Interesting Conversation I had Today...religion related

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:00 am

I just noticed that this thread turns into a rant towards the end. Sorry.

I was working today when a couple of my co-workers brought up a story they heard about on the news. Apparently, a Russian woman had been paying what she believed were vampires 33,000 USD every year to keep them from causing her to give birth to some monster. They both thought that this woman was really stupid.

So? That's not that interesting! We demand something interesting!

Alright.

Both of these people find the idea that vampires exist childish and idiotic. Yet they both believe in God. The idea of immortal creatures who sustain themselves on the blood of the living is laughable. The idea of an invisible man who lives in the sky is not? Why?

I finally lost it. I've come to this decision.

If you believe in God, you're a fool. Nothing against your character. I'm not saying you're a bad person. But you're a fool. You must be mentally deficiant in some way. How can anyone justify believing in God? How?

If someone were to come up to you and tell you they wanted you had to do certain things and act certain ways that made no logical sense, and that they would never check up on you, but they'd know what you were doing so you'd better do it right, and that you'll get paid later but not until after you've already died...would you do it?

I asked them, "So, Vampires are fake, but what about angels?"

Them: Oh, Angels are real.

Me: What do they do?

Them: They're God's helpers.

Me: I thought God was all-powerful.

Them: He is.

Me: Then why does he need helpers?

Them: He can't be everywhere at once.

Me: Then he's not really all powerful, now is he?

Them: Uh...

I've heard all the arguements. "My beliefs are my own affair." "I don't tell you what to believe, why would you tell me what to believe." "I'm not hurting anybody by believing this, so what's your problem?"

I'll tell you what my problem is. It's childish (a guy on a board dedicated to childrens cartoons, comics, and toys is saying this). It's foolish. It's wrong! Believing in God is like having an imaginary friend. It's cute up until a certain age.

But Kevin! Those stories in the bible teach us to love and understand one another! What's wrong with that?

Nothing's wrong with that! The teachings of Jesus and his followers contain great messages! Love your fellow man! Be kind to one another! Great stuff! We're not talking about that. We're talking about the part where an all-powerful being sends an angel down to immaculately conceive a mortal child who will carry the word of said invisible man to the people of earth. A man who, though mortal, could walk on water and turn said water into wine. THAT's the problem! The problem is NOT the message. The problem is that the message is apparently from people who got it from an INVISIBLE MAN IN THE SKY!!!

Why do people believe this garbage? How can people continue to do so? Give me one reason, ANY REASON why people can believe in an all-powerful invisible space man and I'll take back everything I've said. Reasons like "They don't want to believe that life ends at death" or "It gives them a reason to act morally" are not REASONS, they are excuses.

I'm going crazy here.

Rant over.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:07 am

I assume, then, that you believe in the Big Bang as a rather solid theory of how the universe was created? That, at some point, a really long time ago, there was a grapefruit sized mass that contained every single particle that now comprises our universe.

I do not debate this, however, where did that grapefruit sized mass come from? Difficult to make something from nothing.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:12 am

Leatherneck wrote:I assume, then, that you believe in the Big Bang as a rather solid theory of how the universe was created? That, at some point, a really long time ago, there was a grapefruit sized mass that contained every single particle that now comprises our universe.

I do not debate this, however, where did that grapefruit sized mass come from? Difficult to make something from nothing.

Nope. Don't believe the Big Bang theory either. I admit that I don't know and that nobody will know the origin of the universe for a very long time (if ever). I'm content with not knowing and don't feel the need to fill gaps in my knowlege with stories of goblins, spooks, and demons.

Not having any other explanation for the creation of the universe is a reason for believing in God? I'd suggest that it's not a good one.

I want to make something clear, though. I'm not saying religion is bad. I'm not harping on the immeasurable amounts of good or evil that have come out of it. This is just about why people find it so easy to believe in something that, it would seem obvious, isn't there.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:40 am

Surely the difference betwen the th big bang theory and religion is that the big bang theory is an attemtp to explain things based on research and filling in the gaps using reason whereas religion is based, as far as i can tell, on rod all other than people's opinions.

Also of interest, if there is some higher power, if there is some creation force... why does everyone seem to think it is so interested in humans? Why not mice? Or Dinosaurs? or mushrooms?

Then again i suspect that is more a critique of monotheism.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:43 am

I belive in what smooth said,

as for the big-bang theory - the version u state can still be scientifically explained. so i still have no problem with that.

god on the other hand is imaginary friend BS

Post by **Best First** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:04 am

its not the notion that there might be something 'higher' than us out there that i have difficulty with, its the notion of us defining what it is and then tieing moraility to it and using it to judge/condemn/condone/support/etc whatever takes the fancy of those who then claim to represent that power based on no evidence whatsoever.

