Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[dan964]

Of course you are non-liberal - you are christian.

Well some Christians are "liberal" but some are liberals with a "Christian" label attached, in answer to your first line. It depends how you use/define the term I guess. For instance the Uniting Church is considered a liberal church, because of their approach to the Bible and a lot of the issues, such as marriage etc. (Other churches are harder to pinpoint, because it really is a mix).

I don't take that personally as an insult, if I was liberal maybe.

Why did you avoid saying 'conservative'?

Conservative is more associated with politics. I don't know why I did. There are certain issues where I stand, which would put at odds for instance with secular conservative politics, while there are many that put me at odds with secular progressive politics. But yes, on the whole. I also wanted to avoid the generalizations that come from the other side of the table... although some of them might fit the glove.

Politically, yes, I am conservative; but that is because I don't think the Greens policy to be a good idea; and Labor used to seem reasonable. And no I agree, that Trump is a terrible idea (Toby Abbott is marginally better).

edit: Ironically though, I did mention it a couple of posts earlier, if you notice; so I guess it really depended.

Are you someone who believes that christian laws should be forcibly imposed on everyone?

It depends what you define as "Christian laws". There are some laws I hold that should not be changed as they currently stand and so not really. I agree that the church/state should be separate entities but I don't think the separation of the church/state means what some people think it does, namely shut down the church kind of thing. The laws of this country for instance are concerned with today's affairs.

There is also I think a difference, subtle it may be, between liberal and libertarian. Some would argue that some secular ideologies (e.g. humanism, existentialism, possibly even rationalism etc.) started off as "vaguely" Christian and drifted away from its religious elements/distinctives; I find the same with for instance the concepts of democracy and liberty. Obviously that doesn't mean that this society is "Christian", it certainly has gone past that in recent years, not to mention the society was always envisioned as being concerned with its own affairs of now, rather the things of eternity for instance.

>> Clearly those from other religions dispute this (e.g. muslims), as would the atheist in the room, to varying degrees; but that is of course understandable. Obviously left-wing people disagree with this also. <<

But as I am not keen on imposing any laws really; more than not, I wish some laws that are currently in place, not to be changed, that is the difference I guess.

 

[dan964]

Yeah. Such a shame loudness is inversely proportional to rationality.

Is this another one of those statements pulled out of a hat?
I get the [initial] impression, that only if one is socially-liberal they are rational? (maybe start a new thread on that)

But... I think however it goes both ways, loudness comes from both sides of the fence, typically by lobby groups, even the socially-liberal (! unsuprisingly)

 

[dan964]

I wasn't asking you to prove what the kid said. Prove what you said by quoting something from the text to support your answer. "I personally believe that such a lack of education stems from a religious belief. "

Still applies, why would he have to quote the Quran, or for the matter any religious text, to prove his belief**/assertion?? All is going to happen, is a lot of argument/disagreement about what a texts says/context wise.

Why would I have to quote from the Quran, to prove my point for instance; the Quran isn't my authority; and it isn't braintic's either.His authority is something else, that is not in a religious text; while mine is a combination of things also (but ultimately the Scriptures)...

**yes, belief is not the best word I guess.

 

[Paradoxica]

Is this another one of those statements pulled out of a hat?
I get the [initial] impression, that only if one is socially-liberal they are rational? (maybe start a new thread on that)

But... I think however it goes both ways, loudness comes from both sides of the fence, typically by lobby groups, even the socially-liberal (! unsuprisingly)

It works on all sides, it's a universal blanket statement. Both sides have their loudmouths, I prefer to tunnel underneath the fence and listen to both sides shouting to each other at once.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Still applies, why would he have to quote the Quran, or for the matter any religious text, to prove his belief**/assertion?? All is going to happen, is a lot of argument/disagreement about what a texts says/context wise.

Why would I have to quote from the Quran, to prove my point for instance; the Quran isn't my authority; and it isn't braintic's either.His authority is something else, that is not in a religious text; while mine is a combination of things also (but ultimately the Scriptures)...

**yes, belief is not the best word I guess.

But if he believes something, he has to back it up with evidence and quotes. He made the claim that believing in a god results in people encouraged to have a lack of education, so let him quote from my religion and yours where such a theme exists. If it's his opinion where did it derive from? Is it his lack of knowledge or ignorance?

 

[dan964]

But if he believes something, he has to back it up with evidence and quotes. He made the claim that believing in a god results in people encouraged to have a lack of education, so let him quote from my religion and yours where such a theme exists. If it's his opinion where did it derive from? Is it his lack of knowledge or ignorance?

