Smart people don't believe in god...

[Cantousent]

Ahh, you remembered. :D

 

...But I'm not being a relativist in this case. I have no argument against mathmatics. Hell, I'm just jonesin' to get to the point where I can express my extreme views. heh heh

[metadigital]

faith [fayth]

(plural faiths)

noun

1.  belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof 

2.  religion religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it 

3.  religion trust in God: belief in and devotion to God

Her faith is unwavering.

 

4.  set of beliefs: a strongly held set of beliefs or principles

people of different political faiths

 

5.  loyalty: allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something 

 

Microsoft

[Atomic Space Vixen]

I get a kick out of folks suggesting that Buddhism is a non-violent religion.  Christianity is a non-violent religion by the same standards.  Christians can be quite violent.  The core of Buddhism is non-violent, but there have been some notably violent Buddhists.  They have great temples, though.  The idea of tolerance should include taking a profession of faith as the core tenets of the religion rather than what some of the members have done in its name.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a difference between a person of a certain religion doing violence and violence being done in the name of a certain religion. I have been unable to find any examples of wars being started in the name of Buddhism, and I tried. I'm unaware of where in the teachings of Buddha it says to kill homosexuals, adulterers, witches, or people of other religions. Christianity is nowhere near a non-violent religion by the same standards, as its history is full of war and violence, as is the Bible.

 

I'm just going to use the New Testament here, because quoting the Old Testament wouldn't be fair as the coming of Jesus was supposed to make all the violent stuff in the OT irrelavent...

 

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Or not, I guess, but I will still be nice and not quote the OT and all the violence it calls for.)

 

Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

 

Matthew 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. (Because of Jesus.)

 

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (More alleged words of Jesus.)

 

Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

Matthew 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

 

There is much of this repeated in the other three Gospels, so I won't repeat them but instead move on...

 

Acts 3:22

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

3:23

And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

 

2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power

 

Hebrews 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (In other words, back to the OT... You'd better be obeying Leviticus or you die! No wonder so many Christians don't actually obey the bloody orders of the Bible.)

 

I could go on and on, and I haven't even touched Revelation. I'd be interested in hearing where the teachings of Buddha comes even close to the non-violence preached by the Bible.

[FaramirK]

there is a difference between the belief needed to accept that this thing in front of me is in fact a dog, and belief/faith in a supernatural being.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, but I disagree with the idea that if a person decides that what we call a dog is to him a cat, it is truely a cat in his reality. In fact, he is just ignorant, or suffering from a mental disorder. There has to be absolute truth, in my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well what *is* that absolute thruth then?

 

The absolute truth is what governs the lives of the "average" person who has better things to do than question every generally accepted fact and engage in whimsical philosophy.

 

that the cat or dog exist? how do you know for 100% certainty?

 

Achem's Razor. It's more likely a dog than not. Consider:

 

Is a dog a dog? Yes.

 

Can you make me think a cat is a dog? Yes, you could fool me using optical illusions for example.

 

Does me thinking its a dog make it one? No.

 

The absolute truth is that it is a cat that looks like a dog.

 

What if I really really believe its a dog? Then I'm either deluded, or insane.

 

they are both a bunch of atoms fused togehter? 99% of the creature and everyting is in reality nothing

 

Strawman argument. 99% of everything is not nothing. 100% of sa thing is the thing it is at the atomic level. Just because 99% + of the space an atom occupies is "empty" does not equate that the empty space is part of the said thing.

 

.. is it based on what you see, hear or feel? if I strip away all your senses .. what is reality then??

 

I you strip away all my senses, I am braindead (or at least comatose), and the absolute truth is that the world will continue as it is.

[metadigital]

But Im with you, IMO, believing in god is not one bit different than believing in Santa Claus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well you now Santa isn't real...you're can't be sure bout God :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. No known species of reindeer that can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not completely rule out flying reindeer (which only Santa has ever seen.)

 

2. There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total-378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

 

3. Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept),we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc. This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second-a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

 

4. The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload-not even counting the weight of the sleigh-to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison-this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

 

5. 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance-this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecrafts re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

 

:D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're forgetting Santa's bag of holding ( ), the multi-dimensional wormhole that leads to his storehouse of toys. As for timing, all he needs to do is slow time's forward motion (because stopping it would seem to be impossible) enough so that it appears to be stopped.

