Is there a "God Gene?"

[John Uskglass]

Not you're place to judge God. No one's place.

No, it isn't my place. I'm also completely incapable of judging a (potential) being that would act in this way. Which is what I meant, although I didn't say that. The fact that I cannot understand God at all scares the crap outta me and gives me an inclination to believe/hope that there is no being, that it is all random.

Then you don't really understand the notion of God. A mouse cannot understand Anna Karenina, similarly it is impossible for humans to truly judge the nature or acts of god. Capech?

Unless you are admitting the fallibility of the Bible, which is somewhat at odds with the Christian faith, as I understand it.

No, that's not true at all, notion of Scripture as infalibile is a distinctly Calvanistic, and to a lesser extent Luthern idea. The Catholic Church, the Oriental Churches and the Orthodox Churches, besides the remantns of the Nestorians, have no notion of Scripture being infallible unless it regards to human conduct.

People have been burned at the stake for the notion that the Bible is the literal truth thuought, oddly enough.

 

[Big T]

No, it isn't my place. I'm also completely incapable of judging a (potential) being that would act in this way.

Then you don't really understand the notion of God. A mouse cannot understand Anna Karenina, similarly it is impossible for humans to truly judge the nature or acts of god. Capech?

Uh ... isn't that pretty much what I said? It's certainly what I meant.
Obviously I'm not too good at this "communication" lark.

No, that's not true at all, notion of Scripture as infalibile is a distinctly Calvanistic, and to a lesser extent Luthern idea. The Catholic Church, the Oriental Churches and the Orthodox Churches, besides the remantns of the Nestorians, have no notion of Scripture being infallible unless it regards to human conduct.

Fair enough, I said "as I understand it" and I'm hardly a bible scholar.

 

[Ashmo]

I actually agree, the Catholic church isn't as fundamentalist when it comes to scriptures as most "reformed" Christian churches are. For no apparent reason the brand new brainfart religions the USA spawned in its few hundred years of existence all think the Bible is the uncriticisable word of God tho.

I think religions that focus that much on scriptures are more dangerous because they less likely to become more tollerant and develop than religions which only take scriptures as the initial basis.
Then again, the Taliban claimed to be religious but acted against all the Quran is about (Islamism, like so many other religions, is at its base a religion of peace).

 

[John Uskglass]

Uh ... isn't that pretty much what I said? It's certainly what I meant.
Obviously I'm not too good at this "communication" lark.

Thus there is no reason to be scared. Being scared of what one does not understand is as natural a recation as it is an irrational one.

Islamism, like so many other religions, is at its base a religion of peace).

1) no
2) It's Islam. Not Islamis. Or Muhammedism, if you're retro like me, as I don't like the word Islam, too PC.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

I actually agree, the Catholic church isn't as fundamentalist when it comes to scriptures as most "reformed" Christian churches are. For no apparent reason the brand new brainfart religions the USA spawned in its few hundred years of existence all think the Bible is the uncriticisable word of God tho.

How ironic is it that a long war and decades of hatred were caused by the Protestant church being created from the Catholic church. Originally the Catholic church found the Protestant's to be heretics...hence the hate. Now the Catholic's are at the forefront of bridging the gap between other religions and trying to keep the peace? Amazing how things change...

Ya a lot of the Protestant break-away groups can be quite harsh and fundamental.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Corpse]

One thing I have always wondered is why so many people, some who are obviously intelligent individuals can believe in religious nonsense.

I guess this kind of answers my question.

One thing I have always wondered is why so many people, who are obviously intelligent individuals, can dismiss someone's own experiences and beliefs with the remark "it's nonsense". There's no way you can ever prove or even make likely that there is no god, or that any religion is false.
*sigh*

EDIT
My apologies if I have strong feelings against all forms of religion therefore my use of the word 'nonsense'; perhaps it was a bit thoughtless of me to say this as it is not my intention to offend anyone but rather to give you something to ponder. Having grown in a catholic environment myself, I always had a questioning nature for which I endured constant mocking and rebuke by my complacent peers and my father, observation of the hipocrisy of those who considered themselves strong believers, made me see religion as a license for people to do evil. This also made me develop a strong aversion to all forms of organised religion.