Probably experience is where he derived it from; he probably has other evidence; but that would appear to be the main empirical evidence.

Why would he need to quote it from your religion? Quoting religious text for an atheist rarely proves anything.

 

[dan964]

It works on all sides, it's a universal blanket statement. Both sides have their loudmouths, I prefer to tunnel underneath the fence and listen to both sides shouting to each other at once.

Yes/no, it is a concession, that there are loud groups on both sides, because there are actually is. It really depends though, I find that the loudest cries tend to come from the left; but considering this is not politics; for those within a religion, sometimes I have found, the peaceful majority needs to speak up; this is especially noticeable/apparent in Islam, but the same applies to a lesser extent to the other religions.

But it all depends on the topic at hand as well. On some issues certain people are silent, while on others, they are very vocal. That is understandable. The question is their opinion, rational. You might say no, while others might say yes for instance.

 

[braintic]

But if he believes something, he has to back it up with evidence and quotes. He made the claim that believing in a god results in people encouraged to have a lack of education, so let him quote from my religion and yours where such a theme exists. If it's his opinion where did it derive from? Is it his lack of knowledge or ignorance?

I never claimed that the texts themselves promote a lack of education. I am claiming that when a person believes in something that supposedly explains everything, they often don't see a need to look for the real answers elsewhere.

And surely you can't deny that a high proportion of islamic countries tend to have a lower level of education than the West, whether that is due to religion itself or not - the point that my Islamic student was making. Education does tend to moderate extremism in religion, and those countries most definitely have extremist beliefs.

 

[RenegadeMx]

dw bois islam is truly a religion of peace
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/woman-held-russia-after-handing-7463132

 

[Drsoccerball]

I never claimed that the texts themselves promote a lack of education. I am claiming that when a person believes in something that supposedly explains everything, they often don't see a need to look for the real answers elsewhere.

And surely you can't deny that a high proportion of islamic countries tend to have a lower level of education than the West, whether that is due to religion itself or not - the point that my Islamic student was making. Education does tend to moderate extremism in religion, and those countries most definitely have extremist beliefs.

Yes, that can be true for some people, but if you trully follow Islam you are never happy with the information you have and are always looking to know more whether it is about cells, the universe or any other scientific entity. There's many places in the Quran where it encourages to observe your surroundings and learn more. In fact alot of times it says "Don't you know?" And other things along those lines.

The more you're educated correctly the lower the chance of extremism.

The correct Islamic knowledge and practice of it are directly proportional to the educational levels. If this wasn't the case I wouldn't go to university and would've been happy with just living off something like centerlink or some other funds... (Not saying that my knowledge of Islam is amazing).

 

[Drsoccerball]

dw bois islam is truly a religion of peace
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/woman-held-russia-after-handing-7463132

Which Islamic idea was she following when killing the innocent toddler? This is disgusting and by no means does this represent Islam. Even ISIS fighters wouldn't admit like that lady has admitted to "being a terrorist." Any one can run out in the street screaming Allah hu akbar... Does this mean they represent the whole religion? I can go out into the street and scream Allah hu akbar after saving someone's life or I can go and destroy society and then say Allah hu akbar. We have to see which circumstance truly follows the faith and if saying that really makes your actions justifiable. "Killing one innocent soul is like killing the whole humanity." And certainly that toddler was innocent. If one person rejects one verse of the Quran they are out of faith. So let's ask ourselves again is she really Muslim ?

 

[dan964]

So let's ask ourselves again is she really Muslim?

Irrelevant, I highly doubt it. There are many who use the name of any religion/non-religion to promote violence. The real question is the questions asked in the other thread, what are the others doing about it; and secondly is this actually what the religion, if taken properly teaches?

We all know what moderate Islam teaches? But is moderate Islam the purest form of Islam, is the question we have to ask for instance? Why/why not?

Because education can also lead to extremism, it depends on how/what is taught. If you teach kids for instance, even if it is done thoroughly, but what you teach them is effectively warfare, or how to brandish/use guns, then you have an issue... (although you could infer that is not educational).

Hence a lot of talk in the media about a lot of different programs that exist in schools, concerned about their nature.

 

[Kolmias]

dw bois islam is truly a religion of peace
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/woman-held-russia-after-handing-7463132

You have once again showed your blatant narrow mindedness by holding an entire religion (with it's hundred of thousands of peaceful, honest followers) accountable for the sick crimes of a twisted criminal.

 

[nerdasdasd]

I'm not here to say if I believe God exists or not, I'm just amazed that so many people are willing to waste their time and argue with people who will never change their views. Keep up the good work!

is it wrong for people to have different views?

