[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

That's fine, but we were talking about marriage, so that really doesn't apply.

You were talking about a marriage based on transient passion.

[Dakarʒ]

I have my theories as to why people get married, and I'm not going to derail the thread by discussing them here.

To call people who see marriage and religion as being equally important superficial or bowing to self-gratification I find patently absurd. Just because some people show poor judgement doesn't mean that anybody worrying about love and companionship is being superficial.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You were talking about a marriage based on transient passion.

I was? I don't remember naming any type of passion at all.

Edit: I think you'll have to point out what the transient passion was too, while you're at it

[Graviton]

What if you fell in love with a Jewish chick, she fulfilled all your spiritual requirements as well as emotional needs, so you got married, then she lost her faith, became atheist, got it back again, converted to Islam, then you found out she was really a guy, a post-op transsexual? What then?

That kind of stuff happens all the time. More than most people think.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're telling me that people never get married for the wrong reasons? I guess that's why marriage is so successful in America.

Honestly, I think the reason divorce rates are so high in some countries is to do with the following:

1. We're born. Age 0.
2. We go to school. 4-17 or so.
3. Higher ed or work. 17-60.
4. We retire.
5. We die.

We work 6 days a week, 8 hours a day, maybe tag a few hours of travel time on, per day. One day off per week, which is mostly spent just doing nothing because we're so ****ing worn out.

If you're lucky enough to have found a great relationship through that, chances are you'll wanna hold on to it, because who knows when, amongst all that crap we call a life, you'll have time to find another?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I was? I don't remember naming any type of passion at all.

Unless I got confused by the train of conversation, it sounded like you were talking about marrying somebody you know isn't right for you in the long run out of a need for "love and companionship."

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Unless I got confused by the train of conversation, it sounded like you were talking about marrying somebody you know isn't right for you in the long run out of a need for "love and companionship."

I get lost in these conversations too.

I thought we were talking about marrying someone who you are in love with despite they're being a different religion.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I am not saying my potential offspring would necessarily contribute all that much to future generations of Jews. Moreover, let me clarify the point that I also believe Judaism will survive in spite of anything any earthly power does. I am saying that if I were to get married, it would be to a Jew because I cannot understand not sharing the same religion; if I were to have children they would have to be born to a Jewish mother. If my children felt it proper to carry on in my tradition (in the tradition of my parents and their parents, so on and so forth), that would be up to them, but whatever the case may be in the future these are just core principles of mine that are not subject to change.

So what you are saying is that you want a subservient woman that is a Big Mac clone, at least in respect to their thoughts regarding your religion? You aren't married are you? By any chance, would this wife be a stay home wife/Mom that cooks and cleans too?

I don't get it. I just don't understand why a companion with their own thoughts and on their own life path would not be desirable? I mean, if they happen to have the same beliefs as you, great, but making this a pre-requisite?

What would happen if this wife were to be become disillusioned by your religion? Would you divorce her?

Love? Companionship? Yeah, those are things I desire, but I am not ruled by my desires. My desires are subordinate to my intellect. While many of you don't think religion is rational or intellectual, I personally do, and my religion is one of the key intellectual foundations that guide my conduct. The type of girl I wish to be with is my call, and while I appreciate your ostensible concern for my needs, simple self-gratification isn't my highest objective.

Your religion is only important to you because of biological needs - to assign meaning to things, to believe in a higher power, etc. We are all ruled by our needs, this is who we are. One of our needs is companionship of some form.

And no, no faith is an intellectual choice, because faith itself is not logical. This doesn't mean there is something wrong with faith or having faith in something.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

Honestly, I think the reason divorce rates are so high in some countries is to do with the following:

1. We're born. Age 0.
2. We go to school. 4-17 or so.
3. Higher ed or work. 17-60.
4. We retire.
5. We die.

We work 6 days a week, 8 hours a day, maybe tag a few hours of travel time on, per day. One day off per week, which is mostly spent just doing nothing because we're so ****ing worn out.

If you're lucky enough to have found a great relationship through that, chances are you'll wanna hold on to it, because who knows when, amongst all that crap we call a life, you'll have time to find another?

This is the most depressing thing I have ever read.

Awesome.

Edit: You work 6 days a week?

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

While many of you don't think religion is rational or intellectual, I personally do, and my religion is one of the key intellectual foundations that guide my conduct. The type of girl I wish to be with is my call, and while I appreciate your ostensible concern for my needs, simple self-gratification isn't my highest objective.