[metadigital]

I am an empirical rationalist.  I go by what I can see, hear, touch, and so forth.  I know God exists.  I know that Lucifer (Semyaz, Satan, Bob, whatever you want to call him) exists.  I worship neither one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you see, hear, touch, feel, or taste them? I'm very curious on this. It all sounds very naughty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats real hott :ph34r: can i watch?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is that Schrodinger's cat?

[213374U]

Achem's Razor.  It's more likely a dog than not.

Unfortunately, Occam's Razor is a logical device. And there is no guarantee that any of this stuff can be explained through logic, or any other means for that matter.

[FaramirK]

I get a kick out of folks suggesting that Buddhism is a non-violent religion.  Christianity is a non-violent religion by the same standards.  Christians can be quite violent.  The core of Buddhism is non-violent, but there have been some notably violent Buddhists.  They have great temples, though.  The idea of tolerance should include taking a profession of faith as the core tenets of the religion rather than what some of the members have done in its name.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a difference between a person of a certain religion doing violence and violence being done in the name of a certain religion. I have been unable to find any examples of wars being started in the name of Buddhism, and I tried. I'm unaware of where in the teachings of Buddha it says to kill homosexuals, adulterers, witches, or people of other religions. Christianity is nowhere near a non-violent religion by the same standards, as its history is full of war and violence, as is the Bible.

 

I'm just going to use the New Testament here, because quoting the Old Testament wouldn't be fair as the coming of Jesus was supposed to make all the violent stuff in the OT irrelavent...

 

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Or not, I guess, but I will still be nice and not quote the OT and all the violence it calls for.)

 

Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

 

Matthew 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. (Because of Jesus.)

 

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (More alleged words of Jesus.)

 

Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

Matthew 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

 

There is much of this repeated in the other three Gospels, so I won't repeat them but instead move on...

 

Acts 3:22

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

3:23

And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

 

2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power

 

Hebrews 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (In other words, back to the OT... You'd better be obeying Leviticus or you die! No wonder so many Christians don't actually obey the bloody orders of the Bible.)

 

I could go on and on, and I haven't even touched Revelation. I'd be interested in hearing where the teachings of Buddha comes even close to the non-violence preached by the Bible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, you're kind of mis-interpreting the whole thing. The NT calls its adherents to be loving, gentle and forgiving. The doom and distruction passages are reffering to God's judgement of those who reject him. Most of the more brutal laws in the OT are part of the system of Government set up for Isreal, which was a nation, unlike the NT church.

 

People who confuse christianity's comandments with Isreal's Code of Law usually end up trying to make countries "Christian" and impose the bible on everyone, which enevitably leads to tragedy (See the History of Switzerland, Spain, England etc for extremes of the "Christian Nation" concept).

 

Christianity is supposed to be a personal relationship between man and God, not an earthly theocracy.

 

That is why I would rather live in a secular democracy that gives everyone freedom to live as they wish than some "Jesus Land" like I hear many in the US long for...

 

My personal decision to adhere to Christianity is my god-allowed right, as is another persons decision to totally and vocally reject everything I stand for.

[FaramirK]

Achem's Razor.  It's more likely a dog than not.

Unfortunately, Occam's Razor is a logical device. And there is no guarantee that any of this stuff can be explained through logic, or any other means for that matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I meant more: "Take the simplest answer", rather than trying to kill your brain cells doing philospohical backflips...

[213374U]

Well, it's cheaper than beer. And at least tomorrow I won't have a hangover.

[FaramirK]

Well, it's cheaper than beer. And at least tomorrow I won't have a hangover.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

- no really I disrupted the whole house with that laugh...

 

You should come to Russia...we've been substituting cheap alcohol for rational thinking for centuries...look what it's done for us.

[Sophy]

I'm wondering something...In Cristianism,it's said that persons that don't believe in God and pray another god will be doom(kinda).But if a child knows nothing of Cristianism and his parents made him believes in another religion like freaky sect,would he burns in hell after his dead even if he didn't chose that religion by his own will?Because God is supposed to love us all I think...

