. your born into this world, then you read a bible that you are assured by others is the true word of god, do you really think it is that easy?

I think the higher being ( god if you will ) want's us to " feel " our way home. want's us to find our way back home by our own free will. I don't think the bible can assure free will by following it, just the fact you have to believe in jesus to have eternal life is not free will.

I don't think the way " home " is through any one book, since I have chosen to find the path by my own free will, I think I will have help on the way, but not from a church, not so much through a book either, but from within. Reading books and listening to other's point of view can help to make sense of it all, but contain no answers in themselves.

Hopefully that made sense.

peace


Hey Pure... I had to laugh when I read your post. Even as a Christian I have my doubts too..its normal, we are human. I said the exact same thing to my best friend.."It's too good to be true." At the time I was referring to life after death rather than the Bible though. Same difference I guess. Personally we have to come to our own conclusions on such thing, but one thing that made me feel better was this. Would you rather spend your life not believing in God and having nothing to hope for OR believe in God and have something to hope for? I want God to exist and if He doesn't then our whole lives are meaningless and pointless.
So is the Bible the actual word of God? I mean, man chose which books to include in it..right? So I say yes, it is. Why? Because I hope it to be. I hope that there is a God out there that can make sure the correct books are included and that they are His word. I don't know the answer Pure... all I know is that I hope and pray that God and His word are true... if they aren't... what is life worth living for? Take care brother.


I dont believe in god and I have plenty to hope for, why do I need to believe in an after life when I have a perfectly good current life? I have found meaning and a point to my life without hoping for something after I die. I just dont understand that view. Why not appreciate the life we are all currently living as opposed to hoping for something better. If you are not happy with the life you are living....do something about it dont hope for something better after you die. If there is no after life, and you cannot find meaning or a point to your current life, you will get to the end and have wasted the only life you had.


reply posted on 25-12-2008 @ 12:40 AM by Ghost147
Originally posted by pause4thought
I have specifically addressed the issue of evidence. What is seen is endless complexity and apparent design in that the universe contains order, which we summarize as 'laws', and further apparent design in that living organisms are by their very essence extraordinarily complex in their physiological makeup. And that is not to mention the interrelated, intertwined role each plays in the overall scheme of things.

When it comes to life-forms the information contained within DNA alone is such a wonderful example of exquisitely purposefully structured information that that alone is sufficient grounds for saying evidence for design and a designer is an entirely logical conclusion.

As to not being able to prove, test, see, hear, watch, witness, etc. we can do all of that with respect to the vastly complex systems I have referred to. However with respect to God himself your request to be able to do these things is exposed as illogical at the first hurdle: you fail to appreciate that that which is conceived to have brought the entire universe into being must by its very nature exist beyond that which it created.


you havent explained why it is illogical to seek knowledge through tests, proof, evidence and so on. you also haven't explained how it is logical to think that "since life is complex, a creator must have done it". You see, you are giving examples of which you have no proof what so ever. which i understand because apparently God can not be measured, noticed, seen or tested. So, why would anyone even come up with a conclusion that "complexity of everything equals higher being" when there is nothing that would make that statement backed up, it is merely speculation. You are acting as if you know what gods intentions were and everything that has happened was done by him, yet you have nothing to back up your argument.


Your premise is no different to a blind man saying he will not accept things are real unless he can touch, hear or feel them.


On the contrary, we have billions of other people that can test these things and that can personally tell that man what they have witnessed, how they did it, who came up with the formulas to do it, what it looks like, how it runs, and so on. However, with a god, no one seems to be able to confirm an existing one, no one has proof, no one can do tests, its all speculation. and that is what makes it illogical.



...but create everything for no apparent reason?

The fact you are unaware of the reason does not equate to there being no reason. I most certainly believe there was and remains a reason this all came into being. A very real reason. Another day, another discussion.


uh. no. you can go ahead and explain this now because apparently you do know the true intentions of a god. Please explain in detail why god decided (randomly) to make the universe and then put life on it. If you have information to counter my argument then you cant just say "oh i know the reason, but im not telling". so far, after my multiple years of talking to theists, NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE has been able to tell me or anyone why god decided to make the universe and back up their words. so, with your astronomical findings, you absolutely must share.

