Reasons for unbelief...

[zeeebratracks]

...you are just so polluted with someone else's interpretation of it that you can't even see how it can be used against the very arguments you are claiming it would support.

You think I didn't look at and examine both sides of Christianity before I became a believer? I wasn't raised Christian, I grew up with a post-modern worldview; I was making up my own philosophy, believing whatever I wanted to.

....Okay, my mom is telling me I have to get off the computer right now but I plan on returning and refuting some of your arguments. Bear with me.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

This all seems moot to me. Without evidence (which ZT convieniently disposd of in his first sentnce - quite telling if you ask me) there is nowhere to go for a rational entity (we've proven in threads long ago that theism is inherently irrational). So why even discuss "other" reasons for non-belief?

...and I thought you'd finally got it about the evidence thing superluminal!? e.g.

Fine. I understand the difference between objective and subjective "truths". Objective truths apply to those that can be demonstrated and proven to others empirically. Like "trees exist and have thus and such properties". "I love my wife" is a subjective truth accessible only to me and ultimately unprovable to anyone else.

I'll reply to you on the other thread...

Say that the doctrines of Christianity ARE true. One reason to believe? Eternal damnation if you don't.

I think the word "God" carries loads of negative connotations for many people. This is not helped by all the associated doctrines e.g. the "bad news" message of condemnation for non-Christians (which I think IS irrational). If we were discussing whether "the ground of our being" existed, or whether there was a transendent consciousness, I don't think there would be the same emotional charge, or the same shouts of "irrational"!

 

[usp8riot]

thats a load of trash. in some states, suicide is illegal. there are laws in almost every state that require a person to wear a seatbelt when they drive a car, or a helmet when they ride a bike or motorcycle. in addition to that, there are laws against the use and abuse of substances deemed harmful if ingested by humans. where does the bible provide for any of that? nowhere. religion and the law work on the same premise. deterrents. religious "law" says that if you commit a transgression, your soul is in jeopardy. you could experience eternal torment in another realm if you break that law. just like if i sell a kilo of cocaine to an undercover police officer, i will go to jail here for 25 years. both secular and religious laws use fear of punishment as a deterrent to the commission of "crimes". the only problem with religious rules are that if you break them, no one actually has any proof of what will happen to you, whereas there is plenty of proof that you will go to jail for a long time for selling drugs.

Believe me, if you've studied the bible or the quran, there's a lot in it that goes far beyond law governing oneself, or even other religions such as buddhism or hinuism. The bible says thou shalt not kill, that covers suicide. As far as seatbelts, no, seatbelts aren't mentioned in the bible or the quran. But as a whole, it stresses care of the self and care of others. The quran doesn't condone drinking at all, and the bible either. "Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." I don't usually quote the holy texts, in fact never on this forum as far as I can recall, but that's what it says. It's easy to argue against a side you're ignorant of. But I've been to both sides, felt the same way.

 

[charles cure]

Believe me, if you've studied the bible or the quran, there's a lot in it that goes far beyond law governing oneself, or even other religions such as buddhism or hinuism. The bible says thou shalt not kill, that covers suicide. As far as seatbelts, no, seatbelts aren't mentioned in the bible or the quran. But as a whole, it stresses care of the self and care of others. The quran doesn't condone drinking at all, and the bible either. "Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." I don't usually quote the holy texts, in fact never on this forum as far as I can recall, but that's what it says. It's easy to argue against a side you're ignorant of. But I've been to both sides, felt the same way.

i have studied both, in fact, and what you see as rules for governing yourself i see as the biases and superstitions of an ancient culture that are no longer relevant to societies that value individualism, independent thought, and personal freedom of action. in the bible you see rules for dietary restrictions based on supersticious ideas about diseases being caused by evil spirits contained in food. how fucking ridiculous. there is absolutely no practical application for those rules today, so what makes you think that the restrictions regarding other things are any less outdated?
your little quote from Romans could be interpreted in many different ways. you could say for example that that passage says that people shouldn't drink. however, i think we all have different ideas about what constitutes "offending" or "making weak". so maybe it means you shouldn't get so drunk that you pass out. or maybe it means something entirely different, considering that those passages might contain and edit or mistranslation. who knows? you see what you want in the text in order to bolster what you already believe is right, and so it does. i see it all as a pointless and arcane piece of ficticious memoribilia, and so it is. however, the modern secular law is not, and goes as far as one should go (actually in some cases further) in limiting freedom of action while still leaving some decision making in the hands of the individual.

 

[usp8riot]

Usp8riot, I like the way you argue your points. In spite of the fact I am an atheist I have never had a problem who believe in God, religions are another thing. You seem like a good person, and if there is a heaven I hope you get in. With that said where my views differ from you is that rather than seeing morals and good and wrong coming from the self I see it as society and survival of our species. When we evolved if we did posses the trait of killing our species would have died off very fast. So, rather than them coming from God, I think (who knows for sure) morals became a part of who were for our survival. When you were talking about less people needing to born was that not for our species survival (think you would agree on this). I think we are very similar, just key details we disagree on. As I said, the fact that you seem to be open minded and trying to bash others views is a great thing.

Thanks for the kind words. I can see your point but apparently my morals differ from yours. I believe my God tells me that to be a Godly person is worth more than life. If I have to kill someone to live, and I do, then that person is dead, no chance to live on and see his/her children or grandchildren if they had any, no chance for them to redeem themselves to another if they feel they need redemption, no more chance at life, and me on the other hand had killed someone because of my selfishness, therefore, two lives are lost. What would be good for all is that they struggle to live and not give up, to have hope.

 

[usp8riot]

Charles Cure, that's what you believe and I also have some of the same beliefs. I stand for truth and will admit it when I feel it needs it. Yes, the bible is old and somewhat outdated as well as the quran. I will be the first one to say because they're old there's things in them that don't apply today or are misunderstood. And yes, they can be misinterpreted differently by different people. It's just like reading a fictional novel, in your mind, your conscience, you know this isn't the right thing to do when you read it. Like the times when Jesus sinned in the bible, you read it, think to yourself, 'that's not right', and that's it. There is sin in the bible, I'll be the first to admit it but how much more than any other book? It's a thing you're using right now, called conscience, that God gave you that's telling you wrong from right, you got to use it, not let your gaurd down when observing anything. When people object to some things in both books and tell me, to me it's just like singing to the choir. I know, I'm not ignorant and most people who read them aren't ignorant, they can usually tell something's not right when they read it but some are a sheep to their holy texts and don't want to admit if something in them seems wrong. They were made by man afterall. And I do realize the consequences of saying that. But if it helps more than harms, I say it's good. And to admit that the holy texts aren't perfect, will make people have less hate for them. Too many have the impression that they have no errors in them whatsoever spurred on probably by devout christians or muslims and makes some quick to refute the words of the texts.

If my children done something wrong, for instance, if I was teaching them to ride their bike, and told them to turn and they turn the wrong way in a mailbox, could I punish them for trying to do as I say but they misinterpret and have already suffered for it? Same goes with interpretation of the holy texts, you just have to use your best judgement.