Are you religious?

[old.Tohtori]

Now that's the best kind of religious person. Presumably you're a Christian then? I haven't read the whole thread. I don't know why, I don't imagine we have many Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Odinists or whatever else on these boards. Maybe that's just my prejudice shining through

Presumably, but not real..istically?

By those terms, you could say i'm an Odinist. Nordic believer, follower of viking lore, whatnot. Odin, thor...but more finnish gods in a way.

One of basic "laws" is that we believe what we believe, others can believe what they will, and as long as we're left alone, we leave you alone. I follow that in almost everything, people can be druggies, what-ever-the-color, religion, lifestyle...don't mind. Judge a person by individual, not by group and all that.

 

[Olgaline]

Well, should've explained a bit more. Meant that those sayings only work in an english country. Not many polish/swedish/russian/etc people saying them in daily use.

well actuall they do, just variations of the same thing, or at least that holds true to denmark. but this being an english board and all

 

[old.Tohtori]

well actuall they do, just variations of the same thing, or at least that holds true to denmark. but this being an english board and all

Yeah it's a good point too, just wanted to nitpick a bit

I think the Scandic languages don't have that much "god this that" speech in it...not sure...some, most certainly.

 

[Jeremiah]

3) Conversely, would it be wrong of me to try to convince a Christian parent not to raise their child in the Christian faith? Do you think it's right that a child should be given no choice but to be raised in a divisive enviroment, taught not to question things and generally led towards a very iffy set of morals by vague threats of some bloke watching them all the time?

I think if you look at today's society, you can see the effects on a generation of young people who have been brought up in an environment without guidelines or boundaries.

I'm not for one moment saying "This country is a mess because we arent religious enough", nor do I think theres any one faith or even school of thought that fits all circumstances for all people when either being a parent or just living their lives. I think it just shows that as a human race, we dont do very well without some degree of "advice".

I know theres plenty of success stories of people being brought up in a non-religious home, just as there are horror stories of people being brought up in a devout, strict religious home. But a little guidance is a nice thing to have sometimes =)

I was brought up in a Christian home where I was free to question everything my parents believed (and I did, I think they were glad when I moved out!). There weren't any "iffy" morals taught, and I didnt get the "fire and brimstone" message. I think the trick is to know what you believe, rather than believe what someone tells you to believe =)

 

[Olgaline]

Yeah it's a good point too, just wanted to nitpick a bit

I think the Scandic languages don't have that much "god this that" speech in it...not sure...some, most certainly.

hehe

I think your right about the nordic part tho'
keeping at the hole history/tradition/social conditioning part, ever wondered were the term Hell comes from ? and how it got picked up by the christian faith "some time in the middel ages i think it was ?"
people may not know this but hell is an adoptation, in fact i'm not sure it's even mentioned in the bible ? "someone smart will surely tell us"

however i might be very wrong here, but as far as I'm informed it derives from the nordic Hel, wich is the name of the underworld and it's goddess.

 

[Chronictank]

Chronictank you see things like you want to see them. Which is what all religious people do. If the fuckers who wrote the damn book knew all those things THEN WHY DIDNT THEY SAY IT LIKE IT IS? instead of writing that symbolic crap.

Nothing that you have said so far has proved anything.

Yet you have no offered a plausible reason HOW people in the 14th century could come to the conclusions i have mentioned. 1 correct answer can be put to luck, 2 you are very fortunate but there is a whole wealth of various aspects of science known and otherwise.

Why didnt they say it like this? I covered this earlier in this thread but here we go;
The voice
For sake of argument, as we are theorising, you were an advanced being who wanted to give his/her/it's little pet project some knowlwdge, how would you go about it?
Would you a) beam down and scare them shitless or b) would you use a member of that species to do spread the word so to speak?

But why would anyone believe said person?, give them some ability noone else can do to give some credence to their word.
Spread around some love to other followers and voila you have believers.