[Quote]
You then state that you now have evidence to prove god.

When people quote you as saying something you did not it tends to weaken their case considerably. I said:

The evidence that God is real is there...

Evidence. I said there is evidence, and laid some of it out. I then specifically said proof is not what I claim:

What is not there is total, seeing-is-believing proof.

Nothing ambiguous there.

are you insane? "The evidence that god is real is there..." Is exactly the same thing to saying "i have proof of god". but ill humor you. If you are giving evidence to further your argument then you are trying to prove something. and i will state again that if you have evidence, you need to back up that evidence for you to actually make it truth. A judge in a court may see a bullet and a gun. but it means nothing unless that evidence is proven to be connected to the killer.



...after over-looking the obvious hypocritical view behind "evidence is wrong, but i have evidence to prove I'm right"...

Again I never said anything about any evidence being wrong, but my evidence being right. Yet another straw man argument!

you have been saying that looking through evidence, testing, proof and so on is an illogical way of finding truth, and then you go on to give me "evidence"... and that's not hypocritical to you at all?


...lets say in the future (near future) that a computer were to become as complex, would you renounce your faith?

If you think near future you have no idea of the complexity of life.


it was a hypothetical situation... i didnt meen that in the near future this would actually happen. So, i ask again. since you are saying that "since technology cant explain it, it must be god", what happens if technology does explain it, are you going to renounce your faith?



Frankly to think humans could ever create such marvels & put billions of them together in working, self-replicating order defies reality.


Ah, so if it is complex, then it has to be created. proven biology and proven evolution can show you how people got to the way they were, they can test that in other creatures, you can visually see it in other creatures, and so on. If we were to be created then evolution would not exist. why? well if you havent noticed we are all somewhat different in appearance, if we were created then we would all look exactly the same because the rules of evolution do not apply (reproduce with variation).


You also are implying that anyone not a theist, must believe in evolution.

Without insisting there are no exceptions, the fact is that is indeed nearly always the choice. Interesting how when one challenges the mathematical and logical basis of intricate, purposeful design by chance "It doesn't have to have been evolution" is a frequent retort. Suggests a real insecurity with respect to evolution.

??? i have a feeling that your drastically miss interpreting what people are saying. please, give me an example that an evolutionist has stated this.


reply posted on 25-12-2008 @ 01:01 AM by Ghost147

We don't fear punishment, we don't fear a devil, we don't believe that this is only a test, we take life as a gift for we know it is our only one.

Really? Now here's a thing. You know something you can't prove. That's faith if ever I saw it.


We know it is our only one because we don't believe in a god, we dont have "faith" that there is no afterlife, afterlife is a word of religion, its not a known fact that there is one. just like if i say "moisturizers are a way to give you a malivy", there is no such thing as a malivy, i just made it up, and you do not have faith that it doesn't exist, you simply just dont care, you are not worried what so ever. there is no reason to be afraid of something that is based on faith, otherwise the world would be in constant fear of everything unable to be proven.



there is barely any evidence that this Jesus actually existed

I, and many hundreds of millions of others beg to differ. Another day, another discussion.

once again, if you have information, then give it instead of neglecting confrontation. you see, what i've stated is a little seed to an argument, i have my information that i am willing to give on the spot, but you shy away from it all together.



The majority of figures that wrote about this Jesus didnt actually witness him, or even were alive during his time. Which would declare those words hearsay (heard from another).

On the contrary, only those who were eyewitnesses wrote the New Testament. Another day, another discussion.


Fine, you want to "discuss another day" that's fine, to me it looks like you are yet again shying away from confrontation. if you want proof, i will give it to you on the spot.


Religion for most is a way to stay ignorant, for they, deep inside their subconscious mind, are afraid of knowledge.