I think this is exactly what Dawkins is talking about when he uses the term, "compartmentalising the mind". What you believe could not possibly bear up under a cold, rational scrutiny. Therefore, in order to sustain your faith, your intellect must be at odds with itself. Faith, Locke said, is the assent to any proposition, on the credit of the proposer. No reasonable mind would accept that, and critical thought—intellect—has nothing to do with it.

But since you take an intellectual view of religion, prehaps you can explain, or refute, this characterization of your God:

Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, is "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

—Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

I also find it quite amusing that for the first time in the Lounge's history, a religious topic has been derailed and turned into a discussion about love rather than hate.

There's a first time for everything...

Oops, sorry about that.

I hate bell peppers.

[Graviton]

I love bell peppers. I grow them in my garden every year.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

What if you fell in love with a Jewish chick, she fulfilled all your spiritual requirements as well as emotional needs, so you got married, then she lost her faith, became atheist, got it back again, converted to Islam, then you found out she was really a guy, a post-op transsexual? What then?

You should probably book an appointment with the optician. I mean, if you can't tell a tranny from a real woman then you need glasses.

[Graviton]

Clearly you’ve never been to Singapore

[Doofy]

Avoid the plastic tits and you can't go far wrong.

[Graviton]

I just realised that all this tranny talk is actually quite topical, considering Richard Dawkins shagged Mr Harrison in an episode of South Park.

Coincidence? Accident? Chance? Karma? Allah? Thor? God and her meddling fingers?

You decide.

[Saetre]

This really is a stumper. I've been thinking about this question for years and I've come to the conclusion that religion belief is probably the result of several miscellaneous facts about the human mind. Chief among these:

1) It is useful for survival machines to recognize that the world contains a very important class of entities that all exhibit a shared set properties. We call this set of entities 'lifeforms' and chief among their properties is what we conceive of as 'intentionality'. Since other life forms are among the most useful or dangerous elements in our environment it shouldn't be a surprise that we have evolved neural mechanisms for recognizing and predicting the behavior of these entities in a way that takes advantage of useful assumptions which allow for quick decision making. Since intentional agents can be so dangerous, it makes sense that the neural mechanism that recognizes them has an itchy trigger finger, misfiring inappropriately and misidentifying non-intentional phenomena as intentional agents.

Animism is the clearest result of this tendency. Our cavemen ancestors felt 'evil' presences in the shadows and called them spirits. They felt anger in storms and power in the sun, and called them gods (or the results of them). We did not evolve mechanisms to counter these misfires because they were minimally damaging and protected us from the real danger that may sometimes lurks in place of spirits.

2) This is similar to the first idea. We seem to have a lot of trouble conceptualizing the end of the existence of those we knew well. At first this seems baffling. If our brains are smart enough to solve extremely complex problems, then why is it that they usually cannot do something so simple as imagine the end of a conscious beings conscious existence. Instead people from all (most?) cultures have ideas about an after-life or rebirth, even though this idea seems preposterous given the models we form of the real world. We can easily fathom the concept of rocks losing their 'rockyness' when they are ground to sand, or of meat losing it's meatiness when it is digested to feces. Why can't we we easily conceptualize that people lose their 'peopleyness' when their bodies are converted to worm poop? It could be wishful thinking (who wants to be worm poop?!) but I think there is more to it.

Since we are social animals we obviously have neural mechanisms dedicated to dealing with individuals. We somehow 'model' the attributes of individual in our brains, which we can then use to make predictions that help us deal with them. These models are still useful for us after someone dies. We can use what we learned from them in their life, to help us in ours. So it makes sense that we don't just throw the model out, but keep it vivid and alive in our minds. Perhaps this leads us to feel that in some way they are not really dead. There is still 'a way Uncle Herbert' would act in any given situation even though your uncle is long gone.

Or perhaps it has nothing to do with this. Perhaps the belief that the spirits of others persist is just an extension of the belief that our own spirits will continue to exist. We are no better at imagining an end to our own existence, than we are of the existence of others. Perhaps this has more pratical explanation. At no point in our lives have we ever experienced 'non-existence'. By definition this is impossible. But since we only know what we have experienced or heard from others, non-existence seems impossible since apparently its never happened.

