The God Delusion

[Nineteen Canteen]

LE GOD DELUSION

 

A popular debate at the moment so I thought it would be interesting to get a view on what other posters thought about this issue.

 

I have not studied all religions in any great depth although I did attend the the now famous Holy Trinity Brompton's Alpha Course and took up their challenge of the 30 day introduction to the Bible. I have to say initially it felt enlightening and quite empowering but for many reasons after about 2 years of attending church post course I fell out with the religion thing in a big way.

 

The reasons are many but certainly to be a Christian requires you have to take a huge leap of faith which I never quite completed and to accept some core values and beliefs without question. No doubt the church is trying to change but to slowly in my opinion to accommodate some of the more obvious hyprocrisy's such the ordination of women and same sex relationships. The trouble is if the church believe they need to change does that not prove they are making things up as they go along?

 

During my time exploring my faith I once asked a senior clergy what would he do if he was confronted with two men who wanted to commit to the Christian faith and be married in church in the same way the relationship can be recognsed in law and an accepting society. His answer - 'I would welcome them into the church but not marry them.' Why? - 'The bible tells us two men should not lay together and I would encourage them to change their ways'. I found his answer pathetic under the premise that god made us all and we are all god creatures unless he made you a homosexual which in many cases I believe is not through choice but the way we are made by God. Some God, I'll make you like this, then tell you to change when the time comes and its too late and damn you to a life in purgatory.

 

The end for me and Christianity came during one service where audience members were invited to come forward and share their experience of a 'weekend retreat' they had attended. One young impressionable teenage girl got up and spoke about how a teenage boy with a broken leg had hands lay upon him and he was able to take of his cast and walk right in front of them. I stood up after a quick word with my wife and took my family out and have never been back and that was about 8 years ago. Would you believe a cure like that or am I just being cynical?

 

I think it is important in life to have some belief and so I am currently trying albeit badly to understand Existentialism. It's difficult getting to grips beyond the 'I think therefore I am' but I do agree with it's stance on religion whereby the arbitray way it acts, that a religion or society imposes its beliefs, rule and values and must be simply obeyed and not challenged. Essentially, religion prevents people from being what they would like to be and it should be the person's judgement that determines what they believe not some set of rules into which they were born.

 

So I agree with the stance of the Existentialist as to why religion or even secular restrictions prevent freedom of judgement and development but I'm not sure it gives me anything to believe in. At first we exist and then we spend our lives taking personal responsibility for our choices and the nature of our character. We should be able to choose responsibly without being forced to religion, customs, traditions etc. We do all that then what? Where's the hope that maybe when our time comes we may go to a better place? Religion can't provide that if you all you do is question the unwritten 11th commandment 'You shall not think' as Nietzsche wrote about christianity. How can you believe if you can't challenge and if you challenge as others have and they change the rules as if its was some sort of social law then IMO it can't have been much of a religion in the first place.

 

Nietzsche wrote that God was a crass solution as a belief system because he Nietzsche was too inquisitive, too skeptical and too arrogant to allow himself to be satisfied with such an obvious solution. It's certainly convienient and unproven and why I remain an agnostic but not arrogant enough to be atheist. At least being an agnostic I can play my get of jail card when the time comes along the lines of ' ah, so the gates are true and now you tell me'.

 

I like what Existentialism tells us as a blueprint for a way of living a life unshackled by religous rules but it seems very cold and perhaps even fearful instead of embracing death when your time comes. That said I am no expert on the subject and have only started looking into the subject so prepared to be educated.

 

It would be good to hear what other posters felt about religion and why are we here and what happens in the end? Is this just a rehearsal for better things or do we change now and live by our own rules and responsible choices because this is it - one shot?

 

For the time being I remain agnostic and understanding of peoples' need to believe but unable to make that leap of faith myself until it can be proven, which I have been told by the those ordained that it can't - how do they know? Speaking in tongues?

Edited 8 November, 2009 by Nineteen Canteen
Thread title need reclarification post unnecessary censorship

[JonnyLove]

nope got 3 words in and stopped reading anyone else get any further?

[Master Bates]

I read the first 46 words and then the last 3 about tongues speaking.

[Baj]

might have helped if he didnt imply it was about le tiss from the topic...

