Although to be fair - People have sacrificed themselves for Secular reasons as well.

Like say - ANY WAR.

It's not like all those kids on D-Day or Normandie were super religious and you know they pretty much knew they weren't coming back.

EDIT-
Besides, I have also heard that people are promised that their families will receive certain payoffs if they dedicate themselves to the cause.

Again - its a financial decision.

SUICIDE does not have to have theological motivations. And Higher Cause is not limited to G*D

If Normandy is the secular example and 9/11 is the Religious example... I think Secular comes out cooler.

Another, uglier situation is that sometimes the suicide bombers are mentally disabled.

I am not sure how that's relevant...
Unless you are saying that Al-Queada specifically recruits from the special ed classes.

Another ugly example is - Vietnam War. Many of the Veitnamese were so eager to get the white invaders out of their country they would bomb themselves.

I think there is a definitely line between being desperate, and being retarded or religious.
(although all three conditions may be similar they are not the same)

I wasn't trying to relate it to anything, I was just saying that it's a super shitty thing to manipulate a handicapped person into something like that.

so it was a non-sequitor?

It's a shitty thing to dance in front of a quadraplegic singing "NanaNana"
I think everyone will agree with that statement, but I don't see how it relates to the discussion.

Or, as in one recent case, young children.



Why? Because both sides got slaughtered? Or because of the boats and cannons and stuff?

No matter how you look at it, both are examples of political differences exploding into hardcore bloodshed. The fact that the countries also had different religions has very little to do with either one. In the case of 9/11 a radical form of Islam was used to convince a bunch of guys that crashing planes into buildings was a good idea. In WW2 The troops believed God was on their side.

okay I think it did have *some* applicability to the discussion...

I mean, we were talking about motives and stuff, and I was just mentioning that in some cases, the motive is "they tolds me to does it".

I think I was thinking of the whole killing civilians in peacetime thing.



Crap... well there goes that hobby...

Perhaps a better analogue might be Hitler invading Poland.

Ah.

I may be mistaken about this, but if I recall, Bin Laden (and others with a similar mindset) have been bombing stuff and basically declared war on the Western World without the Western World really caring much.

It's not like Germany was minding it's own business with it's family on that beach.



Or the US invading Irag, by that standard. I think the choice of Normandy had more to do with the extreme likelihood of death.

Well, that certainly did involve an extreme likelihood of death for the Iraqis

to this discussion
I think we have lost any track of what we thought we were talking about - not that I am complaining.



(i have no idea what the smiley means but it looks funny and i wanted to have the designation of one who has used it)

welcome to my thought process

it serves well as a general angst smiley IMO, though the precise meaning is a bit different.

I was thinking just this same thing the other day (while reading a very very good book). Except, in that case, it wasn't a distinction between believer and non-believer, but between those who did something about their predicament vs. those who didn't. I'm sure this'll come up again..


I think, for that point to be meaningful, you really have to first ask whether the USSR would have occurred in the first place in a world without religion or a world that had abandoned it a long time ago. The USSR and communism were themselves reactions to vast inequity. Not that such inequity was due solely to religion. For the most part, it's not even due primarily to religion. However, I do think religion generally discourages social change (except when introduced to opposing dominant religions).


No, presuming there are any, I cannot think of one point in history when religion has permitted any philosophical development free of its interference.


Honestly, I think the "believe and let believe" attitude is only gaining more momentum in the religious majority because for the first time in history (only during the recent century or so) religion is finding itself assaulted by the absence of religion and not just another religion. And I think this is part of the reason why some believers are so keen on categorizing atheism as just another religion.


Even in a non-Judeo-Christian context though, whether it's Lickensalt'npeppa or Sebek the crocodile god, isn't it presumptuous to ask the deeper, more meaningful questions about them before establishing that they even exist? All sorts of deeper, more meaningful questions can be asked about things that may or may not exist but can't be proven. So if the focus is the questions themselves, can't all of them be meaningfully asked without any supernatural conscience or intelligence? Why are these beings necessary for the purposes of the questions, whether on philosophy or morality or origins?

I think it's more due to globalism, myself. Tolerance for other points of view in general tends to be higher in more heterogenous areas, and vice-versa.

I dunno, I'm not saying that there's a certain way that people have to go about asking questions of the universe. I just think that it comes close to a straw man situation when broad conclusions about "God" are drawn from observations on how he/she/it happens to have been defined by a particular religion.

I mean, I don't really care, I just think that if you're going to make a case for or against something, you need to be consistent.

How else are we to define Yahweh if not by the Torah? How else are we to define Jesus if not by what Christians do and how they act?

I think I'm starting to understand why there's been a disconnect on this point.