Its a philisophical cul-de-sac IMO.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:43 am

How I see it - in time we will most likely, as our understanding of universe expands, begin to be able to explain everything in the universe.
Where as, with god, it will only ever be explainable as 'faith' - which to me is daft.

So I to understand your problem with, like you say, tieing human morality to something that IMO does not exist. again I think its daft.

Im also of personal opinion that if more ppl belived in science to explain our world and its values, than religon X, we would live in a more stable and beneficall world then we do now.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:15 am

I think people need something to believe in. We get born into a world that doesn't have a handbook or a big sign saying "this is what you must do", so cultures and societies found their own ways of dealing with it. Most people think that God up there has a plan for them, or a path laid out for them to follow because, well, if he doesn't then what's the point? If we are just naked apes wandering about the planet eating stuff and having sex then where's the reason behind it all?

I don't think most people can cope with the uncertainty of admitting that there's a lot of stuff we just don't know. It's far easier to say "well, God did it" or "everything is for the glory of Allah" or "we are God's chosen people" or "we get reincarnated until we reach enlightenment" than it is to admit that we don't know why we're here, we're not entirely sure what we even are or how we fit into the grand scheme of things. Or even if there is a grand scheme of things.

Additionally, most people are introduced to religion by their parents when they are very small children, and very small children believe everything, especially what their parents tell them. Oh, and priests, who are the worst kind of parasites on human society.

Honestly, I think in most cases religion does little to no harm to people except intellectually - like Eddie Izzard says there's a lot of good ideas there, but also some f***ing weird ones too. Unfortunately far too often a minority of religious people spoil it for everyone else by acting out God/Allah/Giant Space Monkey's wishes, or at least their interpretation of GSM's wishes, and then claiming that as justification.

I've been trying to make sense of the situation in London lately and last night I went on IslamOnline.com to see what their take on it all was. There were a few heartening posts, but in the main it was a load of posturing and bulls***, exacerbated by a bunch of Christian trolls trying to stir up holy war and signing off with "Jesus loves you", which is probably the single most annoying phrase in existence aside from "perhaps we can still be friends" or "sorry darling but Aresenal are playing at home tonight".

...Actually the stuff about jihad was not reassuring at all.

*goes back to listening to Marilyn Manson*

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:32 am

belive in science tho, it explains most things without the need for GSM and when u dont understand, jihad.

there was an interesting prog on bbc2 last night. its amazing to see high ranking muslim clerics saying "I would not tell the police if the guy next door was a sucide bomber because to tell on another muslim is the lowest thing u can do"

because

"Allah made the rules, I cant change what a god writes. but democracy is written by man so it can adapt to Allahs ways"

That ****s me off more then anything.

PPl shouldnt be alowed to belive in what they like, or do what they like, or say what they like, or even be allowed freedom without having passed a test or somthing...

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:56 am

Remeber when I started a thread post-9/11 called "Should people be allowed to believe what they like?" Man, that one got messy very quickly.

I read a lot about evolution, science and all that. I like the fact that science can be disputed because it's not "holy" or "sacred", two words that mean "you can't argue with this" or "don't question this". I like the fact that Richard Dawkins can disagree with Stephen Jay Gould over some of the most fundamental things and we don't have to have a holy war over it because they're scientists, not priests. I don't necessarily believe everything I've read about evolution but then that's my perogative and I'm not committing "blasphemy". Which of course means "you dared to question this".

These days I agree with the late Douglas Adams in that it's about time the onus of proof was shifted onto the clerics and priests and ayatollahs and popes. If God is so real, let's see some evidence. If there's no evidence, then let's leave out all the praying and arguing and pissing about with holy books and scriptures and start doing something useful for once.

[edit] Since Blacksword doesn't post any more, I just wanted to add how offended I am by the above post's sneering dismissal of everything that I and my family hold dear. Yes my father is a priest. Yes, he was the one who told me that God exists. No, I don't see anything wrong with that. Etc. Etc.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:05 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote:I think people need something to believe in.

So true.