Our brains may also prevent us from contemplating spiritual death because it would lead to maladaptive life decisions. Take for example, the hypothetical example of a hunter. Let's say if the hunter took few risks and hunted only fowl and small game then his life expectancy would be 35 years (very long by caveman standards) but his reproductive success would be only 3 moderately healthy children, spaced widely apart. Alternately the hunter could take risks and hunt large game like wildbeast. His life expectancy might only be 25 but his average reproductive success could be greater on average, say 5 robust children spaced closely. An individual who feared death and appreciated life might be too likely to make the first decision based on reason, leaving evolution no choice but to lobotomize our rationality and convince us that we somehow live again after we die. It might even give us the tendency to believe that the greater our triumphs in life, the greater our rewards will be in the after-life. This idea is startlingly common among a diverse selection of world religions.

3) I believe that the neural mechanism that underly consciousness are a result of the framework that underlies our adaptations for dealing with organisms that we deem to have intentions. It works by modeling the behaviors of other intentional agents using our own brains as a template for doing so. This is better than creating a behavioral program for interacting (socializing, hunting, etc) that is evolutionarily inflexible, based on life experience, or any combination of the two. It is a huge advantage to be able to use ones own 'inner experiences' to model the behavior of others instead of relying on a program that we would consider unconscious. I'm providing a woefully impoverished explanation, because this is an extremely complex idea with a minefield of philosophical and common-sense perplexities that are very difficult to clear. Read about it on google if you want. It's an amazing idea.

Anyway, my point is that in order to create an accurate model of others, we need to mirror them in as many ways as possible. Otherwise using our internal model will be less accurate than it could be. So if your compatriots believe that Odin is chief among the gods and that the stolen livestock are the result of the machinations of Loki, it's to your advantage to believe them. Recognizing this point is vital because it explains so much. Why do we befriend people who have the same interests, religions, and races as ourselves? This may seem obvious, but it's not. People with differing interests have differing skill sets, which will likely be complementary. People from different races have very different experiences and outlooks on the world. So much could be learned from them. People with different religions likely have a similarly diverse skill set. Yet we tend to shun these people, often battling them viciously, and instead befriend those who are most similar to us. The reason? People who are most similar to us share brains that are largely the same. This makes assumptions about them that we glean from our own minds much more accurate than those of others. Since people lie, cheat and back-stab, you are much better off associating with those whose treachery is the most detectable.

Having similar minds helps with cooperation. It is easiest to work with people who share the same assumptions because less communicating and debate is required to accomplish a given task. For example, hunters from two different traditions have different techniques and cannot easily work together at stalking prey.

So if we are going to make allies and friends, all else being equal, we should find those who are, basically, most like us. (evolutionarily speaking) Specialization isn't bad, but the cultural roots really do matter a lot.

This explains why people stick to their culture's way of doing things with such tenacity. The better they fit in, the better allies they make. Those who deviate may have something wrong with them. Modern examples range from the inept (nerds) to the strange (goths and punks). 'Normal' members of society tend to avoid being friends with former because they are considered harder to understand and hence trust. The latter are purposefully flouting the cultural norm and are mistrusted fro the same reason. On the other end of the spectrum are the men in almost identical business suits who seem to be doing their darndest to fit in.

I went a little off topic here. The point is that there is strong evolutionary pressure for behavior that mirrors the norm of society as closely as possibly. This explains why we cling so tenaciously to our ideas, especially those about religion, which seem so weird to atheists.

So ideas 1 and 2 explain why the god and spirit idea is so widespread and idea 3 explains why they persist for so long and are so vigorously defended. This isn't quite the end of it. When neighboring tribes and people formed alliances they would often adopt some of each others gods. It should be obvious from the previous discussion, why this is a great way to seal a deal. It shows a willingness to acquire a similar cultural identity, which is the first step toward merging the minds of the groups enough to form trusting relations.

4) So how does religion turn from a useful cultural 'secret handshake' and some talk about spirits and family gods into what it is today? Since religions spread much like genes through a population of minds, we can think of them as evolving. Those religions that possess the best tactics for spreading themselves, do so and threaten to take over the minds of more and more people. These things help them do it in obvious ways:

-talk of heaven and hell
-sending missionaries
-threatening people to convert or else
-promoting behaviors that cause the possessors to prosper and make their religion seem desirable
-promoting lots of childbearing (banning contraception and abortion or simply making fecund mothers well respected)

It's in this stage that religion becomes very scary to me.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

It's in this stage that religion becomes very scary to me.

You scare easily.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You scare easily.