[GarethCarrots]

I'm wondering something...In Cristianism,it's said that persons that don't believe in God and pray another god will be doom(kinda).But if a child knows nothing of Cristianism and his parents made him believes in another religion like freaky sect,would he burns in hell after his dead even if he didn't chose that religion by his own will?Because God is supposed to love us all  I think...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

"christianity"

[FaramirK]

I'm wondering something...In Cristianism,it's said that persons that don't believe in God and pray another god will be doom(kinda).But if a child knows nothing of Cristianism and his parents made him believes in another religion like freaky sect,would he burns in hell after his dead even if he didn't chose that religion by his own will?Because God is supposed to love us all  I think...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Bible teaches that everyone is responsible for their actions/beliefs. Christianity puts forth a Loving God that cannot abide sin, and therefore must judge sin in every person. The love part comes from the belief that he died for the sins of humanity on the cross, and that all who believe in his death as payment for they're sins will be saved. Thats essentially what CHristianity says...

 

Whether you accept or reject it is up to you, and you will be judged accordingly.

 

DISCLAIMER: Your right to denounce the above as a fairy-tale is fully acknowledged by myself, a true believer in freedom of thought, speech and action.

[GarethCarrots]

trying to some up a religion in one paragraph is sheer arrogance

[FaramirK]

trying to some up a religion in one paragraph is sheer arrogance

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Says who? You? Who are you, again? Obviously no one of any particular mental powess...

 

What, exactly, is wrong with my summary? Christ summarized the entire Old Testament in this phrase:

 

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. This is the first Great Commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself. On this hangs all the Law and the Prophets."

 

And, by the way, it's spelt "sum", not "some".

[Fionavar]

Though I am most appreciative and sensitive to various theological perpesctives and interpretations, could we try not to insult other members? So far this thread has remained civil, and I would like it to remain that way, lest I actually have to do something!

[FaramirK]

Though I am most appreciative and sensitive to various theological perpesctives and interpretations, could we try not to insult other members? So far this thread has remained civil, and I would like it to remain that way, lest I actually have to do something!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Noted.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Well, you're kind of mis-interpreting the whole thing.  The NT calls its adherents to be loving, gentle and forgiving.  The doom and distruction passages are reffering to God's judgement of those who reject him.  Most of the more brutal laws in the OT are part of the system of Government set up for Isreal, which was a nation, unlike the NT church.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes one of those quotes I gave was Jesus (full disclosure: I don't think he actually existed) saying that the law never changed. And if something was an abomination to God with the Israelites, how is it suddenly okay for non-Israelites who worship him? If it was an abomination to God then, and isn't now, that's a fickle omnipotent, omniscient deity who can change his mind from one century to the next (who apparently went and created all those abominations in the first place). Granted he wasn't slaughtering people as gleefully as he was in the OT by the hundreds and thousands by the time he got to the NT, so maybe he took a omnipotent Xanax.

As for loving, gentle, and forgiving, how can adherents be expected to live with those qualities when the god they worship tosses non-believers or unrepentant "sinners" (is adultery, homosexuality, or false witness as bad as murder or rape?) into a lake of fire and eternal torment? That is neither loving, gentle, or forgiving, yet people keep insisting that God is all three. You can insist all you want that God is loving, gentle, forgiving, or merciful, when the Bible itself clearly demonstrates that he is not. I can tell you I'm eight feet tall and breathe fire, you can take that to the world and tell them I'm eight feet tall and breathe fire, we can all believe I'm eight feet tall and breathe fire, but I'm not and I don't. We can take this paragraph and point out where it says "I'm eight feet tall and breathe fire" and ignore where it contradicts that, and we have modern Christianity in a nutshell. I'm not just talking liberal Christianity, but fundamentalists tend to pick and choose what they like too.

[Cantousent]

http://www.khandro.net/dailylife_war.htm

 

Buddhism is a remarkable system for beliefs, but even a world view as non-violent as Buddhism does support folks who are more than willing to fight, die, and kill for their beliefs.

 

I chose the web page above because it, like you, depicts Buddhism as non-violent. Indeed, I see it as non-violent. Still, Buddhists as individuals and as groups have been involved in violence.

 

Is Christianity more violent than Buddhism? *shrug* I suppose. Christianity, under the same scrutiny, certainly has a longer history of violence. Nevertheless, the basic tenets, and certainly the most profound teachings of Christianity are non-violent.

 

Religions are comprised of human beings. Human beings can be violent, recalcitrant, and intolerant. These conditions need no religion to manifest themselves.

 

For instance, some folks insist Christianity is a violent religion and then search actively for evidence to paint all Christians as violent. I believe that stance is intolerant. After all, the very name of the thread is "Smart people don't believe in god..." That's the example of tolerance to which atheists should hearken.