While religions may have served a biological purpose in the early history of man, serving as a safety net for our fears and insecurities we suffer since the trauma of birth; (just imagine the feeling of being pushed from the safety of your mothers womb into the coldness of an unknown world, the scars of this trauma would remain deeply etched in our subconcious giving us a sense of longing to feel protected from a hostile world.) Fear is the instinct that keeps us from venturing into the unknown ensuring our survival, fear is the essence of all religions where god is seen as the alpha-male figure (or life giving mother in more ancient pagan beliefs) which protects us through our vulnerable lives and guides us beyond into the unknown; giving us a sense of purpose, a sense we belong in order to justify our existence; satisfying our egos by telling us we are the center of creation and the singlemost important thing in the universe for which it was created. It is no wonder our instincts are more than willing to accept it even at face value as our egos can't accept the possibility that we are insignificant beings who may be nothing but the end result of random events which favoured our development.

How many opportunities has man lost because of fear spurred by ignorance, organised religions destroying peoples thirst for knowledge by stating the answer to everything lies in their beliefs. Fanatics who enforced these views when fundamentalist theocracies wielded absolute power, caused a great deal of misery hindering our progress by destroying great minds who challenged their views bringing years of stagnation; (not to mention countless of innocent victims who were falsely accused as heretics and executed in order to aquire their riches and states); burning entire libraries to destroy heretic books denying posterity access to this knowledge; the loss is insufferable and nothing could possibly atone or justify the damage this may have caused to the development of the human race in general.

I do not deny that there have been some positive outcomes, religions may have spurred the social development of civilizations, inspired great works of art, music, literature, architecture, etc. Without the devotion these people had, their works would have been but a poor reflection of what we have now. But the negative outcomes, hatred, intolerance, wars and ignorance cannot be overlooked.

Regardless of this I am not in position to say that god does not exist for I do not have the means to verify this and doubt we ever will considering our destructive selfish nature; I guess if such a supreme entity indeed existed, I doubt it would require our worship or care about us.

In my view, in the grand scale of things, even the known universe is but a fart in the wind drifting through the chaotic vastness of the unknown.

My apologies if any of you find this offensive, generally I avoid discussing religion as peoples beliefs are their own and few people are willing to see things from a different perspective either out of stubborness and pride or fearing they may see something they may not like.

 

[Sander]

I keep being amazed at the ability of non-religious people to dismiss religion in itself, because they see at religions have been abused. It seems that that's what you're doing Corpse, and you should therefore go against the abuse of religion, but not against religion itself. When discussing whether religion is right or not you can never refer to the actions men have taken in the name of religion, because those are the interpretations and abuses of men, and not the core of any religion.

 

[calculon000]

But a religion is the people who practice it, and any religion practiced by mortal men is fallible to human nature.

He's saying that the results of humans practicing any religion can be seen in the worst and best actions that it produced.

EDIT:

generally I avoid discussing religion as peoples beliefs are their own and few people are willing to see things from a different perspective either out of stubborness and pride or fearing they may see something they may not like.

I find all religion vs non-religion debate is useless because no-one ever comes out with different beliefs. They all stick to their original beliefs and just try to argue their own points.

 

[Sander]

But a religion is the people who practice it, and any religion practiced by mortal men is fallible to human nature.

He's saying that the results of humans practicing any religion can be seen in the worst and best actions that it produced.

And I'm not arguing agains that. I'm arguing against dismissing religion because of bad results.
I'll say it simply again: the fact that people abuse religoin doesn't mean that religion is wrong.

 

[calculon000]

the fact that people abuse religoin doesn't mean that religion is wrong.

Well, perhaps he was arguing against organized religion rather than religion itself, as the corruption is a product of only organized religion.

 

[Corpse]

I keep being amazed at the ability of non-religious people to dismiss religion in itself, because they see at religions have been abused. It seems that that's what you're doing Corpse, and you should therefore go against the abuse of religion, but not against religion itself. When discussing whether religion is right or not you can never refer to the actions men have taken in the name of religion, because those are the interpretations and abuses of men, and not the core of any religion.

I am not dismissing moral teachings or philosophies. I am attacking the manipulations of men who have twisted them to further their ambitions for power, wealth and control; the schisms, hatred, intolerance, ignorance and general flock mentality which has plagued many followers of various faiths and has flamed feuds and holy wars throughout history.

And like I said before people are free to believe whatever they want to believe just as I choose to believe in nothing.

 

[Voluptuous Pachyderm]

I feel drawn to post here, feel free to ignore me.

I'm a staunch atheist, science is my life, however I realise that I have a very very narrow mind in certain areas.

On top of this it is quite clear to me that both science and religion at their cores are very much the same thing. We can't prove that science is true in almost exactly the same way we cant prove a religion is true. The only difference for us, and by "us" I hope I mean the majority of these boards, is that every day we see "evidence" of science, we have a solid core of faith in science because we see it all the time. Now what is there to say that another man may not see evidence of their religious beliefs every day, in exactly the same things? nothing.