I could be wrong, but aren't you one of those who harps against the dangers of the Muslim terrorists?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

I could be wrong, but aren't you one of those who harps against the dangers of the Muslim terrorists?

Yeah, but that's because those particular people are a threat. I'd be harping on about them if they were Britney Spears fans if they posed a threat.

Nowt threatening about Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Jains, etc., etc.. Nowt threatening even with the Xenu botherers. So it ain't "religion", it's just that one particular bunch of fruit loops and their peculiar little cult.

[- - e r i k - -]

That was one wilfully ignorant statement. It takes conviction to make one die for a cause. And save for patriotism, religion is the chief supplier of conviction to take tribalism to a malevolent level.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

That was one wilfully ignorant statement. It takes conviction to make one die for a cause. And save for patriotism, religion is the chief supplier of conviction to take tribalism to a malevolent level.

So really, anybody people care a lot about is evil?

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yeah, but that's because those particular people are a threat. I'd be harping on about them if they were Britney Spears fans if they posed a threat.

Nowt threatening about Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Jains, etc., etc.. Nowt threatening even with the Xenu botherers. So it ain't "religion", it's just that one particular bunch of fruit loops and their peculiar little cult.

What Erik said. Some brands of Christianity are worrysome too, but not so much as Islam. Those other religions haven't been infected as much with the stuff I mentioned in section 4. But whether I find the religions scary or not is inconsequential to my ideas...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

That was one wilfully ignorant statement. It takes conviction to make one die for a cause. And save for patriotism, religion is the chief supplier of conviction to take tribalism to a malevolent level.

Ain't ya forgetting about all the commies dying for their cause?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

Some brands of Christianity are worrysome too

Such as...?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Such as...?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So really, anybody people care a lot about is evil?

That was an interesting, yet meaningless spin.

Do I really need to qualify it by saying "anything people care about that causes harm unto others" is evil?

Really now...

[Saetre]

These guys (especially when they hold political power. We have some real nutters here in the states):

The End is Nigh? Newsweek Periscope Patton Dodd FAQ End Times Evangelical Christians -- Beliefnet.com

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Oh yeah, you'd better bolt and deadlock your doors tonight in case those people come around with their chainsaws and machetes.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

These guys (especially when they hold political power. We have some real nutters here in the states):

The End is Nigh? Newsweek Periscope Patton Dodd FAQ End Times Evangelical Christians -- Beliefnet.com

So, how many times have they tried to convert you to their faith at gunpoint?

[Saetre]

But I'm most concerned about a resurgence of Christianity's bloody past. You all killed and converted most of the 'savages', but there are still all those damn Muslim's to attend to...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

But I'm most concerned about a resurgence of Christianity's bloody past. You all killed and converted most of the 'savages', but there are still all those damn Muslim's to attend to...

Christianity doesn't have a bloody past. The church has a bloody past.

The NT specifically says that if someone doesn't want to hear the message then you should shake the dust off your feet and trot on to the next town. Anything forced is contrary to Christianity.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, how many times have they tried to convert you to their faith at gunpoint?

Did I ever say they tried to do that? I do worry somewhat that they will try and turn my children into lunatics who will then end up waisting their lives in the name of God. But I'm pretty sure I'll do a good enough job of innocolating them against that.

But really, I've had this debate a hundred times. Some forms of Christianity are very annoying, they promote braindead political policies and make people who are unable to function normally in society. On the other hand most Christians are just fine, in my opinion. None of this has anything to do with the topic at hand - something which I dealt with at length in my post.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ain't ya forgetting about all the commies dying for their cause?

Well there you go. An ideology that causes people to exert violence or otherwise harm others is bad - religiously motivated or not.

However it's a hell of a lot easier dying for a cause if you believe in a rewarding afterlife.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Christianity doesn't have a bloody past. The church has a bloody past.

The NT specifically says that if someone doesn't want to hear the message then you should shake the dust off your feet and trot on to the next town. Anything forced is contrary to Christianity.

Fine. Call the bloody ones Bloodhristians then. I don't approve of Bloodhristians or the Christians I mentioned in my previous post. Happy?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Well there you go. An ideology that causes people to exert violence or otherwise harm others is bad - religiously motivated or not.

Well, that's just people, ain't it?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

Some forms of Christianity are very annoying

It appears that we've gone from them being scary mofos to "very annoying"?