What I'm saying is that there are other ways to conceive of God than what the Torah tells us of him. The Israelites weren't the only people to ever think "hey maybe there's this God thing and it's the prime mover and it's all transcendent and stuff." What we read in the Torah is just the Israelites' attempt at explaining it, one of many.

As for Jesus, that's a bit different since he was a person. But the same basic idea applies, I think -- there's no need to buy in to the New Testament's propaganda surrounding him in order to have a discussion about the guy. There's been extensive work done on trying to determine which of Jesus' sayings are likely to be original to him vs. being later additions/creations on the part of his followers.

Thank you.


But how is any personal attempt to conceive of God different from just making stuff up?



And the Chinese weren't the only people to ever think "hey, maybe there's these giant lizards and they fly and breathe fire and stuff."

That doesn't count as evidence for dragons.

I think the difference comes in the honesty of the attempt, the thought process behind it, the intent, etc. But you know, I'm not saying that every person, left to themselves, would be like "hey I think there's a God." Ultimately I just think it's important that we examine our lives.


I'm not trying to prove anything here, dude. Seriously... I don't care if you're a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Muslim or a Zoroastrian or an atheist (sorry to include that in the list, but I didn't want you to feel left out). As I mentioned above, I just think it's important that everybody do some real honest evaluation of themselves and the world around them, and that they seek out the opinions and advice of others. I think it broadens our lives and takes us away from the immature sort of that happens when we latch onto a way of looking at the world and decide that it must be the only way.

While I know you're not trying to push an agenda, your posts push this very vague notion of - and it's possible this is not how you really feel, but this is the message I get from your posts - "I think God is important even though I think he's make believe." You're on everybody's side, and I think that puts you, ultimately, on nobody's side.

There either is a God or there isn't, right?

If there is one, He has spoken to people, and they have recorded His words and His actions and that is how we know there is one. And that record must be respected and held to until we have reason to believe He wants differently from us.

If there is not one, then what people claim to be a record of His words and His actions are stories. Now, those stories might contain very, very useful ideas with regard to treating other people right and living a proper life - but then those ideas are ours. They come from people, not a God. And it's people we need to celebrate and focus on. You can't live a life less about self, as you have often stated you want to, without acknowledging how cool and important other people - and the ideas they're capable of creating - are. And a focus on God screws that up.

I mean, where is the middle ground, Pete?


which I am sure you find ironic since, based on what I wrote above, I'm about to be criticized for latching onto a way of looking at the world that I have decided must be the only way.

But the questions above aren't rhetorical. They're honest questions that I'd like answers to, instead of the usual, "you know what's wrong with you POV, Hobbes? You can't see the middle ground." sort of criticism. So I'm asking, please, if it exists, someone show me where it is.

Because I see people spend a chunk of their Sunday singing songs in celebration of a character from a metaphor and talking about how well this character says we should treat other people. But other people aren't the real focus of these activities.

Isn't one single Sunday morning spent helping a single mother get some basic housework done so she can fit in some extra playtime with her kids better for the "soul" than all the church services in the Bible Belt ever could be?

It goes back to what I was saying to Agent Zero. He asked how would the world be a better place without religion, and I answer because we could take all that time invested in religion, and actually use it to make the world a better place.

We should just forget all this religious crap and get back to worshiping the Sun.... Like in the deal!

What you said in your second half was really good, so I'm sorry for cutting it out. But I think there's a lot that's true in there.

re: the first bit, I'm not sure how I can say this differently, but you're assuming that God can only be what Judeo-Christian tradition claims that he is. And that's the problem right there. Sure, you can argue whether or not God, as the Bible describes him, is likely to exist or be what the book claims that he is. But you can also approach the idea of God through other means. There's no law that says "you must only think of God in this way, and according to these rules." Unless you're debating Christians or something. In which case, go nuts.

And for the record, I don't have a problem being on nobody's side. I think that the idea of God can be important, but I don't think it has to be. I don't care if everything that people have written about God is made up. That doesn't really matter to me. What matters to me is more just digging and finding valuable spiritual stuff, no matter where it comes from or who writes it. And really what I've been trying to say here is that I'm not trying to argue with anyone (except P-C, because you know, it's P-C). I'm just looking for stuff that I think is cool and meaningful. Like I said before, I don't care if you believe in God or not. The only thing that I would get "evangelistic" about is not wasting your life thinking that plastic toys or video games or the next movie or whatever is the most that life has to offer. There's so much more than that, and I really feel like our culture has lost its soul in a sea of ringtones and cable television. So many people are simply incurious about the world and their place in it, and I think it's a real shame.

