Do You Believe in God?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
202

[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The fact that you irritate me like a pimple on my scrotum does not constitute an argument.

No, but the fact that you start off by not seeing how churches can pick any pockets and end up, three posts later, claiming you don’t mind them doing so shows that you’ve admitted - unwittingly, most likely - the truth of my initial claim.

Explaining to you what public services are and how taxation and exemption work was all that was required for you to suddenly “see” how churches can and do pick our pockets.

That you enjoy the Holy Pilfering of our Wallets is, like most of your ignorant second-hand opinions, completely irrelevant to the issue.

What is a varmint?

The smartest life form found in Texas, if you’re anything to go by.

[/quote]

My scrotum is itching again. You were the one that started the whole “churches should pay” lament again.

My entire point is - you don’t know what is paid for by my taxes, therefore it should be none of your business what happens in my corner of BFE. But you can’t keep your nose in your own affairs, and you proved it with wings.

We don’t use yankee words like “varmint” and “aquaduct”. Yet one more case of you just not getting it.

But that’s okay because you’re really good at “boggle” and “jumble”, I am sure.

203

[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The question, for you at least, is why the Gospels are to be rejected as historically inaccurate.

Because there is no reason to believe them to be historically accurate.

Zeb was trying to show that there was non-biblical support for the historical existence of Jesus, when in actuality there is nothing of the sort.

Note that many of his contemporaries, some simple merchants or simply rich men, have historical documentation. A man performing miracles and drawing large crowds everywhere he went should have rated at least a passing mention somewhere. Yet the most notable mentions Jesus gets turns out to be a Christian forgery.

If we cannot find any evidence that Jesus ever actually lived, how can we trust the gospels’ accuracy? There are a lot of books of historical fiction, stories that incorporate real places, events and historical facts into fictitious tales. There is no compelling reason to see the gospels as anything different than those novels.
[/quote]

Well said.

I believe that the only document proof of actually existence of a religious “leader” or whatever you want to call it is that of the Prophet Muhammad.[sic] And even though he may have existed, if you actually read some of these stories regarding him and his visions, you’d fall over laughing.

And something slightly related, this is the sort of attitude displayed when the discussion of evolution comes up:

"I liken the debate to a jigsaw puzzle that does not have its picture on the box. Science is trying to put it together, while religious dogma is looking over his shoulder.
Dogma feels strongly that the resulting picture will be a unicorn, while Science has speculated a hypothesis based on viewing the individual pieces that the picture is one of a bear. The more Science puts it together, the more the puzzle begins to look like a bear. Dogma begins to get more and more upset. “I don’t know why you’re bothering, it’s obviously a unicorn!” he chortles.

Science shrugs, and continues assembling the pieces. The picture begins to look even more like a bear, until it’s almost unmistakable. Every once in a while, Science will have to correct an error and move a piece twice. Religion shrieks with glee at this. “See?! You put that piece in the wrong place! Your wishful thinking that it’s a bear made you make a mistake! Since you’re wrong, I am therefore right, and the picture is of a unicorn!”

“But what about all the other pieces I did get right? Can’t you see by the rest of them it’s obviously a bear?” replies Science.
“You just don’t want to admit it’s a unicorn! Your arrogance is getting in the way!” screams Dogma lividly.
Science just shrugs, and continues with the puzzle."

204

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Hey I reckon there was a carpenter called Jesus that lived in the middle east 2000 years ago, I believe he had a bunch of buddies that were all extremely talented story tellers, I also believe that these people got togehter and wrote the majotity of what is the bible.

They obviously got very carried away with their story telling and wrote about a lot of stuff that didn’t happen maybe this was to appease a growing number of dedicated followers of their little group, Jesus was probably crucified by the Roman’s too.

But thats all I am prepared to belive, becuase there is no factual eveidence to support anything else. 2000 years ago this group of very intellegent (and most probably very stoned) fooled a lot of people with their stories, and now 2000 years later people that have the historical and scientific evidence to know better are still try to make sense of this fairytale book that was written, and the only reason is becuase you have had this idea pumped into your head from birth, maybe you have not had a strict religious upbringing, but the idea of a god exsisting was instilled into you from an early age and you just can’t shake it.