[dubai_phil]

Didn't we do religion a few weeks back?

 

BNP & The Tories are done.

 

Weather down here sunny and 30C

 

Just leaves SEX to talk about - which brings us nicely to MB - you forgotten how to PM bewbs?

 

Nice idea 19C but think you took too many lessons from me in long rambling posts

[Weston Saint]

might have helped if he didnt imply it was about le tiss from the topic...

But that is the hook, surely. It is done all the time to get readers attention.

 

Will be interesting to see if any sensible repies are posted. I have my doubts. Wrong audience I suspect.

 

As for me, yes I am a believer. Moral truth and virtue comes from within. The bible is the light which guides you and should not be taken literally. Science has shown as much.

 

I do not attend church much, if at all now. Too much happy clappy bt that does not alter my belief.

[badgerx16]

"God is dead" declares Nietzsche,

 

"Nietzsche is dead" declares God.

 

As regards the modern Christian faith, my take on it is that The Bible is for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools. The Catholic Church is basically what grew out of a view of how things should be run, drawn up by St Augustine. The Protestant branches grew out of either (1) Martin Luther's rejection of Papal supremacy, or (2) King Henry the 8th's desire to destroy the financial power of the monastries and also to obtain a second divorce.

As regards The Bible, most of the Old Testament is an English translation of a Latin translation, of an Aramaic or Greek transliteration of a Hebrew oral tradition, so goodness knows how many 'chinese whispers' might have got caught up in there. As for the New Testament, what we now know as the NT is a collection of the 'approved' texts that St Augustine felt supported his belief system; any non-conformist Gospel or other text being dismissed as heresy; and any historical translation of The Bible was always carried out for an ulterior purpose,- whoever payed for it could influence how things were interpreted. Look at the issue of the 'heresy' that was announced simply because an English translation was produced, thereby bringing understanding of the 'word of God' to the common people and away from the Latin scholars.

 

( Unless, of course, you accept that the 'hand of God' is always at work in any interpretation of His words, and so any new translation or publication is bound to have His approval ).

 

I also, however, support the basic tenets of the Christian faith, although I do not approve of the formalities of the organised Church. Without some form of belief system, we are no better than animals. My relationship with God is between the two of us.

[Teddy Nutkins]

:rolleyes:Ok i will ignor the Legod title and give you my findings.First of all "wow" that's heavy for a Thursday lunchtime but hey-ho.I guess if i read your last paragraph it pretty much sums me up......apart from having heard the tongues( for those that know me no i had not been on a bender).

When i heard the tongues, it was somewhat of a worry to me.It was not a set up, she did not know i was there and there was i looking for this strange voice talking a strange language and found it stood at the sink washing up.It was my wife.

 

I have never to this day told her this story of what i had witnessed and heard.I agree nothing can be proven and can understand why you "upped" and left the healing session.I don't think i could ever stop the feeling i had that Billy Graham was a rich trickster.There are many who believe, i, like you, remain agnostic.

 

I wonder if Matt has heard the tongues:rolleyes:

[dubai_phil]

"God is dead" declares Nietzsche,

 

"Nietzsche is dead" declares God.

 

As regards the modern Christian faith, my take on it is that The Bible is for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools. The Catholic Church is basically what grew out of a view of how things should be run, drawn up by St Augustine. The Protestant branches grew out of either (1) Martin Luther's rejection of Papal supremacy, or (2) King Henry the 8th's desire to destroy the financial power of the monastries and also to obtain a second divorce.

As regards The Bible, most of the Old Testament is an English translation of a Latin translation, of an Aramaic or Greek transliteration of a Hebrew oral tradition, so goodness knows how many 'chinese whispers' might have got caught up in there. As for the New Testament, what we now know as the NT is a collection of the 'approved' texts that St Augustine felt supported his belief system; any non-conformist Gospel or other text being dismissed as heresy; and any historical translation of The Bible was always carried out for an ulterior purpose,- whoever payed for it could influence how things were interpreted. Look at the issue of the 'heresy' that was announced simply because an English translation was produced, thereby bringing understanding of the 'word of God' to the common people and away from the Latin scholars.