The message
Now you have your followers, how are you going to teach them new concepts they have no chance of grasping?
Speaking from personal experience someone who has absolutely no idea about as a concept let alone practical instrument has no chance of hell of skipping a few chapters and getting to the good stuff.
So you use things they see and know to make sense of what is being told, eventually when suitably evolved people will realise the significance.
As is with my example of the universe expanding

As for you not understanding, thats nothing to do with the content but the fact we dont use the language anymore,
just as if you gave a shakespere to a 10 yr old the words would not necessarily translate their true meaning

I personally dont buy into the catholic belief that the stories were meant to be literal, i think they were simply stories with morals attached to encourage a certain way of life.
I do believe in god, i do believe there is at least some truth in the religious texts but that doesnt dither from the fact that unlike alot of people i have had the fortune of having the parents i do, who taught me what they know then let me choose what i believe in or not

 

[Levin]

1) But that doesn't make those superstitions true. If their beliefs affect others then there is something wrong with it.

2) Depends on your viewpoint I suppose...it's a tricky question really. If you truly believed that your friend/relative was going to spend an eternity in fiery torment, would it be "wrong" to try to save them by convincing them to convert?

3) Conversely, would it be wrong of me to try to convince a Christian parent not to raise their child in the Christian faith? Do you think it's right that a child should be given no choice but to be raised in a divisive enviroment, taught not to question things and generally led towards a very iffy set of morals by vague threats of some bloke watching them all the time?

1 X) I did not say it was right to affect others. Read my first point again. If they chose to believe in something you don't.. why does it matter to you if they don't affect you.

2 x) I wouldn't have such beliefs, so I can't really answer the question. It's too hypothetical for me. If i had a friend who was an ass to others, I would tell him to take some time to rethink his attitude.

3 x) Yes, I think that would be wrong of you. Parents are responsible for their child. Not the parents' friends, aunt, uncle or neighbour. You can think what you will of how they raise their kids, but as long as they don't break the law, you have no say. Also, an interesting observation if perhaps a bit besides the point; it's my experience that a child that grows up in a home that is extreme in some way - often turns out quite the opposite.

 

[old.Tohtori]

keeping at the hole history/tradition/social conditioning part, ever wondered were the term Hell comes from ? and how it got picked up by the christian faith "some time in the middel ages i think it was ?"
people may not know this but hell is an adoptation, in fact i'm not sure it's even mentioned in the bible ? "someone smart will surely tell us"

however i might be very wrong here, but as far as I'm informed it derives from the nordic Hel, wich is the name of the underworld and it's goddess.

That's quite true, in scandic mythology Hel ruled Helheim(also known as Hel), and in Finnish(as an example) Hell is translated as "Helvetti".

Finnish lore has a slightly different variant, "Tuonela", which ruler i can't seem to find...

 

[Killswitch]

I think if you look at today's society, you can see the effects on a generation of young people who have been brought up in an environment without guidelines or boundaries.

I'm not for one moment saying "This country is a mess because we arent religious enough", nor do I think theres any one faith or even school of thought that fits all circumstances for all people when either being a parent or just living their lives. I think it just shows that as a human race, we dont do very well without some degree of "advice".

I know theres plenty of success stories of people being brought up in a non-religious home, just as there are horror stories of people being brought up in a devout, strict religious home. But a little guidance is a nice thing to have sometimes =)

I was brought up in a Christian home where I was free to question everything my parents believed (and I did, I think they were glad when I moved out!). There weren't any "iffy" morals taught, and I didnt get the "fire and brimstone" message. I think the trick is to know what you believe, rather than believe what someone tells you to believe =)

So I presume that you think that the Bible (or whatever...I know the Bible, so I'm going to use that!) gives a good basis for ethics or morality? The Bible in general is full of misogynistic, hate-filled vitriol, violence, exclusion, racial hatred and division. Even the Ten Commandments that are taken as the foundation of Christian morality are taken out of context. "Thou shalt not kill" is a good one. Did you know that it actually means "Thou shalt not kill another Jew"?

Over time, more and more of the Bible has been pushed to one side like an embarrassing family member at Christmas. It's human morality, devoid of any devine guidance that has led to the slow process of liberalization within the Church. Do any right-thinking Christians really believe that working on the Sabbath deserves death by stoning? That homosexuals should be killed?