Im going to quote John Lennon, who is better at these things than me:

God, 1970, Plastic Ono Band

God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain
I'll say it again
God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain

I don't believe in magic
I don't believe in I-ching
I don't believe in Bible
I don't believe in tarot
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus
I don't believe in Kennedy
I don't believe in Buddha
I don't believe in Mantra
I don't believe in Gita
I don't believe in Yoga
I don't believe in kings
I don't believe in Elvis
I don't believe in Zimmerman
I don't believe in Beatles
I just believe in me
Yoko and me
And that's reality

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:54 pm

spiderfrommars wrote:
John Lennon wrote:I just believe in me
Yoko and me
And that's reality

Spot on.

Metal Vendetta wrote:...we are just naked apes wandering about the planet eating stuff and having sex...

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:03 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote:...we are just naked apes wandering about the planet eating stuff and having sex...

Well, eating stuff at least in some of our cases...

Post by **Best First** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:04 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote: [edit] Since Blacksword doesn't post any more, I just wanted to add how offended I am by the above post's sneering dismissal of everything that I and my family hold dear. Yes my father is a priest. Yes, he was the one who told me that God exists. No, I don't see anything wrong with that. Etc. Etc.

low blow dude. any need?

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:45 pm

Best First wrote:low blow dude. any need?

Not particularly - I just thought I'd save him the bother, since that's exactly what he posts every time I talk about Him Upstairs.

Incidentally, if anyone else is deeply offended by my opinions then please address your concerns to your god who I am sure will deal with them in due course.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:02 pm

That did seem to be quite mean rob

imo one of the big reasons people need religion is part of the same reason they need nostalgia and other beliefs, to have something 'solid' in a universe where there's nothing that really lasts forever and is unchanging. People don't like the idea of things evolving or moving forward in general I think, and religion offers them a nice doorway to have something set in stone for their emotional comfort. It's also a valid way of exploring philosophy imo, Science I don't think will ever answer what purpose human beings have (not having a purpose included) that's down to people to think about and again, relgion offers that.

Religion and Science tend to work in opposite ways imo. Science observes the world and produces a theory based on that. If the observations change, Science therefore changes to suit- which will rankle with some people's desire for unchanging truths "If it's right, how can it be changing?". Religions seem to work the opposite way, the theory has been determined at the outset and observation must be changed to suit what is believed- hence all those nutcase creationists who claim that carbon dating is wrong, dinosaur bones are fake, fossils take only a few hundred years to form and so forth.

I think it should also be brought up that religion is not always negative although it often brings mixed results- Islamic scholars developed fantastic achievements (built upon their thorough grounding in Maths) during the middle ages and collected huge volumes of foreign law which would otherwise have been lost despite contradictions with their own beliefs (the Greek philosophers to name but one clutch), and loathsome as they were the Crusades in the 'holy lands' brought great technological advances to both the Christian and Muslim armies (as all wars generally do). The Hindu Indian ruling powers of India during the later periods extended a similar period of philosophy, even allowing women and men an equal vote in electoral issues. It's a mixed bag.

I'm very much with besty on this, philosophy and personal belief are absolutely fine as long as people don't start using them to condemn or justify actions based on beliefs which have no proof or dubious reasoning behind them.

I don't think removing religion would change very much- the capacities exist within all the three major religions to take a moderate live-and-let-live standpoint (and some do and produce good people for it who decide not to randomly judge everyone on earth) and people have their own brains, if they choose to condemn and hate I think it says something very definite about their minds and the issues they have. I guess my analogy would be- it's not the clothes you're wearing, it's your dress sense: magically erasing the clothes from your wardrobe won't change your taste.

Anyone else find it ironic that Lennon 'believes' in something that is not true? i.e. he and Yoko, as there is now just Yoko

Post by **Best First** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:55 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote:
Best First wrote:low blow dude. any need?
Not particularly - I just thought I'd save him the bother, since that's exactly what he posts every time I talk about Him Upstairs.

well by way of contrast despite i find his rants on the matter at least as interesting as yours.

Plus if its a matter of not being offended by others views why not just ignore him?

Islamic scholars developed fantastic achievements (built upon their thorough grounding in Maths) during the middle ages and collected huge volumes of foreign law which would otherwise have been lost despite contradictions

thats not religion though? That's people in a religous state doing science IMO.

i think dithcing organised religion raises, at the very least, soem intersteing possibilities for moving in a more positive direction as a race.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:21 pm

Best First wrote:
Islamic scholars developed fantastic achievements (built upon their thorough grounding in Maths) during the middle ages and collected huge volumes of foreign law which would otherwise have been lost despite contradictions
thats not religion though? That's people in a religous state doing science IMO.

tis true. smooth wanted reasons why we should have religion tho so I thought i'd bring up a few advances which wouldn't have occurred in as timely a manner without it. they would obviously still have happened.

i think dithcing organised religion raises, at the very least, soem intersteing possibilities for moving in a more positive direction as a race.