 

( Unless, of course, you accept that the 'hand of God' is always at work in any interpretation of His words, and so any new translation or publication is bound to have His approval ).

 

I also, however, support the basic tenets of the Christian faith, although I do not approve of the formalities of the organised Church. Without some form of belief system, we are no better than animals. My relationship with God is between the two of us.

 

 

There you go, see, you put Dan Brown's first 267 chapters into one and a bit paragraphs could have saved all that RSI lifting the damned heavy paperback

[Ponty]

Paraphrasing Gervais, "The other name for the Bible is 'Gospel', so it must be true!"

[JonnyLove]

Paraphrasing Gervais, "The other name for the Bible is 'Gospel', so it must be true!"

 

Thats not quite true. The bible is the collection of books and writings. The Gospel which is translated to "good news" is part of the bible.

 

Never understood the term "take it as Gospel" as that just means take it as good news. Not the term people think it means which is it is true and cannot be changed.

[Ponty]

I think Gervais was taking the p*ss, not making some intense theological statement.

[JonnyLove]

I think Gervais was taking the p*ss, not making some intense theological statement.

 

I know he is a massive athiest. But I still feel my point was valid.

 

Me I am a big beleiver and go to church 1-3 times a month.

 

I have no issues if other people are agnistic or athiest each to their own.

 

But what I do find funny is that I have no issue with them. the Athiests hate the fact I beleive and must crush it. Why is this

[Ponty]

I don't think they do, JL. At least, I've no desire to crush you or your belief and I'm an atheist also. I get annoyed when someone attempts to show me why I must believe so I'm not about to start showing people why they shouldn't.

 

Faith = belief without any supporting facts, doesn't it? So what would be the point of illustrating every lack of scientific basis for the stories in the bible?

 

Explain something though; How big was the ark that carried 2 of every one of the 2 million species of animal? That one's always puzzled me.

 

[badgerx16]

Explain something though; How big was the ark that carried 2 of every one of the 2 million species of animal? That one's always puzzled me.

 

It was built by Noah and sons of Gallifrey

[JonnyLove]

I don't think they do, JL. At least, I've no desire to crush you or your belief and I'm an atheist also. I get annoyed when someone attempts to show me why I must believe so I'm not about to start showing people why they shouldn't.

 

Faith = belief without any supporting facts, doesn't it? So what would be the point of illustrating every lack of scientific basis for the stories in the bible?

 

Explain something though; How big was the ark that carried 2 of every one of the 2 million species of animal? That one's always puzzled me.

 

 

If you read the bible (Genesis. Sorry not chapert and verse man so go from the frond and go from there) it tells you how big it is unfortunatly I have no idea what that equates to in new money.

[Huffton]

Personally speaking I have no time for religion, any of them, and just cannot understand how people can still believe when every bit of scientific evidence points to the non-existence of a God. I only go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals, and I can't wait to get out when the service id finished. A few years back I had to restrain myself at a christening whne the vicar began preaching about how we should find it within ourselves to forgive those who committed the 9/11 attacks (this was only 2 weeks after the event).

Paradoxically I have huge respect for people who choose to believe, and allow their faith to guide them. When you hear people who have lost a child or a loved one to murder saying they can forgive the people who did it, it takes more control and restraint than I could possibly imagine having, and if that is what their belief gives them then good for them.

[Ponty]

If you read the bible (Genesis. Sorry not chapert and verse man so go from the frond and go from there) it tells you how big it is unfortunatly I have no idea what that equates to in new money.

 

The Ark was taller than a 3-story building and had a deck area the size of 36 lawn tennis courts. Its length was 300 cubits (450 feet, or 135 meters); its width was 50 cubits (75 feet, or 22.5 meters); it had three stories and its height was 30 cubits (45 feet, or 13.5 meters).

 

It was going to be a bit cramped, methinks.

[aintforever]

Religion is for weak, insecure people who can't handle the fact that when they die they are just worm meat.

[Jillyanne]

Religion is for weak, insecure people who can't handle the fact that when they die they are just worm meat.

 

We'll find out tomorrow night when Derek Achora speaks to Michael Jackson........... oh.

[View From The Top]

If people want to believe in God then that's up to them.

 

As long as they don't attempt to impose their beliefs on me then I've no issue in what church they follow.