If people don't challenge views, then you have group think (which is where people with different views don't / are afraid to voice their opinions).

 

[mrstripedshades]

Tbh I dont CARE if God exists. Or not that I dont care, I Dont worry about it because theres no way to know one way or another

I have studied various spiritual/faith texts (not religion. Imo religion is more institutionalised, linear, ritualistic etc. ) to varying degrees and I have a very metaphoric viewing of them (except most of the Bible. Bible is one of the most literal texts in the world to me in the way I read it. But It still has metaphoric elements and I am pretty sure it would've been probably ALTERED to be this way throughout time as its more efficient for the Empire. I really recommend you read Machiavelli in regards to this ) and to me they all speak on ONE THING for SURE. Self Improvement.

And really my idea in this is not alone I feel from reading other writers for even ISLAM. The two most memorable to me are from Mirza Ghalib and Rumi.

Ghalibs one states this in my english translation : "I know Heaven's will, but, to keep the heart happy these thoughts are nice Ghalib."

I forgot the Rumi one actually especially the exact translation as I dont actually speak the language he wrote in even somewhat, its basically like my french, negligible. But its about how he searched for God everywhere and found it only INSIDE.

I honestly think most of the time God is used to refer to the consciousness.

This can obviously be argued and I actually believe in God more so than not but to me it is pointless to worship.

Further on, what I don't understand is why pretty much every organised religion (will just say about Christianity and Islam major ones) is hell bent on ritualism where there are clear morals and indicators to abandon this ritualistic lifestyle.

Jesus; Kicking out the shops in front of the temple (anti institualisation/organised religion(?)), Commanding not to pray just for the sake of it for the sake of being saved, not Praying in public and loud. AKA NOT UNDERSTANDING PRAYER. It is more important to UNDERSTAND PRAYER and LIVE IT OUT rather then RECITE IT NEEDLESSLY.

Muhammad: Displaced extremely ritualistic and surface level worship of Arabic society with intellectual theology and actually understanding texts/literature.

Spoiler

Also imo Shia Islam in its original form was actually the more peaceful version of Islam, though it still is but its different from before. Shiates(Ali) vs Sunnis(Abu Bakr) can be looked at from many angles. Shiates were much more thoughtful, analytical etc. imo whilst Sunni Islam contains much more elements of traditional Arabic religions (rituals) and wanted to even use Islam to conquer the world. Theres a reason why they are the highest in population... And yes the idea that the caliphate shouldn't be blood based is a nice one but misses the point that Ali had actually been raised by Muhammad, who else could understand his line of thinking and attitude regarding faith better ? Who else would have learned it better ?

Im sure this post will piss off people particularly devout Muslims but I am not really bothered by it as its my opinion and understanding


And btw the funny thing is as these religious followers pursue these 'rituals' they dont even follow their religion/faith but rather these rituals.

E.g. A lot of Christians do fuck whatever they want entire week except Sunday, where they 'repent' acting like their actually sorry and not just doing it in case they go to hell(Pascal's wager), Give up something on lent is one of the dumbest concepts if you think its harmful for you so that you give it up why keep it for the rest of they year?

Muslims, So many with tattoos, piercings, do a lot of supposedly harmful substances, touch the opposite sex (again Literal and fundamental view of religion I'm taking here as most followers of Religion have it ), kiss them, but not fuck them so its all good and they starve themselves in one month so its all right ROFL, don't eat pork and maybe don't drink alcohol so its all fine.


If you really have this fundamental view why not carry it out properly? I feel like most people that are still religious are plain scared of death.

And do not realise their religion indicates believing in God for the sake of heaven is not true belief anyway and they will be punished anyway annulling the logic behind Pascal's wager

It's also astounding how one of the most well known writers ever, and that too pretty much ONE BOOK hes known for, talked about the power of religion in controlling a populace. Yet fools still believe it/practice it. Hes completely right that no one in position of power is really religious, no King has ever truely been of faith and those that have been end up being loons or eventually self destructing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolò_Machiavelli#Religion

very basic description of his writings regarding it

And I dont hate islam or anything. Quran is one of my favourite texts actually and I love everything about its poets and especially Sufism's culture.

 

[Paradoxica]

Tbh I dont CARE if God exists. Or not that I dont care, I Dont worry about it because theres no way to know one way or another

I have studied various spiritual/faith texts (not religion. Imo religion is more institutionalised, linear, ritualistic etc. ) to varying degrees and I have a very metaphoric viewing of them (except most of the Bible. Bible is one of the most literal texts in the world to me in the way I read it. But It still has metaphoric elements and I am pretty sure it would've been probably ALTERED to be this way throughout time as its more efficient for the Empire. I really recommend you read Machiavelli in regards to this ) and to me they all speak on ONE THING for SURE. Self Improvement.