I'm not convinced people can at present, tho maybe in the future.

I think religion or something which would answer most of the hallmarks of religion will always be around (unless we can redress our naturally evolved fear of the unknown) as just a conglomeration of all those qualities which humans seem to possess (our very vivid imaginations, our ability to see more than just what logic says should be there and also our collective fears of the unknown and change). Religion is, after all, just a collection of people who all adhere to a similar value set and philosophical view designed to redress these problems of fear, i feel.

Even those of us who don't believe in any of the organised religions still hold on to elements of them which are just as silly I think- certainly my vague belief that I'll still exist in some conscious form after death for example, which is born out of an intense desire not to have my existence end at some definite point in the future and a similar desire for those I love to carry on 'forever'.

I think it would be nice to find some way of dropping the "god knows everything and has imparted it to us, sinners!" elements of religion. I think at conception its an extension of one bunch of people needing to feel superior over another. Which is probably born out of fear I think.

Who knows, maybe as human beings understand more about how our emotions and minds work we can start diminishing our negative aspects? Perhaps little by little children will slowly be less trained by their upbringing to be scared of what they don't know and maybe be fascinated by it. That'd be nice

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:31 pm

Karl Lynch wrote: I'm very much with besty on this, philosophy and personal belief are absolutely fine as long as people don't start using them to condemn or justify actions based on beliefs which have no proof or dubious reasoning behind them.

As, (far as I know) the only religious guy around here, I'm with Besty too. Religion isn't a tool to advance your own personal psychosis.

I believe in religion because I believe it helps me to be a better person. Yes, there is no reasoning for God to exist. I know that. Every religious person, no matter how much they argue about fossils and evolution, knows that in their heart. Some are super insecure about it and try to prove it. I feel no need. God can exist, the Bible can be mostly true (which is what Mormons believe about the good book anyway) and evolution can still be a viable, probably true theory. Emotions and reason can exist with each other, even if they sometimes contradict each other, because they are different bases for belief. I can't say "Rob is a good person because I like him." That is not proof. I can say, "Rob is a good person because he buys me drinks and lets me stay at his house." But all the evidence I have for God is in the form of "I like him."

It's an emotional thing. There is no point in trying to reasonably prove that God exists, any more than you could prove to somebody that Radiohead is better than Coldplay. Some people just like Coldplay better.

So why the hell do you want us to prove it to you? I've never tried to prove it to any of you! I've never pushed it, either!

So stop asking us to prove it, please. Those of us who don't blow up buildings, marry unwilling minors, or believe you are going to hell because you don't believe, are insulted.

Karl Lynch wrote:I don't think removing religion would change very much- the capacities exist within all the three major religions to take a moderate live-and-let-live standpoint (and some do and produce good people for it who decide not to randomly judge everyone on earth) and people have their own brains, if they choose to condemn and hate I think it says something very definite about their minds and the issues they have. I guess my analogy would be- it's not the clothes you're wearing, it's your dress sense: magically erasing the clothes from your wardrobe won't change your taste.

Thank you, Karl.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:50 pm

So why the hell do you want us to prove it to you? I've never tried to prove it to any of you! I've never pushed it, either!

So stop asking us to prove it, please. Those of us who don't blow up buildings, marry unwilling minors, or believe you are going to hell because you don't believe, are insulted.

sorry, but if you are going to make your beliefs explicit then i think they are fair game. As an aside i am quite happy to have my beliefs challenged, it offers the opportunity to evolev ideas IMO.

Plus there is no getting away from the fact that religion sucks the rationality out of arguements, as soon as you intriduce the cocnept 'because god says so' in anything that affcets the public sphere then anything resembling productive discourse is derailed.

I'm not saying you do this, but i don't see a lot of religous pressure groups insisting that their beliefs should not be forced on the masses and standing up to those under the same religous umbrella who happily do this.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:02 pm

Tis also true.

A proposed omnipotent god can be used as a trump card to any rational argument that can be made on anything. I submit a common dialogue with creationists:

But carbon dating shows the earth is millions of years old!
"Yes, but carbon dating is wrong."
How can it be wrong, whilst it is a random process the stastical probability of it being always wrong in every circumstance is microscopic?
"God made it wrong because God can do anything."
Dinosaur bones?
"God put them there."
Why?
"Because God can do anything."
But why did he put them there?
"God's mind is too complex for us to understand."

blech. it's enough to make you want to gnaw your own arm off sometimes.