[benjii]

Nineteen, you don't seem to appreciate what Existentialism is in broad terms (or rather you have only encoutered one subset, which is fair enough). It is not an anti-religious philosophy necessarily.

 

Check out some Kierkegaard - a religious existentialist. He is probably at the "opposite" end of the scale to the pugnacious nihilism of a Nietzsche or Sartre. What existentialists tend to have in common is a sense that all value is subjective. You might find this easier to reconcile with a god-concept, than the thiestic hand-me-down system of morality adopted by traditional Western religions.

 

FWIW - I find absolutely no reason to believe in sentient "spiritual" beings of any sort. Just seems the most unlikely explanation for anything to me.

[Sheaf Saint]

An interesting debate, and one that has been ongoing for centuries and, no doubt, will continue to be debated for many more centuries to come.

 

Just so everybody is clear on my stance before I continue, I am not a believer in god, and I would probably classify myself as an atheist if I absolutely must pigeon-hole my beliefs.

 

I have had many a debate myself on this subject on other forums, and it always strikes me that the people who vehemently defend christianity, or religion of any kind, tend to be extremely irrational and blinkered when it comes to their own beliefs. There is a guy who I have debated with on another forum who talks in all kinds of riddles about the subject, and when you challenge him on any of the many contradictions in the bible, he always replies with 'God moves in mysterious ways' as if that is all OK and explains everything.

 

His one argument that really got me though was his insistence that to be a christian, you must first accept that we are all sinners in the eyes of god. This statement, to me anyway, throws up all sorts of questions and complications. Firstly, if you believe that God created us all, why then did he create us as sinners? Secondly, why would anybody swear their allegiance to a religion that seeks to impose a sense of inferiority on every one of its members?

 

It is my belief that religion, theistic religion at least, first came about as a way of explaining anything that mankind could not understand, before the advent of scientific method. It was then perpetuated as a way of exercising control over the populace by those with a vested interested in maintaining power over their people.

 

I will never condemn anybody for following God, the bible, or anything associated with the church in that way (although I have met some religious people who talk absolute drivel in my lifetime) because if people find that religion helps them to make sense of the world and they can become happier and healthier from it then that can only be a good thing. But I do take exception to be told by religious types that I must accept Jesus in order to give my life meaning and morality. I am quite capable of following my own moral compass without the need to absorb texts from a 2000-year-old work of fiction. I am a very rational person, and as such I am incapable of allowing myself to be guided unquestionably by religion.

[Sheaf Saint]

Humanism is the way forward.

[Danny]

But what I do find funny is that I have no issue with them. the Athiests hate the fact I beleive and must crush it. Why is this

 

It's a need for self validation confined to a very small minority. Most people couldn't care less I'd imagine, but you'll always get a vocal minority who like to shout you down, regardless of subject matter - be it God or what beer you drink.

 

Speak to them in the real world, it'll probably be a civilised debate. Online it's akin to rabid monkeys eating your face. I wouldn't take those sorts of debates as indicative of most atheists. IMHO, of course.

Edited 5 November, 2009 by Danny

[JonnyLove]

If people want to believe in God then that's up to them.

 

As long as they don't attempt to impose their beliefs on me then I've no issue in what church they follow.

 

And visa versa

[benjii]

ps - This debate is soooo 18th century.

[View From The Top]

And visa versa

 

Sorry, lost me there.

[Ponty]

Sorry, lost me there.

 

A battle of credit cards, I assume.

[Pancake]

Personally speaking I have no time for religion, any of them, and just cannot understand how people can still believe when every bit of scientific evidence points to the non-existence of a God.

 

Personally I count myself as a religious person. I attend church regularly (Anglican) and have 'studied' Christianity. Ive also 'studied' the history and basis of the major Christian factions; plus some reading into the other major religions (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism mainly).

 

Personally I dont "follow" or "believe" in anything that can be disproved by science. I dont 'believe' a good 75-80 of the Bible; but I do believe in a lot of the teachings found within it. Conversly, I can see why other choose of believe in things that science CANNOT disprove, no matter how unlikely they are. For example, no-one can scientifically prove there is no God in the same way that no-one can prove there is no such thing as aliens .