So that's me being dogmatic. Aside from that, I dunno. Be well and stuff.

Oh, I know you don't.

*reads and digests rest of Madhammer's post for reply later*

Ha! I don't have cable or ringtones!

Seeing as it's a giant ball of fusion and fission processes without any (known) sentience or volition, I'm not sure how much time of the week I could devote to wondering what it does or doesn't want me to do with my life.


I think what Hobbes is saying though is that even if you don't consider this from a Judeo-Christian perspective, you're still faced with the existence issue first. And what you're suggesting below:

has to do with philosophy and not theology. (Although I do think plastic toys and video games are pretty near the top of what life has to offer. And die-cast toys are even better! ;)
And I think we all agree about not wasting our lives, at least solely on toys. I mean we keep adding pages to this forum..

I wouldn't say our culture has lost anything. We simply have much more time to contemplate art, leisure, and entertainment than we've had before. While ringtones and who Britney married this week and Paris's dog may sound extraordinarily vapid, I think it's marginally more exciting and meaningful than lives spent working the soil or building someone else's pyramid. Considering how uneducated our populations are (relative to our actual potential), we've contemplated a large amount of philosophical issues in a far shorter period of time than most other periods of history prior to the current day, except for possibly the Greeks (and only because they perceived the universe and the world around them as being so much simpler).


Hobbes's question above also makes me wonder something. Is there a difference between the concept of a god and the concepts of things like Utopia or the mathematical notions of infinity or a perfect circle? I say no, as I suspect other atheists do -- we regard them all as non-existent. But believers would appear to think they are different because they treat them differently, so I'm wondering what distinguishes any god from the rest. From my standpoint, the concept of a god can have utility and meaning (and all the things Pete said) in a philosophical inquiry without actually existing anywhere but in our imaginations. Religious philosophers, in giving philosophical proofs that their god exists, have certainly described them in terms pretty much no different from other non-existent abstract concepts.

fact: long pointless rants in response to long pointless rants =

Yeah, I've been to church and read Ann Coulter too.

Ok, Hobbes has brought up the argument that if G-d existed and loved us He would let us know exactly what He expects from us, no confusion, no guessing games, no translations of languages that died off long ago.
Hobbes goes onto say that an informed person does not mean someone robbed of free will.

No, an informed person is not someone robbed of free will, but for all intensive purposes one in the manner you and Hobbes described is robbed of free will. If G-d revealed Himself to the world to make His will known in a clear and concise fashion you would either have to be dumb, deaf, and blind or in a clinical state of denial not to be a believer. If G-d opened up the heavens and spoke to the entire world and laid down the ground rules then yeah, that is more or less robbing people of free will.
No, it's not the same as Him waving His hand and saying "you're all pod people," but it essentially does the same thing.

And this ties into Hobbes' point that a loving G-d, as described from the Abrhamic faith, would not allow us to partake in guessing games, riddles, and reading bad translations of the original texts. Perhaps this holds weight when considering the Christian concept of G-d. I'm not Christian, however.
I believe in the G-d of the Torah, who's more or less a hardass. He gave us ten simple ground rules, then said "Ok, lets see what you come up with on your own."

He loves us, yes, but He also wants us to figure things out for ourselves. He wants us to learn through experience, He doesn't want to explain every little thing. He doesn't love us in the sense that He wants to coddle us. He does love us, He just wants us to learn for ourselves, to figure things out for ourselves.
So appearing before all of humanity and saying "Hey, here's what I expect, I'll be back in ten years to check up, see how everyone's doing" isn't His style. Also, as I've said before, informing humanity in that fashion would amount to robbing mankind of free will.

It's the "give a man a fish" vs "teaching a man to fish" argument. He's given us ten straightforward rules to live by, the rest is up to us to figure out.

Nonsense.

Do you have a job?
Do you have someone who outranks you at work?
And does this person give you rules to follow at work, things he expects of you or else you'll be reprimanded?
Does that mean you have been robbed of your free will to disobey him and/or just reject and leave the job completely?
And is it teaching a man to fish to give him multiple and conflicting employee handbooks, tossing him into the fire, and hoping he learns and figures things out for himself with no further training?

Come on, AZ.

lol to ten straightforward rules

*works on the Sabbath*


fuck!

Not to mention the other "companies" in the same industry that have slightly different handbooks for employment.

They analogy breaks down because G-d is well, G-d. Call it a cop-out if you want, but I don't consider Fred, assistant manager of Pete's Sports Goods to be on quite the same level as the Lord of all creation.