Do you have any proof for these claims?[/quote]

I made no claims, just stated what I belived happened with regards to the creation of the bible

205

[quote]rainjack wrote:
My scrotum is itching again. You were the one that started the whole “churches should pay” lament again. [/quote]

Actually, I was simply pointing out to Varq that his “doesn’t pick my pocket” assertion wasn’t entirely accurate. Because it isn’t. Churches get a free ride on our backs whether we like it or not.

I haven’t seen him disagree with me. Even you agree with the point, although you enjoy the government giving away your money in this particular instance.

If you find it too challenging to participate in an argument without getting pissy and whiny when you’re unable to make a point, maybe you should just stay out.

I’m just sayin’.

I don’t give a shit about your taxes. I care about mine and how they’re spent. It just so happens that a situation that I find annoying is rather prevalent across the globe. Most probably even in Japan, were Varq is.

Just because you feel compelled to inject your ignorant viewpoint into a discussion doesn’t mean it was about you or your local shithole.

Stop staring at your navel all day and get a little maturity.

206

[quote]pookie wrote:
I don’t give a shit about your taxes. I care about mine and how they’re spent. It just so happens that a situation that I find annoying is rather prevalent across the globe. Most probably even in Japan, were Varq is.[/quote]

Yet you spent 2 or 3 posts telling me what my church was milking from the taxpayers.

[quote]Just because you feel compelled to inject your ignorant viewpoint into a discussion doesn’t mean it was about you or your local shithole.

Stop staring at your navel all day and get a little maturity.
[/quote]

But there are thousands of shitholes just like mine all over the country.

How about you just keep your schnozz in things Canadian, and stop pretending to know what is going on elsewhere.

Just because I can see mine, and you can’t - probably much like your shoe strings - doesn’t mean I am immature. Maybe you are just jealous?

207

So you hold a belief, but Christians are not entitled to their beliefs?

208

I have to pay for the secularists social instutions, such as the welfare, Medicare, Social Security bureaucracies. And directly, through taxation. Surely tearing down bureaucracies that rely on redistribution of my wealth, instead of simple tax breaks, should be a higher priority?

209

For those who don’t believe in a god do you still have a sense of spirituality or is that still the wrong word to use?

I still don’t know what I think but I do consider god or know god.

I want karma to work! on others,… not me, unless it is good.

210

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I have to pay for the secularists social instutions, such as the welfare, Medicare, Social Security bureaucracies. And directly, through taxation. Surely tearing down bureaucracies that rely on redistribution of my wealth, instead of simple tax breaks, should be a higher priority?[/quote]

You can at least avail yourself of those services, if you ever need them.

But you must indirectly support churches, temples, mosques, nutcenters (I don’t know what scientologist call their mindfuck buildings… I’m just guessing) even if you have no need for them.

211

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I have to pay for the secularists social instutions, such as the welfare, Medicare, Social Security bureaucracies. And directly, through taxation. Surely tearing down bureaucracies that rely on redistribution of my wealth, instead of simple tax breaks, should be a higher priority?

You can at least avail yourself of those services, if you ever need them.

But you must indirectly support churches, temples, mosques, nutcenters (I don’t know what scientologist call their mindfuck buildings… I’m just guessing) even if you have no need for them.

[/quote]

That’s the justification? I can at least use either of these.

212

[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The question, for you at least, is why the Gospels are to be rejected as historically inaccurate.

Because there is no reason to believe them to be historically accurate.

Zeb was trying to show that there was non-biblical support for the historical existence of Jesus, when in actuality there is nothing of the sort.

Note that many of his contemporaries, some simple merchants or simply rich men, have historical documentation. A man performing miracles and drawing large crowds everywhere he went should have rated at least a passing mention somewhere. Yet the most notable mentions Jesus gets turns out to be a Christian forgery.

If we cannot find any evidence that Jesus ever actually lived, how can we trust the gospels’ accuracy? There are a lot of books of historical fiction, stories that incorporate real places, events and historical facts into fictitious tales. There is no compelling reason to see the gospels as anything different than those novels.
[/quote]

There’s no logical or philosophical reason why followers of Christ, in this case the authors of the Gospels, wrote fiction because they believed the claims of what they were authoring. You’ve adopted that as your presupposition. In other words, in your mind, the Gospels are false until proven otherwise. This is the exact same thing minimalist scholars of the Old Testament do vs. the maximalists. I reject the idea that I, as a Christian, must hold to a higher burden of proof than the skeptic regarding the Gospel claims. There is no logical reason I should have a higher burden of proof.