 

Anybody in this day and age would be slightly out of kilter to believe that a non-Earthly deity produced the Universe around the World within a set number of days etc. The same goes for some of the other things that religions peddle (the "hatred" of homosexuality being the main one that rankles me along with the repression on women), but there are very few things in life that one and accept 100% is there?

 

There always has to be some give and take - I take some moral correctness and social consciousness from religious teachings, along with self worth and inner "peace" (w*nky I know); but then I totally disregard huge swathes of it too. Same be said of Politics, there is no party I can agree with on 100% of agenda items. And like with politics, I without my right to say "hold on,l thats b*ll*cks" to the people I 'follow'; and also to appreciate ideals and items from other parties/religions.

[Hatch]

Rule 1??

[JonnyLove]

Personally I count myself as a religious person. I attend church regularly (Anglican) and have 'studied' Christianity. Ive also 'studied' the history and basis of the major Christian factions; plus some reading into the other major religions (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism mainly).

 

Personally I dont "follow" or "believe" in anything that can be disproved by science. I dont 'believe' a good 75-80 of the Bible; but I do believe in a lot of the teachings found within it. Conversly, I can see why other choose of believe in things that science CANNOT disprove, no matter how unlikely they are. For example, no-one can scientifically prove there is no God in the same way that no-one can prove there is no such thing as aliens .

 

Anybody in this day and age would be slightly out of kilter to believe that a non-Earthly deity produced the Universe around the World within a set number of days etc. The same goes for some of the other things that religions peddle (the "hatred" of homosexuality being the main one that rankles me along with the repression on women), but there are very few things in life that one and accept 100% is there?

 

There always has to be some give and take - I take some moral correctness and social consciousness from religious teachings, along with self worth and inner "peace" (w*nky I know); but then I totally disregard huge swathes of it too. Same be said of Politics, there is no party I can agree with on 100% of agenda items. And like with politics, I without my right to say "hold on,l thats b*ll*cks" to the people I 'follow'; and also to appreciate ideals and items from other parties/religions.

 

+1.

[Sheaf Saint]

Just a quick question to the believers among us, one that has always bugged me.....

 

"Jesus died for all our sins", what exactly does this mean?

 

And if we are all God's children, what was so special about Jesus?

[Jillyanne]

I went to church on Monday night and found a lot of the readings and lyrics in the hymns to be rather contradictory (sp).

[Weston Saint]

Just a quick question to the believers among us, one that has always bugged me.....

 

"Jesus died for all our sins", what exactly does this mean?

 

And if we are all God's children, what was so special about Jesus?

 

Not sure if this will help but here is the link http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read1/r00454.html

[Pancake]

Just a quick question to the believers among us, one that has always bugged me.....

 

"Jesus died for all our sins", what exactly does this mean?

 

And if we are all God's children, what was so special about Jesus?

 

First off, Im not into the fact that Jesus was really a mortal personification of the son of God. Ive never really got this bit myself either. My take on the origin of it goes back to the Judaic rite of the "Scape Goat", a physical goat that was cast off into the "wilderness" (or killed, depending on which account of believe). The goat was mean to carry the sins of the people. Im not sure how or why the Christian belief system transfered the method of sin-removal to the human from a goat; or even why Ambrahimic religious feel the need to physically or metaphorically "send" their sins and the sins of others away. I suspect that this has to do with the belief that only those with cleansed souls can be granted access to whatever afterlife experience is available from their chosen religion.

 

just my 2p.

[Pancake]

Not sure if this will help but here is the link http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read1/r00454.html

 

Interesting WS, this bit:

 

For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners . . . (NASB) Romans 5:19

In order to rescue us from the penalty of our sin, a sinless individual had to die for us. Someone who did not deserve to physically die had to choose to die for us. Jesus did that for us.

 

could be used to help explain why Jesus was so highly thought of - a normal but sinless man who took on the weight of the world to prevent the suffering of others. That feeds into my own person view point of religion and God/Jesus etc so I don't expect others to buy in!

[the stain]

Explain something though; How big was the ark that carried 2 of every one of the 2 million species of animal? That one's always puzzled me.

 

 

A lot of those fellas live in the sea...