I dont think I'll ever believe in a god. But I can quite understand why others would believe in a god as much as I believe in a defribullator or car.

You will find that just as religions have oppressed knowledge that could be seen as contrary to it so has science. There have been cases where a scientists theories, even in recent years, have been refused to be included in scientific journals because it ran contrary to a well-known figure or field of research in science, such as hawkin, and have later been proven to be true

I would say that I know more about science and its theories than most, and I probably know quite a lot more about main religions and religion in general than most, I cannot say with certainty that it would be wrong to say both are equally flawed.

 

[John Uskglass]

I keep being amazed at the ability of non-religious people to dismiss religion in itself, because they see at religions have been abused. It seems that that's what you're doing Corpse, and you should therefore go against the abuse of religion, but not against religion itself. When discussing whether religion is right or not you can never refer to the actions men have taken in the name of religion, because those are the interpretations and abuses of men, and not the core of any religion.

You're generally right, of course, though there's a reason Islam has spread primarily through conquest even when comapred to Christanity, IMHO.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

I am not dismissing moral teachings or philosophies. I am attacking the manipulations of men who have twisted them to further their ambitions for power, wealth and control; the schisms, hatred, intolerance, ignorance and general flock mentality which has plagued many followers of various faiths and has flamed feuds and holy wars throughout history.

And like I said before people are free to believe whatever they want to believe just as I choose to believe in nothing.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you! Though this is my first meeting you I am quite impressed. Thanks for taking a side without bashing the other side...I am quite in agreement that organisation of religion has led to a loss of spirituality...as it becomes manafactured as a way to succeed and let a religion expand. I detest this. Religion is about beliefs and morality. The last thing it needs is to be confused with the immoral idea of "The almighty dollar" or in this case the dollar being a metaphor for a religions success in spreading throughout the world. Didnt the prophets of all Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism all preach that its better to die rightously than live in sin? Or to be your ethics before your achievement?

Thanks Corpse...

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Ashmo]

Since this thread has been derailed already:

Sander, did you read Thomas Hobbes or Macchiavelli? If not, you should.

 

[Sander]

Sander, did you read Thomas Hobbes or Macchiavelli? If not, you should.

Yes I did. So, your point is?

You're generally right, of course, though there's a reason Islam has spread primarily through conquest even when comapred to Christanity, IMHO.

Reminds me I should still read the Qu'ran. Hmm...
'

 

[Ashmo]

Oh, I just thought you might find their points interesting.
After all they promote systems based on logic rather than morality and all that.

 

[Sander]

Actually, they don't. They start out from a certain morality, and then apply logic to get to certain results. With Machiavelli the morality is, more or less, "the ruler's goal is to remain in power, and that is good", with Hobbes it is a bit more complicated, and I'm too lazy to look at it, but it's there as well.

 

[Lukus]

The conclusion of this thread, or what it has derailed into, is as already has been stated that no one can ever prove a religion right or wrong. Having that said, I feel like pitching in a bit.

Even if God himself would come down from the sky for everyone to observe and say "What's up guys? Just wanted to let you all know that I exist", it could be argued that since our perception is subjective we could be imagining it all. Which leads to the old question "Do we even exist?" We will never know. However, as for me, I take it for granted that I exist, and I believe what I see and feel. Sure, my perception is twisted, but what else am I to trust? I think this is the way most people reason. People will believe what they believe and as long as they don't harm anyone they should be able to do so.

People will also most likely always use religion for as long as it exists as an instrument to carry our their plans forged by a will to power, but as Sander said this is not to be confused with religion in itself. Take Helge Fossmo, the preacher from Knutby, Sweden for instance. He utterly manipulated his nanny to becoming not only his sex slave, but an instrument of death which he weilded against his own wife as well as his next door neighbour. A key in the conviction of this dude were the text messages which he sent to his nannys mobile, pretending to come from God. Yep, that's right. God has upgraded his technology and no longer communicates with his old means - SMS is his new tng. The creepy part is that this 27 year old nanny believed it so strongly that she murdered one person, and attempted murder another (the neighbour who was shot didn't die). Was this the fault of religion, or the fault of one twisted individual who saw a weakness in his fellow humans and utilzed it for his own purposes?

In addition, some argue that it's wrong for parents to raise their children into a certain religious belief. I think that then you might as well find it wrong to teach your children what is 'good' and what is 'bad' in the world. There is obviously no universal 'justice' - is there? It is quite natural that if you feel strongly that killing people is bad, you will teach this to your offspring. It is equally natural that if you think that Jesus loves you, you will teach this to your children.

For the record: I am an atheist.