Originally Posted by Saetre 

they promote braindead political policies

Right. So no non-Christian politician ever had a brain-dead idea/policy.

Originally Posted by Saetre 

and make people who are unable to function normally in society.

Define "function normally in society". Is that your idea of "normal" or my idea of "normal"?

You sure you're not just a little bigoted towards folks who live their lives in a different way to how you live yours?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Oh yeah, you'd better bolt and deadlock your doors tonight in case those people come around with their chainsaws and machetes.

Doofy, he has nothing to justify to you. Open up a history book and you'll observe a number of wars fought in the name of Christianity, this ought to speak for itself.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It appears that we've gone from them being scary mofos to "very annoying"?

They annoy me. The thought of my child growing up to be one of them scares me. I'm also scared about the direction my country is going in, due largely to the control the religious right has over my country. Now, don't counter with something about liberals, because they are awful as well, much worse than the slightly religious or non-religious Republicans, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Right. So no non-Christian politician ever had a brain-dead idea/policy.

Did I ever say that??? No. I'm not going to continue this discussion if you continue with that BS.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Define "function normally in society". Is that your idea of "normal" or my idea of "normal"?

I don't want my sons giving up any opportunities for happiness and prosperity in this life, in hopes for a reward in the next. I don't want them to have hellfire nightmares, unnecessary guilt, an unsatisfying social life, social rejection or priestly ambitions. I don't want them to make asses of themselves in public places, unnecessarily hate harmless people (like homosexuals or atheists) or disbelieve in evolution. I would prefer that they don't go to church or do any other, less serious sillyness like that.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You sure you're not just a little bigoted towards folks who live their lives in a different way to how you live yours?

No, they only bother me when they are trying to turn my people into nitwits. And if you're calling me bigoted for that, so be it. This extreme sort of tolerance is overrated hippy BS. Sometimes idiots benefit from being told what they are.

[Saetre]

Any when I say 'idiots' I mean the fanatics, not the ordinary religious folks.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

That was an interesting, yet meaningless spin.

Do I really need to qualify it by saying "anything people care about that causes harm unto others" is evil?

Really now...

Let me break it down for you. You said religion is evil because people care so much about it, which means it can be used to motivate them to do evil things. By this reasoning, isn't anything people care very much about similarly evil? For instance, love has been used to persuade people to do awful things — is love evil because it "causes harm unto others"?

[ebuddy]

The truth is, there are conflicting ideals among humans. Most hold some faith, others hold no faith, and some are still... well they're still holding out in general. Those who believe truth is relative can never be certain of that. I am Christian because I believe there is absolute truth. Believing in absolute truth is not contradictory of itself. Absolute truth regarding an infinite God may still be truth while eluding the confines of our understanding. Most efforts to prove the existence of God are conducted in vain and I dare say, the proof may very well be staring us in the face anyway.

I am not religious. Within the various religions of Christianity, there is conflict. I am not religious. The older I get, the less religious and more Christian I become. Therefore, I do not include myself with the statements of this thread regarding Religion and stupidity. That was easy wasn't it?

I do not persecute those of other religions because quite frankly, I don't need to. According to Christianity, the wage of one sin is death. I've been guilty of sin. I know all others have likewise been guilty of sin. It is not my obligation to point out the sin or misdirection of others, it is to be available to those in need. I believe everyone at some point in their lives; no matter how self-sufficient, no matter how self-empowered, no matter how self-confident, will come to a place of need. I do not need to persecute others because many have already persecuted themselves, excluding themselves from religion believing there is some arbitrary prerequisite to faith. Faith is what it is, take it or leave it. If there is absolute truth, the only sin one may have committed is not taking it. I do not persecute others because I am not a perfect Christian and there are plenty of things for which I can (and likely will) be persecuted for.

To persecute someone of faith is to persecute all human kind. To persecute Christianity for greed, self-service, governance and control, oppression, murder, hatred and stupidity while failing to acknowledge Religion's role in formal education, liberation, language, writing, arithmetic, the arts, architecture, science, health care and medicine, is to indict all of human nature with a very broad and "stupid" brush. I think one would be as hard-pressed in proving these human attributes (good and bad) are exclusive to the religious as it would be to prove the existence of a god.

How can so many be so stupid? I don't know. I think a better question is how can anyone possibly know how smart they really are?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Let me break it down for you. You said religion is evil because people care so much about it, which means it can be used to motivate them to do evil things. By this reasoning, isn't anything people care very much about similarly evil? For instance, love has been used to persuade people to do awful things — is love evil because it "causes harm unto others"?