[norwaysaint]

 

But what I do find funny is that I have no issue with them. the Athiests hate the fact I beleive and must crush it. Why is this

 

I don't think that's what it is.

 

If somebody told me the world was flat and that's just what they've chosen to believe, I wouldn't be able to just leave it at that. I'd need to try to find out why on Earth they thought that. Then I'd point out why that seemed wrong to me.

 

Whenever I've been in that situation with Christians, they start to get very uncomfortable and agitated and say things like "Why can't you just let me believe?"

 

I can't think of many other situations where people say they have a strong opinion about something are then too afraid to discuss it in depth. Also I find it odd that the same people often scorn other superstitious beliefs like tarot, horoscopes and ghosts, even though there's no more actual evidence for one than the other.

 

Similarly Christians also seem to consider it ridiculous and primitive that some people worship lots of gods, yet again those religions are based on just as much solid evidence as Christianity.

[Joensuu]

Each to one's own; but how do believers choose between the religions on offer, when they all claim to be right?

Give me a flying teapot and a level grounding in science anyday.

[Pancake]

I don't think that's what it is.

 

If somebody told me the world was flat and that's just what they've chosen to believe, I wouldn't be able to just leave it at that. I'd need to try to find out why on Earth they thought that. Then I'd point out why that seemed wrong to me.

 

Whenever I've been in that situation with Christians, they start to get very uncomfortable and agitated and say things like "Why can't you just let me believe?"

 

I can't think of many other situations where people say they have a strong opinion about something are then too afraid to discuss it in depth. Also I find it odd that the same people often scorn other superstitious beliefs like tarot, horoscopes and ghosts, even though there's no more actual evidence for one than the other.

 

Similarly Christians also seem to consider it ridiculous and primitive that some people worship lots of gods, yet again those religions are based on just as much solid evidence as Christianity.

 

Want a bigger brush to tar people with?

[Sheaf Saint]

Want a bigger brush to tar people with?

 

He does have a point though. I have had this debate many times with religious people, and in my experience whenever people challenge their beliefs as being irrational and offer reasons for this, the believers (metaphorically) stick their fingers in their ears and go 'la-la-la'

[Pancake]

He does have a point though. I have had this debate many times with religious people, and in my experience whenever people challenge their beliefs as being irrational and offer reasons for this, the believers (metaphorically) stick their fingers in their ears and go 'la-la-la'

 

But you cant say that about ALL religious poeple. Its akin to saying ALL football followers are tattooed hoolies.

 

Also, I think it would have a lot to do with a) people taking offense to their beliefs being called "irrational" and b) the fact that many religious poeple feel "scared" to talk about their beliefs publicly or privately due to many misconceptions about religions and the way that the mainstream world view religion.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Religion is for weak, insecure people who can't handle the fact that when they die they are just worm meat.

 

Yep that about sums it up for me!

[Pancake]

Religion is for weak, insecure people who can't handle the fact that when they die they are just worm meat.

 

And football is just for thick, brutish people who only want to beat each other up.

 

And the Labour Party is only for northern, working class people who live on the breadline.

 

And Apple computers are only for people who care about looks over function can cant cope with proper computing.

 

And Dance music is solely for drugged up, homosexuals who break into old bulidings.

 

And 4x4s are strictly for middle ages women who take the kids to school and who only care about makeup and porking the pool boy.

 

And Photogrpahy is only got perverts that cant get real girls, so they have stuff to masturbate to.

 

 

All total bullsh!t statements. Stereotypes are great, arent they?

[JonnyLove]

He does have a point though. I have had this debate many times with religious people, and in my experience whenever people challenge their beliefs as being irrational and offer reasons for this, the believers (metaphorically) stick their fingers in their ears and go 'la-la-la'

 

But at the same time you do the same when people challege your beliefs as being irrational and offer reasons to this. Do you not? or do you go fair enough I understand what your saying and now I beleive.

 

No. Because you have built your life around those beleifs so your not going to give them up easily.

 

As I have been saying above. I beleive in what I beleive and don't ram it down others throughts and I expect the same. The funny thing is no religious people tend to be the more vocal and less likley to be tollorent of others beleifs. As you have dictated above.

[hypochondriac]

An interesting debate, and one that has been ongoing for centuries and, no doubt, will continue to be debated for many more centuries to come.