And really my idea in this is not alone I feel from reading other writers for even ISLAM. The two most memorable to me are from Mirza Ghalib and Rumi.

Ghalibs one states this in my english translation : "I know Heaven's will, but, to keep the heart happy these thoughts are nice Ghalib."

I forgot the Rumi one actually especially the exact translation as I dont actually speak the language he wrote in even somewhat, its basically like my french, negligible. But its about how he searched for God everywhere and found it only INSIDE.

I honestly think most of the time God is used to refer to the consciousness.

This can obviously be argued and I actually believe in God more so than not but to me it is pointless to worship.

Further on, what I don't understand is why pretty much every organised religion (will just say about Christianity and Islam major ones) is hell bent on ritualism where there are clear morals and indicators to abandon this ritualistic lifestyle.

Jesus; Kicking out the shops in front of the temple (anti institualisation/organised religion(?)), Commanding not to pray just for the sake of it for the sake of being saved, not Praying in public and loud. AKA NOT UNDERSTANDING PRAYER. It is more important to UNDERSTAND PRAYER and LIVE IT OUT rather then RECITE IT NEEDLESSLY.

Muhammad: Displaced extremely ritualistic and surface level worship of Arabic society with intellectual theology and actually understanding texts/literature.

Spoiler

Also imo Shia Islam in its original form was actually the more peaceful version of Islam, though it still is but its different from before. Shiates(Ali) vs Sunnis(Abu Bakr) can be looked at from many angles. Shiates were much more thoughtful, analytical etc. imo whilst Sunni Islam contains much more elements of traditional Arabic religions (rituals) and wanted to even use Islam to conquer the world. Theres a reason why they are the highest in population... And yes the idea that the caliphate shouldn't be blood based is a nice one but misses the point that Ali had actually been raised by Muhammad, who else could understand his line of thinking and attitude regarding faith better ? Who else would have learned it better ?

Im sure this post will piss off people particularly devout Muslims but I am not really bothered by it as its my opinion and understanding


And btw the funny thing is as these religious followers pursue these 'rituals' they dont even follow their religion/faith but rather these rituals.

E.g. A lot of Christians do fuck whatever they want entire week except Sunday, where they 'repent' acting like their actually sorry and not just doing it in case they go to hell(Pascal's wager), Give up something on lent is one of the dumbest concepts if you think its harmful for you so that you give it up why keep it for the rest of they year?

Muslims, So many with tattoos, piercings, do a lot of supposedly harmful substances, touch the opposite sex (again Literal and fundamental view of religion I'm taking here as most followers of Religion have it ), kiss them, but not fuck them so its all good and they starve themselves in one month so its all right ROFL, don't eat pork and maybe don't drink alcohol so its all fine.


If you really have this fundamental view why not carry it out properly? I feel like most people that are still religious are plain scared of death.

And do not realise their religion indicates believing in God for the sake of heaven is not true belief anyway and they will be punished anyway annulling the logic behind Pascal's wager

It's also astounding how one of the most well known writers ever, and that too pretty much ONE BOOK hes known for, talked about the power of religion in controlling a populace. Yet fools still believe it/practice it. Hes completely right that no one in position of power is really religious, no King has ever truely been of faith and those that have been end up being loons or eventually self destructing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolò_Machiavelli#Religion

very basic description of his writings regarding it

And I dont hate islam or anything. Quran is one of my favourite texts actually and I love everything about its poets and especially Sufism's culture.

Have you, by any chance, heard of cognitive dissonance? It covers most of the things you describe in terms of inconsistency in behavioural psychology.

 

[mrstripedshades]

^yea but Im not well aware on it. Need to look into it and psychology in general more

 

[dan964]

is it wrong for people to have different views?

If people don't challenge views, then you have group think (which is where people with different views don't / are afraid to voice their opinions).

no it isn't.