Rejecting God for most is a way to stay ignorant, for they, deep inside their subconscious mind, are afraid of judgement.


ahhhh, frustrating isnt it, when someone makes a statement that you think cannot be backed up with factual information. how ironic. if we atheists are afraid of judgment then we wouldn't take the chance of being atheist would we? the exact opposite can be said for a theist. many have said and believe in "im not taking the chance that god might not exist" because they are in-fact afraid of judgment.


Which one is more illogical?

I maintain that there is powerful logic, not to mention evidence, behind faith in God. Each individual is welcome to weigh the arguments and reach their own conclusion.


you have yet to show logic and evidence in god.


reply posted on 25-12-2008 @ 01:14 AM by toasted
reply to post by Alienmojo


" the Bill Maher movie "Religulous" about religion, and although I know he hand picked the wackiest of all people to put in his film and did some creative editing to boost the point, the bottom line is that Bill Maher is using a satiric movie to bolster his anti-religious rheteric. "


I like bill mahr, I loved politically incorrect.

But it's too bad that he's deceived. I didn't see the movie, but from his comments on late night, I can tell her never learned anything worthwhile [about The Word ], so I understand where he's coming from, if I were he, I'd be making the same mistakes.

What am I trying to say? That if one is serious about this like I think he is, that he should find sources other than the apostacy churches for information to go on. It is just that simple.

I see many members here spouting the same kind of garbage about what Christians believe, but nothing about the difference between the lies and the truth, because they don't know there is any , but they go on acting as if they had a clue when they do not.


For instance;

The 6 day Creation was, 6,000yrs long [ a year to God is as a thousand years to man ]

The "tree" in the garden was not an apple tree, but a man, The Word uses tree many times in the scriptures to describe men/man with the word tree.

Adam was not the father of Cain, for Cain is not in Adams geneology in Genesis, because Satan was Cains father, Satan was the tree in the garden. Which means Eve gave birth to twins from 2 fathers. Eve was "beguiled" which means wholly seduced.

The first earth age is when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, after the war in heaven, God destroyed that earth age, and renewed the planet. We are now in the 2nd earth age where we get to choose who we will follow, satan or God [ providing we get to figure it out ] , with the 3rd right around the corner. [ it's been a war between those two choices since the very beginning. That is why the ten tribes were put into captivity as punishment ]


Had bill mahr known any of that, I think he'd of made a very different film, providing he was allowed to.


reply posted on 25-12-2008 @ 01:24 AM by iamcamouflage
Originally posted by toasted
reply to post by Alienmojo


" the Bill Maher movie "Religulous" about religion, and although I know he hand picked the wackiest of all people to put in his film and did some creative editing to boost the point, the bottom line is that Bill Maher is using a satiric movie to bolster his anti-religious rheteric. "


I like bill mahr, I loved politically incorrect.

But it's too bad that he's deceived. I didn't see the movie, but from his comments on late night, I can tell her never learned anything worthwhile [about The Word ], so I understand where he's coming from, if I were he, I'd be making the same mistakes.

What am I trying to say? That if one is serious about this like I think he is, that he should find sources other than the apostacy churches for information to go on. It is just that simple.

I see many members here spouting the same kind of garbage about what Christians believe, but nothing about the difference between the lies and the truth, because they don't know there is any , but they go on acting as if they had a clue when they do not.


For instance;

The 6 day Creation was, 6,000yrs long [ a year to God is as a thousand years to man ]

The "tree" in the garden was not an apple tree, but a man, The Word uses tree many times in the scriptures to describe men/man with the word tree.

Adam was not the father of Cain, for Cain is not in Adams geneology in Genesis, because Satan was Cains father, Satan was the tree in the garden. Which means Eve gave birth to twins from 2 fathers. Eve was "beguiled" which means wholly seduced.

The first earth age is when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, after the war in heaven, God destroyed that earth age, and renewed the planet. We are now in the 2nd earth age where we get to choose who we will follow, satan or God [ providing we get to figure it out ] , with the 3rd right around the corner. [ it's been a war between those two choices since the very beginning. That is why the ten tribes were put into captivity as punishment ]


Had bill mahr known any of that, I think he'd of made a very different film, providing he was allowed to.