[WITHTEETH]

I appluad Ros in where he was treading. i was trying to get to the same conclusion earlier also but stumbled on definitions. everything is subjective(if you see/beleive).

Its a good step towards peace.

 

If you can follow the 4 noble truths thats remarkable, it takes an awful lot of detirmintaion but i beleive it limits you happiness, love, hate, and life in a way that it would not have a good effect on me, i would feel like a machine form day to day.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Still, Buddhists as individuals and as groups have been involved in violence.

I never disagreed with that. I was talking about the religion and what is done in the name of the religion, not with what individual believers do. A Buddhist drug addict killing a convenience store clerk while robbing the store is a Buddhist doing violence, but that has nothing to do with the religion. A Buddhist army embarking on a holy crusade to spread its beliefs is another matter altogether.

 

Is Christianity more violent than Buddhism?  *shrug*  I suppose.  Christianity, under the same scrutiny, certainly has a longer history of violence.  Nevertheless, the basic tenets, and certainly the most profound teachings of Christianity are non-violent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Considering that many of the tenants and teachings of the Bible are violent or just plain absurd (oh, I could spend all day pointing out the misogyny), a Christian who only bases their beliefs on the nice stuff that gives them a warm fuzzy feeling is ignoring the words of the very god they claim to worship.

[WITHTEETH]

Classic christian: We turn the cheek.... Pssst - unless we get pissed. <_<

They must get it from their schizophrenic god.

 

I would like it if every christian would spit the very apple they ate from the tree of knowledge out, so they would not think that they do know everything. its odd becaseu the tree never worked and they still went on to thinking it does till this very day.

 

Edit: This is meant for radicals, your point is noted Eldar.

[Cantousent]

So, the question really doesn't revolve around belief in God, nor does it center on a discussion of tolerance. Instead, you've gone through every scripture in the bible with a view to painting me, personally, as violent? Consider that, by claiming that all Christians belong to a violent religion, you are creating a definition by which all Christians must be violent or they cannot be Christian.

 

...And I'm not cherry picking my beliefs, I just don't concede that the scriptures you cite are either more prominent or central to Christian thinking. Like virtually everyone else in this world, including our now famous Buddhist, there is no document, writing, or scripture that can convey everything about my personal beliefs.

 

("Generally, Buddhism is considered one of the world's most peaceful faiths, although this is not always true, to wit Buddhist violence against Christians and Muslims in Sri Lanka."

 

http://www.caymannetnews.com/Archive/Archi...%20Yearend.html

 

That would be violence done in the name of religion, I suspect.) Like the Buddhist who committs violence because he is an imperfect Buddhist, I might be an imperfect Catholic. After all, that imperfection probably cuts both ways, meaning that I am imperfect in my desire to avoid violence.

 

Moreover, what about Christ's affirmation of the old laws? Is the exhortation to turn the other cheek more central to Christianity than "an eye for an eye?" ...And what about the fact that judgement is reserved for the Lord. I contend, your laundry list of old and new testament laws notwithstanding, that Christianity is, at heart, a non-violent religion. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to continue attacking me.

 

Christianity is my faith. Worse, Catholicism is my religion. ...And yet I see no reason to either hate or ridicule a Buddhist. To be honest, I've known many Buddhist (having lived in Asia for some time undoubtedly helped) and I've never had one attack my religion before. They've been, to the person, a most tolerant and friendly group of people. I wonder what most of them would think of you attacking Christianity with such fervor.

[Darth Incredulous]

Here's a comic strip I read just the other day. Someone (FaramirK?) said something in a post that reminded me of it.

It's in Norwegian, so for those of you who don't understand the language, I will translate below.

 

 

1st frame

Christian guy, who comes calling: Hi there! May I tell you a little about Jessuss [yes, silly spelling]?

Main character, answering the door: What? Are you a Christian?

C: Yes?

M: Why?

 

2nd frame

C: Because... The Bible says 'And so much did God...' [how does that go in English, I forget]

M, interrupting: But that's just a mouldy old fairytale book!

C: It is?

M: Yeah!

 

3rd frame

M: Why don't you come in have a beer instead! We're watching 'Wrath of Kahn'.

C: But...

M: No "but"!

C: Errr...

 

4th frame

M: Meet Job and Isaak. They're Mormons.

Job: We were Mormons!

Isaak: Now we're Trekkies.