Success stories...guidance...none of this makes any of it actually TRUE though. I'd also be interested in knowing what "questioning" you did as a child. Since there are no answers, you must have been satisfied with the answer that "faith is enough".

Gawd...this is getting too serious for this time in the morning.

 

[Killswitch]

1 X) I did not say it was right to affect others. Read my first point again. If they chose to believe in something you don't.. why does it matter to you if they don't affect you.

2 x) I wouldn't have such beliefs, so I can't really answer the question. It's too hypothetical for me. If i had a friend who was an ass to others, I would tell him to take some time to rethink his attitude.

3 x) Yes, I think that would be wrong of you. Parents are responsible for their child. Not the parents' friends, aunt, uncle or neighbour. You can think what you will of how they raise their kids, but as long as they don't break the law, you have no say. Also, an interesting observation if perhaps a bit besides the point; it's my experience that a child that grows up in a home that is extreme in some way - often turns out quite the opposite.

1) Because religious faith in general affects my life and fosters an environment of division and extremism even within moderate communities. Victimization and exclusion of minorities and homosexuals being an obvious example. The damage done to communities by religion doesn't start and end with suicide bombings and holy crusades.

2) So your belief that they are an ass gives you the right to shove your idea of "non-assness" down their throat? Interesting...

3) A parent doesn't have the right to abuse their child, hurt their child, mentally abuse their child. A parent doesn't have the right to starve their child or lock it in the cellar. A parent doesn't have the right to stop their child having an education including the basic principles of reasoning, science, maths, English. Why does the parent have the right to join their child to a religion and teach it to believe what it's told without evidence? I would personally class the indoctrination of children into religion as child abuse.

 

[dub]

the gods have been death for 122 years or so , it will take awhile for all to notice thou , but a brigther future undoubtedly awaits unclouded by thunderbolts threwn by rotting pathriarchs in the sky

 

[Chronictank]

So I presume that you think that the Bible (or whatever...I know the Bible, so I'm going to use that!) gives a good basis for ethics or morality? The Bible in general is full of misogynistic, hate-filled vitriol, violence, exclusions, racial hatred and division. Even the Ten Commandments that are taken as the foundation of Christian morality are taken out of context. "Thou shalt not kill" is a good one. Did you know that it actually means "Thou shalt not kill another Jew"?

Over time, more and more of the Bible has been pushed to one side like an embarrassing family member at Christmas. It's human morality, devoid of any devine guidance that has led to the slow process of liberalization within the Church. Do any right-thinking Christians really believe that working on the Sabbath deserves death by stoning? That homosexuals should be killed?

Success stories...guidance...none of this makes any of it actually TRUE though. I'd also be interested in knowing what "questioning" you did as a child. Since there are no answers, you must have been satisfied with the answer that "faith is enough".

Gawd...this is getting too serious for this time in the morning.

Is that he fault of the bible, or the people in power?
As with all organisations they are prone to corruption, and i personally think the message has been skewed somewhat.

In addition the original version is not publicly accesible and the current form is a translation of a translation of a translation, there is little chance there hasnt been some form of deformation of the original message based on what the translator belived is written.
For example the book of Apocypha is not included in the modern bible, nor is the original order of books kept.
I peronally believe that the original message was lost in the bible, where the central theme was reorganised to revolve around Jesus, rather than the The Law (Torah), The Prophets, and The (Holy) Writings as referenced in the greek translation, and available as "the original old testament", though you still will have lost whatever was removed/went missing/lost in translation due to no copies of the original manuscripts being kept.

and killswitch you present no more a balanced argument to sad kids than those you are complaining about, so you are no better than a jahova's witness in my eyes. Same thing different flavour
Its up to the kids to decide what they do and do not believe, imo a parents responsibility is no more than to provide a good grounding and give them whatever knowledge you have so they can go find out for themselves.

 

[Killswitch]

the gods have been death for 122 years or so , it will take awhile for all to notice thou , but a brigther future undoubtedly awaits unclouded by thunderbolts threwn by rotting pathriarchs in the sky

Best answer I've heard so far in this thread. Have a rep.