Why exactly did god create dinosaurs only to destroy them to create man? What was the point of that? And if tree is a man why did they say tree. And when they say man in the bible how do we know that doesnt mean something else? Man=Tree perhaps. Where is the key that says Tree=Man? You seem to be taking a lot liberty in defining what god 'meant' to say. And that is where the bible creates problems and multiple religions from the same book. Everyone is free to interpret the prose of the bible however they wish.
And all of what you wrote makes the assumption that the bible is actually the word of god when there is actually no evidence of that. It was written by man.

[edit on 25-12-2008 by iamcamouflage]

[edit on 25-12-2008 by iamcamouflage]

[edit on 25-12-2008 by iamcamouflage]


reply posted on 25-12-2008 @ 08:38 AM by Alienmojo


I think you are missing the point here. yes wars are fought for greed much of the time but in order to rally the base, many wars put a religions spin on things to show the people you are fighting against as different or alien in their beliefs, this makes it easier to view them as un human or so diffferent that its ok to kill them. As one other poster mentioned the problems arise with the group think mentality. Leaders use religion to manipulate the masses and why are the masses manipulated with religion, because many think alike(group think) and they dont question their religion or beliefs and so they do not question the motives of killing for religions purposes. Leader want their country to believe in one religion because then they can use that one religion to manipulate a large number of people based on the beliefs that they are taught not to question. It becomes much harder for leaders to manipulate people when they think for themselves or do not follow a unified set of rules.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"
Napolean
I see what you are saying... they use religion to manipulate... I'm just saying the underlying cause is greed. So I think we concur with each other on this. IMO for religion to function properly one should never use it as a viable excuse to extract pain and suffering on another individual. I still don't feel religion needs to be dismantled, only fixed. Go back to the basics of universal love and brothership rather than rules and self-imposed restrictions. No more finger pointing and saying your condemned for your actions. I say let one's action speak for themselves. If I live a Christ-like life that will show others more effectively my beliefs than knocking on doors, preaching condemnation, or killing others.


reply posted on 25-12-2008 @ 08:45 AM by Alienmojo
Originally posted by iamcamouflage
Originally posted by Alienmojo
Originally posted by pureevil81
reply to post by Alienmojo




I dont believe in god and I have plenty to hope for, why do I need to believe in an after life when I have a perfectly good current life? I have found meaning and a point to my life without hoping for something after I die. I just dont understand that view. Why not appreciate the life we are all currently living as opposed to hoping for something better. If you are not happy with the life you are living....do something about it dont hope for something better after you die. If there is no after life, and you cannot find meaning or a point to your current life, you will get to the end and have wasted the only life you had.


Good points, however if I reach the end and have wasted my life it doesn't truly matter because in a moment I will cease to exist. Everything that I have worked for in my life will disappear forever. The 'hope' I speak of is that it doesn't end and that my life DOES matter. You can say all you want how much you appreciate life and that's great, don't get me wrong, but in the end your still maggot food and my life, my spiritual life, is just beginning. Knowing that one continues on after death brings much more hope than a person who knows that he better enjoy what he has now because this is it.
Again, this is just my opinion brother. Looks like we are both pretty happy, if not 'hopeful', with what we got. So my whole point once again with this thread is that if religion got back to basics and loved everyone, as it was meant to do, then this world would be a better place for us all.


reply posted on 25-12-2008 @ 08:59 AM by Alienmojo
Originally posted by toasted
reply to post by Alienmojo


" the Bill Maher movie "Religulous" about religion, and although I know he hand picked the wackiest of all people to put in his film and did some creative editing to boost the point, the bottom line is that Bill Maher is using a satiric movie to bolster his anti-religious rheteric. "


I like bill mahr, I loved politically incorrect.



For instance;

The 6 day Creation was, 6,000yrs long [ a year to God is as a thousand years to man ]

The "tree" in the garden was not an apple tree, but a man, The Word uses tree many times in the scriptures to describe men/man with the word tree.

Adam was not the father of Cain, for Cain is not in Adams geneology in Genesis, because Satan was Cains father, Satan was the tree in the garden. Which means Eve gave birth to twins from 2 fathers. Eve was "beguiled" which means wholly seduced.