I think this will go the rest of the way towards casting doubt on your beliefs about the Gospels:

213

[quote]rsg wrote:
pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The question, for you at least, is why the Gospels are to be rejected as historically inaccurate.

Because there is no reason to believe them to be historically accurate.

Zeb was trying to show that there was non-biblical support for the historical existence of Jesus, when in actuality there is nothing of the sort.

Note that many of his contemporaries, some simple merchants or simply rich men, have historical documentation. A man performing miracles and drawing large crowds everywhere he went should have rated at least a passing mention somewhere. Yet the most notable mentions Jesus gets turns out to be a Christian forgery.

If we cannot find any evidence that Jesus ever actually lived, how can we trust the gospels’ accuracy? There are a lot of books of historical fiction, stories that incorporate real places, events and historical facts into fictitious tales. There is no compelling reason to see the gospels as anything different than those novels.

Well said.

I believe that the only document proof of actually existence of a religious “leader” or whatever you want to call it is that of the Prophet Muhammad.[sic] And even though he may have existed, if you actually read some of these stories regarding him and his visions, you’d fall over laughing.

And something slightly related, this is the sort of attitude displayed when the discussion of evolution comes up:

"I liken the debate to a jigsaw puzzle that does not have its picture on the box. Science is trying to put it together, while religious dogma is looking over his shoulder.
Dogma feels strongly that the resulting picture will be a unicorn, while Science has speculated a hypothesis based on viewing the individual pieces that the picture is one of a bear. The more Science puts it together, the more the puzzle begins to look like a bear. Dogma begins to get more and more upset. “I don’t know why you’re bothering, it’s obviously a unicorn!” he chortles.

Science shrugs, and continues assembling the pieces. The picture begins to look even more like a bear, until it’s almost unmistakable. Every once in a while, Science will have to correct an error and move a piece twice. Religion shrieks with glee at this. “See?! You put that piece in the wrong place! Your wishful thinking that it’s a bear made you make a mistake! Since you’re wrong, I am therefore right, and the picture is of a unicorn!”

“But what about all the other pieces I did get right? Can’t you see by the rest of them it’s obviously a bear?” replies Science.
“You just don’t want to admit it’s a unicorn! Your arrogance is getting in the way!” screams Dogma lividly.
Science just shrugs, and continues with the puzzle."[/quote]

This is the classic Richard Dawkins-type objection towards belief in Christian theism. I’m sure Dawkins is a great scientist, but he is a piss-poor philosopher:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,676,The-Dawkins-Confusion-Naturalism-ad-absurdum,Alvin-Plantinga

214

Seriously though, I’d love to make a deal with you secularists. I’ll help you get the tax breaks removed from my social institution (my church). In exchange, you’ll help stop the actual confiscation (not just tax breaks) of my paycheck for your social institutions (cradle to grave welfare and social workers).

I know our parishioners would have plenty through these tax cuts to cover any tax obligations of our church. And we’d run much more efficient charity programs, instead of the government’s dependency programs.

215

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
For those who don’t believe in a god do you still have a sense of spirituality or is that still the wrong word to use?

I still don’t know what I think but I do consider god or know god.

I want karma to work! on others,… not me, unless it is good.

[/quote]

Spirituality? None.

After deciding that religion is a big joke, and that I’ve been lied to all this time, wasted countless hours listening to some pedophile talk the same crap week after week, and then seeing how fucked up this world truly is, I realized that I have real world issues to deal with instead.

As mentioned before, religion is an adults way of dealing with life & death when times are hard - an imaginary friend that will help you though the hard times. Since the mind is such a powerful tool, this may actually work if you believe it enough - and that’s all good - so long as you don’t call it some mysterious otherworldly force at work.

I think people should keep their shit to themselves - want to belive in god? Fine, just don’t fucking knock on my door at 7am on a Sunday morning telling me bullshit. Do atheists wake YOU up at stupid hours telling you that god isn’t real? NO.

When last did you hear in the news “10 atheists caught for blowing up a public building in the name of…nothing”.

Just be a good person, don’t lie, don’t kill or rape and treat others with respect.