On an unrelated note, I saw Asian Dub Foundation at Warwick University when I was there for some kind of environment activist rally (People and Planet or somesuch...I was there for the women ) and they were extremely loud!

 

[Killswitch]

Is that he fault of the bible, or the people in power?
As with all organisations they are prone to corruption, and i personally think the message has been skewed somewhat.

In addition the original version is not publicly accesible and the current form is a translation of a translation of a translation, there is little chance there hasnt been some form of deformation of the original message based on what the translator belived is written.
For example the book of Apocypha is not included in the modern bible, nor is the original order of books kept.
I peronally believe that the original message was lost in the bible, where the central theme was reorganised to revolve around Jesus, rather than the The Law (Torah), The Prophets, and The (Holy) Writings as referenced in the greek translation, and available as "the original old testament", though you still will have lost whatever was removed/went missing/lost in translation due to no copies of the original manuscripts being kept

All true, but that doesn't actually matter...the point is still valid. Which bits happened and which bits are just stories and which bits are good moral advice and which bits are outdated and immoral? Those choices were all made by men and all made based on morals taken from another source.

Also, most Christians seem to be of the opinion that the Bible is "the word of God" and as such He would not allow errors in the translation that would actually change the meaning of the message.

 

[Chronictank]

All true, but that doesn't actually matter...the point is still valid. Which bits happened and which bits are just stories and which bits are good moral advice and which bits are outdated and immoral? Those choices were all made by men and all made based on morals taken from another source.

we have no way of knowing anymore, with all official releases coming from a central source how can you tell what was there before and what has been changed ?
The best people can do is sift through, do some research and make up their own minds to what they believe

Also, most Christians seem to be of the opinion that the Bible is "the word of God" and as such He would not allow errors in the translation that would actually change the meaning of the message.

I cant comment on that, i only selectively read the bible rather than cover to cover, however afaik there is nothing in there that says that is true.
At the end of the day the faith is controlled by the most powerful organisation in the world, its up to you whether you follow blindly or find your own way.

Edit: in the above edit i said "sad kids" i meant said kids (see what i mean by minor changes completely chaning the meaning tho )

 

[Killswitch]

we have no way of knowing anymore, with all official releases coming from a central source how can you tell what was there before and what has been changed ?
The best people can do is sift through, do some research and make up their own minds to what they believe

I find it very hard to believe that someone could objectively do research and find any evidence for the existence of God. The best argument that has really been put forward is something along the lines of "Science and Religion are mutually exclusive. Science does the how and Religion does the why.". This is called NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) and it's really not an argument at all.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that if people were to actually do some research, less of them would be inclined to believe in God. I expect that there are many people in a position where their "faith" is based mostly on the fact that their social groups (family and friends) revolve around religion. A quick example (from a book I don't have with me, so this is from memory) is from the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. If you were researching Jesus' birth, these are the 2 gospels that deal directly with the Christmas story. They trace Joshua's ancestry back to David in totally different ways. They differ completely on the cirumstances of the birth.

One of them was trying to make Christianity more acceptable to Pagans and one to Gentiles...as such, they made up totally different version of events to "impress" their target audience. One of them wanted to fulfil the Jewish Messianic prophecies of the virgin birth and the descent from kings (although he got the place of the birth wrong...whoops!). The other wanted to show the Pagan signs of worship by kings, the star above Bethlehem. fHow can you possibly research any modicum of truth from sources like this?

 

[Jeremiah]

A quick example (from a book I don't have with me, so this is from memory) is from the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. If you were researching Jesus' birth, these are the 2 gospels that deal directly with the Christmas story. They trace Joshua's ancestry back to David in totally different ways. They differ completely on the cirumstances of the birth.

I'd grab your bible again, only Matthew lists the family, Luke merely says Mary was about to be married to a descendant of David.