 

Just so everybody is clear on my stance before I continue, I am not a believer in god, and I would probably classify myself as an atheist if I absolutely must pigeon-hole my beliefs.

 

I have had many a debate myself on this subject on other forums, and it always strikes me that the people who vehemently defend christianity, or religion of any kind, tend to be extremely irrational and blinkered when it comes to their own beliefs. There is a guy who I have debated with on another forum who talks in all kinds of riddles about the subject, and when you challenge him on any of the many contradictions in the bible, he always replies with 'God moves in mysterious ways' as if that is all OK and explains everything.

 

His one argument that really got me though was his insistence that to be a christian, you must first accept that we are all sinners in the eyes of god. This statement, to me anyway, throws up all sorts of questions and complications. Firstly, if you believe that God created us all, why then did he create us as sinners? Secondly, why would anybody swear their allegiance to a religion that seeks to impose a sense of inferiority on every one of its members?

 

It is my belief that religion, theistic religion at least, first came about as a way of explaining anything that mankind could not understand, before the advent of scientific method. It was then perpetuated as a way of exercising control over the populace by those with a vested interested in maintaining power over their people.

 

I will never condemn anybody for following God, the bible, or anything associated with the church in that way (although I have met some religious people who talk absolute drivel in my lifetime) because if people find that religion helps them to make sense of the world and they can become happier and healthier from it then that can only be a good thing. But I do take exception to be told by religious types that I must accept Jesus in order to give my life meaning and morality. I am quite capable of following my own moral compass without the need to absorb texts from a 2000-year-old work of fiction. I am a very rational person, and as such I am incapable of allowing myself to be guided unquestionably by religion.

 

He gave free will so that humans could choose for themselves how to live (at least that's what some christians believe.)

[RedAndWhite91]

Interesting stuff, Nineteen. I have been seriously turned off the idea of any organised religion by a 'friend' who one day went to Winchester cathedral and went up the front during a service. He said he was 'touched' by God and he started crying, and now he feels his duty is to convert and preach and stuff. It all started when he got a devout Christian girlfriend, he changed to accommodate her views, then seemed to completely embrace them and take it upon himself to force others to feel the same. He is open to debate and we often argue over the topic. He is religious, I am agnostic/atheist and it often comes to msn blows.

 

The thing that has completely turned me off is his seemingly blind acceptance of Christianity and the way he puts it forward. He won't accept that I am not a 'believer' and bangs on about all sorts of wacky stuff regarding God.

 

In 2007 at 16 years old I was diagnosed with an incurable condition called Addison's Disease and now I have to take medication every day for the rest of my life, if I don't, then I die, simple as that. I probed him during a debate and asked "If there was a God then why have I got AD.. Why do people have cancer, why do people get leukaemia, MS, etc" and he mumbled on, and said things along the line of, not in the exact words, but in the line of, I've somehow deserved it. Needless to say I hit the roof. He then told me that if I believed in God I could get it cured. It's 100% incurable at the moment. These things he said really turned me from the idea of God and his blindness made me angry.

 

He was very irrational when any other view-point was bought up, and he wouldn't understand it's down to opinion. Since he has been at Uni he has opened up to other people's views a bit, but he is still adamantly "GOD EXISTS, YOU ARE WRONG". He has said some ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous things in the past regarding Christianity, and unfortunately I cannot remember some of the things, but him alone has made me reject religion.

 

Sorry for the long post, I didn't really come to any conclusions but thanks for reading if you did.

[hypochondriac]

I think everyone agrees that there are some religious nutters and many idiots who follow christianity. Lets not lose sight of the very intelligent and friendly people who also follow it and who don't try to impose it upon others. If someone is turned off by religion due to someone else trying to ram it down your throat then I think that's a shame. If you have come to the conclusion that religion isn't for you yourself then fair enough. I live my life with an open mind so I wouldn't ever want to dismiss either side of the debate as rubbish because that just leaves you with no room for change and you never know how you will feel a few years down the line.

[View From The Top]

Whilst I'm relaxed enough to not be bothered by peoples beliefs I do find myself thinking that they (believers) are odd at best and, shameful that it is, I find myself looking down on them with a degree of contempt.