The first earth age is when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, after the war in heaven, God destroyed that earth age, and renewed the planet. We are now in the 2nd earth age where we get to choose who we will follow, satan or God [ providing we get to figure it out ] , with the 3rd right around the corner. [ it's been a war between those two choices since the very beginning. That is why the ten tribes were put into captivity as punishment ]


Had bill mahr known any of that, I think he'd of made a very different film, providing he was allowed to.




Had Bill Mahr heard the things you just said he would just have had more material for a longer movie. I'm not sure where you are getting this, but most fundamentalists do not believe that. I have never heard anyone speak of the 'tree' as a person. Nothing against you... you can believe what you want. I work everyday with a group of Mormons and have heard some strange stuff, so I'm used to it. But to honestly think that if Bill had known about that stuff it would have changed anything? Nonsense. Bill loves to attack ANY religion and he would have torn that apart. I have the impression that something horrible happened to Bill at some point in life, in regards to religion. I don't know what. Maybe his mom died and he asked God to bring her back.. who knows, but he has kept that hatred brewing for all these years and what we see now is a result of that. So I don't hate Bill Mahr, I pity him and I pray for him.
I'm just a little curious brother, where are you getting these teachings from? Which faith are you? I'm asking in a curious manner, not as an attacker either.


reply posted on 25-12-2008 @ 01:16 PM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Alienmojo

You are so correct when you said that in the times of the Old Testament that the people needed a vengeful god. There was serious corruption and perversion and canniballism back at those times. And after a while( a couple thousand years or so) when the generations of mankind had become more acknowledged about the way of God, the same god then brought Jesus Christ to the people. God is always the same God! But when the people change, the actions of God usually has to change to. It is interesting how I myself have experienced God "treating"me in different ways at times. But then sooner or later something crosses my mind as to WHY God treated me this way and then that way. I have finally learned a lesson as to the abuse of alcahol and dope. Interesting as to how it happened. Yes, if one has a sincere faith in God , one will be able to understand all this. God knows every hair on one head and every thought that goes through one's mind. It is awesome as to how good things have happenned hence the act of my true repentance and hope in the same God. Oh, yeah, and giving money to the right charities or churches out of faith in God, it seems like not day to day but month to month in my experiences, I get blessed back. The more I gave out of what I had, the more I got back and vise versa, and it seems like God has a bigger delivery truck than I do. The Koran was inspired and then interpreted and printed at a time when there was a lot of violence and bloodiness and oppression so ofcourse there are words in there dealing with violence just like as in the old testament of the bible. Amen.



reply posted on 25-12-2008 @ 02:52 PM by changeiscoming
reply to post by Alienmojo


One definition of Religion is "a group of people's who hold [something] sacred". How can a religious people be taken seriously when the things they hold sacred (by their collective actions, not their prescriptions) are money, exploit, discrimination, separation and power by whatever means necessary?

We are a wold that claims to be mostly religious, in one form or another. If the majority of the world is religious... including the majority of world leaders... why are there so many problems? Wouldn't it stand to reason that the opposite would hold true? Do you mean to tell me that all of the wars, famine's, disease, poverty, abuse of power, and non-accountability of government is ALL due to a hand-full of atheists that screw around on Sunday instead of going to church?

When the result of a religiously dominated world is overall elevated human life, equality, peace, literacy, technology, modern medicine or anything that resembles those things, instead of the opposite -- then your statement about religion being essential will be more widely accepted.

Furthermore, until religious 'hanger-on'ers' can defend their position with something other than quoting the bible (a socially obsolete mish-mash of stories translated over and over, with no common consensus among its audience on it's literal meaning), or some profound testimony backed up by nothing more than a mysterious "burning in the bosom" (a condition of elevated blood pressure and adrenaline common when experiencing anything exciting, or controversial), and produce a society that actually follows the values that they prescribe -- they are only making the case against Religion stronger.
Pages: <<  6    7    8    9    10    11    12  >>    ^^TOP^^