One of them was trying to make Christianity more acceptable to Pagans and one to Gentiles...as such, they made up totally different version of events to "impress" their target audience. One of them wanted to fulfil the Jewish Messianic prophecies of the virgin birth and the descent from kings (although he got the place of the birth wrong...whoops!). The other wanted to show the Pagan signs of worship by kings, the star above Bethlehem. fHow can you possibly research any modicum of truth from sources like this?

For a start Pagans and Gentiles are the same thing, Gentile meaning non-Jew. Matthew is written in a way to highlight that Jesus came to early for Jew and Gentile. Luke is written almost like an eyewitness report as its believe he had been asked to report on all the events for another believer. Both have Jesus being born in Bethlehem, which was the place described in Isaiah, and its John who concentrates on the Jewish side.

Sorry, I didnt mean to get all bible-basher on you :wub:

 

[Killswitch]

I'd grab your bible again, only Matthew lists the family, Luke merely says Mary was about to be married to a descendant of David.



For a start Pagans and Gentiles are the same thing, Gentile meaning non-Jew. Matthew is written in a way to highlight that Jesus came to early for Jew and Gentile. Luke is written almost like an eyewitness report as its believe he had been asked to report on all the events for another believer. Both have Jesus being born in Bethlehem, which was the place described in Isaiah, and its John who concentrates on the Jewish side.

Sorry, I didnt mean to get all bible-basher on you :wub:

It's okay...Theology isn't my speciality Most of this is rote stuff from various books I've read, many of them a long time ago. If we get on to evolution vs. intelligent design, religion in schools and refuting "proofs" of God's existance (St Thomas of Equinas for example) then I'll be more on the ball.

I'm presuming that I was on about the Jewish Messianic stuff on one side and the Gentile/Pagan stuff on the other...that would make more sense.

 

[Jeremiah]

Heh I forgive you

Although I do want to say, I dont blame you. Christianity never seems to cover itself in glory - we never seem to set a good example in the things we are meant to be good at heh =)

And likewise, I would need to get clued up on the whole ID V Evolution discussion before I would be brave enough to venture an opinion. Ask me about home network enviroments and I'm your man, one day I hope to be a real scientist!

 

[Levin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levin
1 X) I did not say it was right to affect others. Read my first point again. If they chose to believe in something you don't.. why does it matter to you if they don't affect you.

2 x) I wouldn't have such beliefs, so I can't really answer the question. It's too hypothetical for me. If i had a friend who was an ass to others, I would tell him to take some time to rethink his attitude.

3 x) Yes, I think that would be wrong of you. Parents are responsible for their child. Not the parents' friends, aunt, uncle or neighbour. You can think what you will of how they raise their kids, but as long as they don't break the law, you have no say. Also, an interesting observation if perhaps a bit besides the point; it's my experience that a child that grows up in a home that is extreme in some way - often turns out quite the opposite.

1) Because religious faith in general affects my life and fosters an environment of division and extremism even within moderate communities. Victimization and exclusion of minorities and homosexuals being an obvious example. The damage done to communities by religion doesn't start and end with suicide bombings and holy crusades.

2) So your belief that they are an ass gives you the right to shove your idea of "non-assness" down their throat? Interesting...

3) A parent doesn't have the right to abuse their child, hurt their child, mentally abuse their child. A parent doesn't have the right to starve their child or lock it in the cellar. A parent doesn't have the right to stop their child having an education including the basic principles of reasoning, science, maths, English. Why does the parent have the right to join their child to a religion and teach it to believe what it's told without evidence? I would personally class the indoctrination of children into religion as child abuse..

1 x) The stuff that affects you is being done by people I am not defending in this thread. I am talking about people who keep their beliefs to themselves. Yes, they do exist. On extremists, fanatics and crusaders I believe you and I both agree. They're in the wrong, indeed.

2 x) There is a tiny bit of difference between thinking someone will "rot in hell for all eternity" including trying to convert them, and just thinking they're an ass. In the latter case, I would not shove it down their throat, but talk to them and as I said, suggest they think about how they behave. They don't have to take my advice and I would certainly not shove it down their throat.