216

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

I made no claims, just stated what I belived happened with regards to the creation of the bible

So you hold a belief, but Christians are not entitled to their beliefs? [/quote]

Of course thry are entitled to their beliefs, who ever said they was not?

217

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
There’s no logical or philosophical reason why followers of Christ, in this case the authors of the Gospels, wrote fiction because they believed the claims of what they were authoring.[/quote]

They may well have believed what they were authoring, in the same way that greek authors believed in Zeus and Hercules when they wrote about their lives.

I have colleagues at work that swear by homeopathic medicine and believe vaccines to be a giant corporate scam.

Doesn’t make it true.

That’s how skepticism works.

It’s especially true of a text that makes claims about miracles happening, someone walking on water and the dead being brought back to life.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

What higher burden? You claim that a text that makes extraordinary claims is historically accurate and factual, but are unable to offer any other proofs except the religious text that makes those claims in the first place.

Not only can you not show any support for the extraordinary claims, there isn’t any secular source supporting event the existence of Jesus.

If yours is the burden of proof required, then all religious texts are true, because they simply have to claim to be so. By your standard, Batman must exist somewhere, since I have a graphic novel detailing his adventures.

[quote]I think this will go the rest of the way towards casting doubt on your beliefs about the Gospels:

I see C.S.Lewis in that list… all I need to know.

218

[quote]rsg wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
For those who don’t believe in a god do you still have a sense of spirituality or is that still the wrong word to use?

I still don’t know what I think but I do consider god or know god.

I want karma to work! on others,… not me, unless it is good.

Spirituality? None.

After deciding that religion is a big joke, and that I’ve been lied to all this time, wasted countless hours listening to some pedophile talk the same crap week after week, and then seeing how fucked up this world truly is, I realized that I have real world issues to deal with instead.

As mentioned before, religion is an adults way of dealing with life & death when times are hard - an imaginary friend that will help you though the hard times. Since the mind is such a powerful tool, this may actually work if you believe it enough - and that’s all good - so long as you don’t call it some mysterious otherworldly force at work.

I think people should keep their shit to themselves - want to belive in god? Fine, just don’t fucking knock on my door at 7am on a Sunday morning telling me bullshit. Do atheists wake YOU up at stupid hours telling you that god isn’t real? NO.

When last did you hear in the news “10 atheists caught for blowing up a public building in the name of…nothing”.

Just be a good person, don’t lie, don’t kill or rape and treat others with respect.[/quote]

Amen brother Amen…

219

[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
By your standard, Batman must exist somewhere, since I have a graphic novel detailing his adventures.

[/quote]

lmao sweet

220

[quote]Sloth wrote:
That’s the justification? I can at least use either of these.[/quote]

I don’t like those programs either. I feel that many are way too generous, and none try hard enough to prevent abuse and fraud.

But I vote for the parties that run on platforms of abolishing or curtailing unneeded or over-generous programs.

I’ve never seen a party advocate taxing the churches, or better, doing away with tax exemptions all together. They’d get my vote.

The other thing I don’t see is those “charitable” and “compassionate” churches volunteering to pay their fair share of the tax burden and collectively lightening the load for everyone.

I guess the charity and compassion is for members only.

221

[quote]rsg wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
For those who don’t believe in a god do you still have a sense of spirituality or is that still the wrong word to use?

I still don’t know what I think but I do consider god or know god.

I want karma to work! on others,… not me, unless it is good.

Spirituality? None.

After deciding that religion is a big joke, and that I’ve been lied to all this time, wasted countless hours listening to some pedophile talk the same crap week after week, and then seeing how fucked up this world truly is, I realized that I have real world issues to deal with instead.

As mentioned before, religion is an adults way of dealing with life & death when times are hard - an imaginary friend that will help you though the hard times. Since the mind is such a powerful tool, this may actually work if you believe it enough - and that’s all good - so long as you don’t call it some mysterious otherworldly force at work.

I think people should keep their shit to themselves - want to belive in god? Fine, just don’t fucking knock on my door at 7am on a Sunday morning telling me bullshit. Do atheists wake YOU up at stupid hours telling you that god isn’t real? NO.

When last did you hear in the news “10 atheists caught for blowing up a public building in the name of…nothing”.

Just be a good person, don’t lie, don’t kill or rape and treat others with respect.[/quote]

Thanks for answering rsg! =)

I appreciate the thoughtful answer.