[/not directed at sprunker but at those individuals who try and merge local/national/international politicy and religion under one supremely disturbing banner]

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:15 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:That did seem to be quite mean rob

That was savage Rob. The statement seems to be amde for no reason but to flame all Christians just because they believe. Save that for the the right wing fundamentalists and the crap they bring.

Anyone else find it ironic that Lennon 'believes' in something that is not true? i.e. he and Yoko, as there is now just Yoko

Well considering he says "I don't believe in Beatles" when that pretty much funded his life style then as well as what got him to meet Yoko Ono then he's a bit narrow minded.

Along with his "Imagine no possessions" after he had just brought several mansions and penthouse flats makes it rank as one of the worst timed hypocrisy's in pop culture history.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:17 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:Tis also true.

A proposed omnipotent god can be used as a trump card to any rational argument that can be made on anything. I submit a common dialogue with creationists:

But carbon dating shows the earth is millions of years old!

Actually Carbon dating tends to only be able to show us if something is thousands of years old. It's unable to determine if something is millions of years old

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:30 pm

Jetfire wrote:
Karl Lynch wrote:Tis also true.

A proposed omnipotent god can be used as a trump card to any rational argument that can be made on anything. I submit a common dialogue with creationists:

But carbon dating shows the earth is millions of years old!
Actually Carbon dating tends to only be able to show us if something is thousands of years old. It's unable to determine if something is millions of years old

quite right -> http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-142.htm

personally I find Lennon's particular brand of self-righteous cynicism to be pretty revolting at the best of times

Post by **Best First** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:36 pm

so out of curiosity how do we know hos old dino's are?

Me Grimlock must know.

Most famous people are full of ****. Actuallu so are most people, including me most probably. Everyone talks crap at some point. Its more a question of intent and sincerity i think.

Oh, and the coldplay/radiohead thing is actually quite simple, anyone who picks coldplay is a twart.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:38 pm

the linky i posted indicates some other methods of radioactive dating using plutonium and stuff

I'm sure there are loads of other ways too...

{waits for rebis to show his snout}

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:51 pm

we know the age of dino bones via geolagy...

The Last Autobot · Post by **The Last Autobot** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:18 pm

I dont believe that vampires exist, at least not in the way movies portray them (or as Dracula appears for that matter). But there is the possibility that some diseases and/or strange behaviours/psycopathies could have been explained in the form of vampirism and by culture means spreaded in subsequent generations as myths and alike. Altering the reality behind.

I dont believe God is big bearded guy who is so much interested in what we have for breakfast or if we brush our teeth. And if not we go to hell. That is for me. more of a socialized way of understanding a higher power in our terms (which in most cases were described that way to people from a looonnnng time ago)

I dont accept at face value that something is false. Or the other way around, true. Both things seem equally stupid. As stupid as putting God as an excuse for everything (which people do) is to open a topic of "believing in God is wrong" every few months to a group who is for the most part anti religious. Deja vu/veku anyone?

But that s just me. A catholic Tf collector.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:22 pm

im only anit religous because

I cant belive in god, my brain wont accept it.
and
Religon is the root of this earths evil.

yet i think its fair to talk about concepts based on religon, which is whats going on here

BB Shockwave · Post by **BB Shockwave** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:26 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote:
I read a lot about evolution, science and all that. I like the fact that science can be disputed because it's not "holy" or "sacred", two words that mean "you can't argue with this" or "don't question this". I like the fact that Richard Dawkins can disagree with Stephen Jay Gould over some of the most fundamental things and we don't have to have a holy war over it because they're scientists, not priests. I don't necessarily believe everything I've read about evolution but then that's my perogative and I'm not committing "blasphemy". Which of course means "you dared to question this".

Well just adding here (as someone whole learned about the history of science),this is not always the case. Scientist who are in the favor of politicians, or ones who are so admired/idolised by people can really hold back the evolution of science by stubbornly protecting their own ideas and doing everything they can to hinder the ones with new ideas.

Good examples for this are Cuvier who was head of the french academy of science, or (gosh I forgot his name) who was minister of science under Stalin's rule. The latter efficiently ruined all the biological research in the USSR, by sending everyone who had differing ideas to labour camps...

About god, well that makes me a fool, I guess, as Ido believe in him. Maybe it's just comforting to know there's something after this life, and I haven't lived just to eat, reproduce and then feed the worms.

Btw, Prof, do religious people often try to convert you, or why is this outburst against them? Just being curious, take no offense.