3 x) Once again I am not sure you really read what I wrote. I said "as long as they don't break the law" you have no right to tell them how to raise their child. How would you like it if a fanatic cultist came to your home and told you how to raise your kids? All the things you take up are indeed against the law, and common sense says you would take action against that. You are presenting obvious points as arguments. About classing religious indoctrination as child abuse, I am prepared to agree with you to an extent, depending on how severe it is. If the authorities really think the child is faring ill, it's their duty to step in and deal with it.

What I said from the beginning was:

If you think religious people are wrong to try and shove their beliefs down other people's throats (which I agree with you on) - then don't you see that you are doing the same thing in reverse to the religious people who DON'T want to affect others? Those who just pray to keep up hope and don't care if you do too. What gives you the right to go to them and tell them what to believe in? If you go on your atheism crusade blindly you will hurt a lot of people who have done nothing to deserve it.

I am neither religious nor an atheist. I believe there might be something higher, but I don't pray to it unless i'm in deep shit in the hopes that if there is someone listening it might not hurt. Philosophically I believe in the golden rule that says do whatever you wish as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Consider this my asking you to rethink your crusade against believing people. I won't try to shove any more arguments down your throat. If I gave you any reason at all to stop and think I am happy, whatever you conclude. If you figure i'm a nuthead, that's okay too. In the end I think we agree on more things than meets the eye.

 

[Huntingtons]

well, Chronic - your first post you just took what you liked to believe from science and what you found suiting from religion. in my humble opinion its a bad way to do it, then it all can fit together and make you blind

about the creation of the universe:
if you look at the number of galaxies, planets and what else dwells in the universe is it then hard to imagine that there is 1 single planet that we know of that supports life with ideal conditions?

About Adam and Eve: from biological studies it has shown that it is impossible to get 2 children and make them mate to create a new generation that is able to reproduce to a whole civilisation (especially when they give birth to 2 boys).

anyway im not really bothered by religion - i am however, bothered by people trying to prove it true

 

[Killswitch]

Consider this my asking you to rethink your crusade against believing people. I won't try to shove any more arguments down your throat. If I gave you any reason at all to stop and think I am happy, whatever you conclude. If you figure i'm a nuthead, that's okay too. In the end I think we agree on more things than meets the eye.

Deal! I restrict my "crusade" only to people who knock on my door or stop me in the street to tell me "The Word". To be honest, I had enough of Terry Christian on The Word without having strange woman stop me and tell me to repent my sins

Oh...I should leave this along now, but I've just got to invite Jeremiah to have a quick look at Matthew chapter 1 verses 1-17 and Luke chapter 3 verses 23-38. I'm such a sore loser

 

[Killswitch]

about the creation of the universe:
if you look at the number of galaxies, planets and what else dwells in the universe is it then hard to imagine that there is 1 single planet that we know of that supports life with ideal conditions?

Don't forget as well that if there wasn't a planet capable of supporting life, there would be no-one to ask the question. This doesn't prove the existence of anything

I think this is called the Anthropological Principle (or something)

 

[dub]

the ironic part is that being brought up in europe most of us are effected by the christian creed of helping those in need , the sick , the poor , the delusional , the insane , the ones in need in general.

this offcourse applies to all religious people also , as there is no effective way of distinguishing religion from most other persistent delusions.

 

[Marc]

I love the way people say things like "I believe in God because I've seen the amazing power faith has to comfort or help people"


This is important, so listen up..

"JUST BECAUSE BELIEF IN SOMETHING IS COMFORTING DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOMETHING EXISTS!!!"

That little bugbear out of the way, I don't believe in God but I feel that I have good reasons for that. I don't see why religion seems to get carte-blanche in loopy belief. I think the standard example (as used by Richard Dawkins et al) is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If I believed that the universe and everything in it was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'd be thought of as a fruitcake. If I told my boss that I couldn't work on Mondays because it was the Pasta Sabbath, I'd be fired!

Somehow, religion avoids all this. We are taught from birth that we must respect people's differing religious beliefs and their right to bring up their children in their religion and so on and so forth, but why? If I wanted to bring up my children in the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion (Pastafarianism?) then my children would probably be taken away from me!