Maybe you should try to refrain from putting words into my mouth. Twisting what I say to make it meaningless by the use of ridiculous comparisons and conjecture really isn't working on me. Being overly anal too is

First of all I did not say religion is evil because people care so much about it.

Religion (in it's various forms, here should be read as organised religion the anal of you) is "evil"* for these reasons:
1) It is forced upon children by means of indoctrination
2) It is a hinder for enlightenment, science and rational thought
3) It encourages tribalism ("my religion is better than yours")
4) It is used as a political tool
5) Belief in an after-life, and especially a rewarding one, is a very powerful tool for a twisted mind to justify evil actions

Now no one here would argue that without religion "evil" would not exist. Human nature can't be helped. But unquestioning faith is dangerous since it gives the wrong-doers the motivation of righteousness: in their mind, whatever action they perform it can always be rationalised with religion.

[torsoboy]

It's not really that there is no evidence to support God, it's that some people choose not to look at the evidence when it is presented to them. Many many people have religious experiences where they believe that they are helped by their God... here are a few examples:

*) Some people are healed overnight when they had a deadly disease the night before
*) Some people hear promptings telling them what others need... they are prompted to drive up to house X and give them a bag of groceries when they don't even know the people but later find out that they were almost starving; or they feel that their child is in danger only to rush over and grab out and grab their kid before a car speeds right over the spot their kid just was. Etc.
*) In times of trouble those that turn to God often feel an everwhelming "peace" come over them. A feeling that there is someone that loves them and will stick by them.
*) When people have a difficult decision to make in their life praying often results in that decision becoming easier... as if someone that knows more than you do is there willing to guide you in the right direction.
*) Someone gets in a terrible terrible accident where they should have died, yet they come out unscathed.
*) Plants, trees, etc. Did they also evolve from a fish that craweled out of the see or single cell organism that mutated over millions of years in a "survival of the fitest" type of contest?
*) The entire universe. What big bang did that whole thing come from?

I know that you hard core anti-god people will come up with your own version of how the things listed above could happen without a God, but all you are doing is trying to prove to yourself that you are right. People have *seen* God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. There are plenty of witnesses to that in the Bible and in our own times. You can't really get more evidence than people actually seeing him, touching him, and hearing them (not to mention the items mentioned above). If you choose not to believe it then that is your own personal decision, but for those of us who have actually taken the time to get on our knees and sincerely ask for a confirmation of his presence we *know* it is true because it has been confirmed to us (not because we read it in a book). Reading the bible might make people interested in God, but it is not the reading that confirms it for anyone.

There was a comment in this thread about christians either being born into it or becoming christian because of a long standing custom... FYI, not all christians were born into it or had it in their lives while growing up. I know multiple people that have been cast out of their families and have been rejected by all of their previous "friends" because they found something that they believe is true. There are many people who have had experiences that turned their lives to God when they were total opposites before the experiences.

Also, it is not just the ignorant people that believe in God; many many high ranking, very inteligent people believe in God. There is more to this life than just what you can see and touch. So what do you think, is it them that are ignorant, or could it possibly be you?

Originally Posted by Saetre 

I don't want my sons giving up any opportunities for happiness and prosperity in this life, in hopes for a reward in the next.

Most of us that believe in God do not feel like we are "giving up any opportunities for happiness and prosperity in this life", and neither would one of your sons if he decided to learn more about God.

Originally Posted by Saetre 

An unsatisfying social life, social rejection

Once again, most Christians do not feel that way about their lives. It is your view that Christians have an unsatisfying social life, but what if to your son it was a more satisfying to hang our with people and talk about God than going out and banging the girl next door? Do you want whatever is best for your son, or whatever is best for you? Or can't you see the difference?

Originally Posted by Saetre 

I would prefer that they don't go to church or do any other, less serious sillyness like that.

How can you have a problem with someone going to church?? If you feel it is a waste of time that's understandable for someone that doesn't believe in God, but wouldn't staying home to drink beer and watch football also be a waste of time and be "silly"? Do you also have a problem with that? Seriously, how can you have a problem with someone socializing with others that share their same beliefs in an environment that is clean, safe, and makes people feel happy?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Oh yeah, you'd better bolt and deadlock your doors tonight in case those people come around with their chainsaws and machetes.