He's a human being. I've met the guy. It's not like I'm sitting around in the break room whispering to my co-workers that the Almighty Fred sent down the latest CCM Product Guide in a haze of smoke.
So yes, he lays down the ground rules, and I'm free to choose to obey them, find ways around them while keeping my job, or outright quiting. If I do so what? Who exactly will my life change in a meaningful and spiritual way if I disobey Fred who's made himself known to us?

That has nothing to do with G-d appearing before all of humanity. Come on, if G-d made himself as known to the world as you're suggesting He would if He loved us, and said "hey, it's Me, just thought I'd pass out a few copies of the new rule book, available in all languages!" then you would have to believe wouldn't you.
If you still decided you weren't going to believe that the Lord of all creation opened up the heavens and spoke to humanity even after he actually did, then you're clinically delusional.
If G-d appeared tomorrow and did exactly what you say He would do if He loved us, what would you do?

Rejecting G-d after He presents Himself to the world in such an obvious way is slightly different then saying "Screw you Fred, I quit."

As for the opposing holy scripture, are they really that at odds? Yes, the G-d of the Torah goes about doing things in a different manner then the G-d of the New Testament, and I'm sure G-d as described in the Koran is differs from both, but they all have the same basic message. Be good to others, treat your neighbour as you would want to be treated, don't kill, steal, or lie. If Christians, Jews, and Muslims actually sat down and did some research regarding what each other believes a lot of misunderstandings would be cleared up.

It's only the men who want power and control who twist and use religion that creates the conflict between the faiths.


You go to Church right? That counts as Keeping the Sabbath.

or not

One thing you fail to mention is the penalty God (sorry, G-d) imposes for violating these rules.

Here's a hint:

I'm gonna call it a cop-out.


Now you're changing the discussion. This wasn't about what is meaningful and spirtual about your boss or whether or not you believe - it was about free will. God showing himself does not remove freewill - it makes it hard to lack belief, but freewill and belief are two different things, and the amount of one you have does not impact the amount you have of the other.

God showing himself does not remove freewill from anyone.


Shit myself.


Of course they are.

Just, as an example, if your ten simple rules are really important, and Jesus was not, in fact, the Messiah, but just a dude, or even made up, then all the Christians are worshiping a false idol and are therefore going to Hell for commandment breaking. No?

But if he was, you're pretty Effed In The A for not accepting him as your Lord and Savior, right?

Am I twisting religion when I say that? I mean, I'm not exactly talking about the nitty-gritty dogma...those are both pretty basic ideas in Christianity and Judaism, aren't they?

Agent Zero is going to hell because he's rejecting the Messiah, correct.

Not that Agent Zero needs to worry about it if he's right, because the Jews don't believe in heaven or hell anyway.

You know, now that you mention it, I think I knew that...what's their afterlife deal again? Or is their God just such an ice hole that he'll kill your first born and so you might as well be in Hell when you're alive.

There might have been some post-Biblical developments on the afterlife in Judaism, but the Hebrew Bible itself pretty much says that this life is what you get. Perhaps one reason why posterity is so heavily emphasized. BEGAT'D

So...there's no punishment involved in disobeying God? I mean, besides the "being stoned to death by your friends and neighbors" aspect. But no eternal judgment from the Big Man himself?

It's all so hard to keep track of.

Hey, being stoned to death really sucks.

No doubt.

But, if I have this right, a modern Jew, who really doesn't have to worry so much about the stoning, is pretty free and clear to do whatever (within reason) and not worry about his eternal soul. Eat some pork, party on the Sabbath, have his foreskin reattached, worship false idols (perhaps American Idols? May Taylor Hicks light our darkest hour)...all that stuff, and God won't step in?

Or are we worried about the plagues again?

You'd have to ask them... for my part, I've always wondered how you could be a serious follower of Judaism these days without having any of the sacrifices or the stonings, not to mention a temple and a priesthood. I know that plenty of people water down their own faith when they just want to have the feeling of being religious, but if you're serious about it then I don't see a way around all the stuff in the Hebrew Bible. But Orthodox Jews manage to do it somehow.

After carefully reading all the crap in this thread I have come to the conclusion that some of you don't exist.

*looks around*

WHO SAID THAT?!

The REALLY crazy part is that one of US may really in fact be God. Wouldn't that be weird (but kinda make sense at the same time)? God hanging around a TF message board?

GOD: NO, YOU MISHEARD ME. I SAID THE "GEEKS" SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.

Boy, if it's me (and I've always had my suspicions to be honest), Pete's gonna feel real bad about always being so mean to me.

Hope you like plagues, buddy!

the thought of sleeper cell deities is really chilling IMO.















Fanfiction'D

Wreckers'd

I've been told for years, by countless people, that I look just like Jesus if that counts for anything.

No I won't heal you.

And you're a reverend to boot!