What makes the idea that a man performed miracles, came back to life and is the Son of God somehow protected and sacrosanct, but belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is ridiculous? Is there some proof somewhere that one is true and one is false?

People talk about how unlikely it is that life could form spontaneously and that human beings could somehow evolve from some chemicals in a scummy pond. Now, that IS highly unlikely...but is it really less unlikely that a supreme being with ultimate power could be produced from nothing and then create "the heaven and the earth"? Where did He come from?

I've got a load more, but I'll save it for the pub. I'm a practicing athiest and I'm actively involved in spreading Atheism...you could call me an Evangelist, I guess. Feel free to ask questions

I assume this was aimed at me, as I was the only person to mention seeing first hand what faith can do. SHow me where I said because there is belief, then something must exist. I never. My point was, ive seen faith comfort people and get them through my life. Is this a bad thing?

 

[Killswitch]

I assume this was aimed at me, as I was the only person to mention seeing first hand what faith can do. SHow me where I said because there is belief, then something must exist. I never. My point was, ive seen faith comfort people and get them through my life. Is this a bad thing?

Wasn't aimed at anyone, I haven't even read the thread

It's not a bad thing at all, but I wouldn't encourage religious belief because of this. There are plenty of ways to get comfort and support without needing faith in a Creator or some other supernatural being.

This thread is about belief in God though, and therefore the existence or not of God. In this context, the comfort given by faith to someone is not relevant to the question and that was kind of my point. Just because something makes someone feel better doesn't mean it exists (Placebo Effect anyone?).

Sorry if you thought i was having a go.

 

[Killswitch]

Most of these make no sense, but some are quite amusing;

Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence

50. ARGUMENT FROM UPPERCASE ASSERTION
(1) GOD EXISTS! GET USED TO IT!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

 

[Chronictank]

well, Chronic - your first post you just took what you liked to believe from science and what you found suiting from religion. in my humble opinion its a bad way to do it, then it all can fit together and make you blind

Other way round as it happens, saw a theory and furthered it based on my own knowledge and that which i researched, then posted the conclusion here.
I belive religion and science will eventually lead to the same place, so its a very valid way to prove the authenticity of a theory

anyway im not really bothered by religion - i am however, bothered by people trying to prove it true

Why? discussion is the first step to truth.
If you not interested in the to and fro of it you are no better than a fanatic blindly following what someone has told you

I find it very hard to believe that someone could objectively do research and find any evidence for the existence of God. The best argument that has really been put forward is something along the lines of "Science and Religion are mutually exclusive. Science does the how and Religion does the why.". This is called NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) and it's really not an argument at all

In that instance we werent discussing whether it was true or not, we were discussing the authenticity of the source
As i said above, imo science will end up prooving religion ultimately as i have highlighted in previous posts.

 

[Levin]

Deal! I restrict my "crusade" only to people who knock on my door or stop me in the street to tell me "The Word".

Good thing! I'm too sissy to say anything other than "sorry, not interested", heh. The other day I was sitting in on a bench the park on my lunch hour, enjoying a nice quiet moment watching the canal in front of me. An old guy on a bike stopped in front of me. He introduced himself as a Jehova's Witness and before I could say anything he added "some people think we are a bit obnoxious". I couldn't help being amused at that. Anyway I told him "not interested", and sent him on his way with a half-hearted "good luck". Later I kicked myself, realizing I didn't really wish him good luck. Ah well.

 

[Huntingtons]

Other way round as it happens, saw a theory and furthered it based on my own knowledge and that which i researched, then posted the conclusion here.
I belive religion and science will eventually lead to the same place, so its a very valid way to prove the authenticity of a theory

Why? discussion is the first step to truth.
If you not interested in the to and fro of it you are no better than a fanatic blindly following what someone has told you

yes i am, and no its not a valid way to prove anything.
im better than fanatics because:
1) im to no harm, i dont try and push my beliefs upon people or preach in public
2) i've made my own desicion based on what i know from school. i havnt listened to anybodys ideas and followed them. im as you on the other side.