 

[dan964]

I have studied various spiritual/faith texts (not religion. Imo religion is more institutionalised, linear, ritualistic etc. ) to varying degrees and I have a very metaphoric viewing of them (except most of the Bible. Bible is one of the most literal texts in the world to me in the way I read it. But It still has metaphoric elements and I am pretty sure it would've been probably ALTERED to be this way throughout time as its more efficient for the Empire. I really recommend you read Machiavelli in regards to this )

While I agree that the Bible is for the most part literal there are very much elements like apocalyptic literature that read more like "political cartoons", so kind of metaphorical, but different. In terms of alteration of the texts, I would have to disagree, I would agree that translations can alter the text such as Jerome's Vulgate, or the NWO translation that the Jehovah's Witnesses use for instance; but I would disagree at any indication that the New Testament for instance has not been preserved.

and to me they all speak on ONE THING for SURE. Self Improvement.

Not quite, for most religions I would agree. The focus of the Christian faith firstly, (well at least it should be as unfortunately it isn't sometimes) is the objective news about Jesus Christ, his birth (the Incarnation), life, miracles, teachings, death and resurrection. (e.g. Romans 1:1-4). Secondly, Christians technically don't believe that we improve our lives, but rather than our old lives end and we have a new life in Christ. (e.g. 2 Corinthians 5:17; John 3:1-7 etc.) It may seem like a technicality or semantics but there is a difference, rather than 7 steps to improve your lives, the objective news about Jesus Christ, which we call the Gospel, results in new life which leads to eternal life.

I am just explaining my belief, so understandably you won't agree; and also there is a lot of variance within the Christian faith notably, mostly on secondary matters though.

Although I will comment that "self-improvement" is a big problem in modern day ""Christianity"" in the sense that it is really it is an aversion, to what is called MTD (moralistic therapeutic deism) which is basically God is like a genie, (or Santa), where if you rub him the right way, or suck up to him, he will give you what you want - X, Y and Z. But this is not the Christian faith, because the Christian faith is about Christ and what he does, not what we do I guess to suck up to please God.

I honestly think most of the time God is used to refer to the consciousness.
This can obviously be argued and I actually believe in God more so than not but to me it is pointless to worship.

Welcome to the theistic agnostic in the room, I have found there are few of you who are on this thread. Although from memory, there may a religion possibly Hinduism? not sure that actually holds to some universal consciousness. Or maybe I am thinking of panentheism or patheism* and Avatar. (*both of which Christians reject for the matter)

Further on, what I don't understand is why pretty much every organised religion (will just say about Christianity and Islam major ones) is hell bent on ritualism where there are clear morals and indicators to abandon this ritualistic lifestyle.

I really don't know either, and I say that as a Christian. Certain traditions, such as the Lords Supper or baptism are edifying for the church and have basis in the Bible, esp also in the life/teachings of Jesus; others find no basis and are irrelevant whether they stay or not.

Jesus; Kicking out the shops in front of the temple (anti institualisation/organised religion(?)), Commanding not to pray just for the sake of it for the sake of being saved, not Praying in public and loud. AKA NOT UNDERSTANDING PRAYER. It is more important to UNDERSTAND PRAYER and LIVE IT OUT rather then RECITE IT NEEDLESSLY.

I agree which is why Jesus said to make disciples (Matthew 28), not to just lead people through a prayer and hope that they are saved in the end of it. Jesus indeed has it with false organised religion; and hypocrisy.

And btw the funny thing is as these religious followers pursue these 'rituals' they dont even follow their religion/faith but rather these rituals.

E.g. A lot of Christians do fuck whatever they want entire week except Sunday, where they 'repent' acting like their actually sorry and not just doing it in case they go to hell(Pascal's wager), Give up something on lent is one of the dumbest concepts if you think its harmful for you so that you give it up why keep it for the rest of they year?

I am not [Roman] Catholic, so I cannot comment on Lent; but I will say I totally agree as would a lot from my position, is you cannot be half-committed I guess or nominal (which is the term used to describe such people as above). I think that that "repentance" should actually mean the rest of the life is not "do whatever I want". So you again find much agreement with me.

If you really have this fundamental view why not carry it out properly? I feel like most people that are still religious are plain scared of death.
And do not realise their religion indicates believing in God for the sake of heaven is not true belief anyway and they will be punished anyway annulling the logic behind Pascal's wager

I don't like death but I am not scared of it. Yes, believing in God, because of Christ is true belief; I see no issue however if eternal life is a motivation; but again from my faith, Christ has taken away sin and death, so that there is no need to fear death (in theory). In fact, we were discussing this on Monday, what should our motivation to turn to Christ. And yes, if fear is all that there is; it doesn't get anywhere.

Secondly, I personally think Pascal's wager is silly. The only good use is has to get people thinking and thats it. It isn't a strong argument for faith at all.

 

[Paradoxica]

Wasn't there a time when the scientific and societal progress of the Middle East was further along than the West? Too bad that didn't lead anywhere and the West caught up.