Indoctrination of children is the worst kind of violence

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

How can you have a problem with someone going to church?? If you feel it is a waste of time that's understandable for someone that doesn't believe in God, but wouldn't staying home to drink beer and watch football also be a waste of time and be "silly"? Do you also have a problem with that? Seriously, how can you have a problem with someone socializing with others that share their same beliefs in an environment that is clean, safe, and makes people feel happy?

My post was addressing the ultra-zealous religious. I was talking about those people who are so obsessed with religion that they do not lead mentally or (dare I say) spiritually happy lives. Taken to an excess, sitting around watching football and drinking beer is also a horrible way to lead ones life. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I never suggested otherwise... My problem with Christianity is that there are viral variants that ruin people's lives all the time. If you manage to do alright with yours, I have no problem with that at all. I still consider the viral ones a danger, and would not let my children hang around those infected people anymore than I'd let them hang around drug dealers or pimps.

There are ways besides church to socialize in a clean, safe environment that makes people happy and don't involve medieval indoctrination.

But frankly, I think it's quite fine and healthy to be a little religious if that's what floats your boat. I just want more for my children.

[- - e r i k - -]

Is this list supposed to be serious arguments?

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

*) Some people are healed overnight when they had a deadly disease the night before

Argument from miracles. Proof please. No, anecdotes do not count.

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

*) Some people hear promptings telling them what others need... they are prompted to drive up to house X and give them a bag of groceries when they don't even know the people but later find out that they were almost starving; or they feel that their child is in danger only to rush over and grab out and grab their kid before a car speeds right over the spot their kid just was. Etc.

Again. Argument from anecdotes. Lots of people have these "unexplainable experiences", religious or not. Basically it boils down to your mind playing tricks on you.

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

*) In times of trouble those that turn to God often feel an everwhelming "peace" come over them. A feeling that there is someone that loves them and will stick by them.

I get the same way when I turn to my fiancé, whether she's there or not. Maybe she is God? Maybe all those who meditate also inadvertently is talking to God too.

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

*) When people have a difficult decision to make in their life praying often results in that decision becoming easier... as if someone that knows more than you do is there willing to guide you in the right direction.

Yes, pondering over a subject in a focused manner usually makes it easier to come up with a decision. What has God got to do with it. A prayer is just a conversation you have with yourself. Put more trust in yourself instead of some unknown entity.

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

*) Someone gets in a terrible terrible accident where they should have died, yet they come out unscathed.

* Someone gets in a terrible terrible accident, they die. Where is God?

And even in your case, giving God the credit is a stretch. Human reactions and luck has nothing to do with it?

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

*) Plants, trees, etc. Did they also evolve from a fish that craweled out of the see or single cell organism that mutated over millions of years in a "survival of the fitest" type of contest?

Argument from ignorance.

Someone needs a primer in evolution. Sheesh. Don't they teach this in school anymore?

But to humour you, yes plants and trees evolved the same way animals do. Plants evolved from green algae way before "fish crawled on land".

If you are really interesting in learning, I can direct you to:
Green algae and the origin of land plants -- Lewis and McCourt 91 (10): 1535 -- American Journal of Botany

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

*) The entire universe. What big bang did that whole thing come from?

Argument From Design.

The big one. Why are we here? How did it happen? Also an argument from ignorance:

It goes like this: I can't understand X, therefore God must be responsible for X.

No. It's not a very good one I'm afraid.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Argument from ignorance.

Someone needs a primer in evolution. Sheesh. Don't they teach this in school anymore?

But to humour you, yes plants and trees evolved the same way animals do. Plants evolved from green algae way before "fish crawled on land".

Oh wow, I missed that on my quick skim through his post. What a way to defenestrate ones credibility!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

First of all I did not say religion is evil because people care so much about it.

As far as I can tell, you did. In response to Doofy's assertion that religion is not inherently evil and it's just that some nutbars happen to be religious, you said, "It takes conviction to make one die for a cause. And save for patriotism, religion is the chief supplier of conviction to take tribalism to a malevolent level." If you were not saying it's people's deep religious and patriotic fervor that causes them (or at least gives them the potential) to do horrible things, I'm not sure exactly what you meant by that.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you were not saying it's people's deep religious and patriotic fervor that causes them (or at least gives them the potential) to do horrible things, I'm not sure exactly what you meant by that.

That is what I am saying. It is however not synonymous with saying that religion is inherently evil though. That's a far stretch by anyone's imagination.