Is there a God?

[Ant-LOX]

We were created by something that we cannot understand.

I won't take any human word for it, because humans have agendas.

Our creator does not have "morals" this is something we created to get along with each other.

Everything on earth that we have created; Time, Cars, Money, nations, etc.

Our creator has no hand in any of this, and does not care about you, or your mother with breast cancer, or your dads weak kidney. Fuck your sisters broken arm, who cares about your brothers brain damage. And your retarded uncle can stay in the basement.


Figure out what you want to do with your 1 time pass on this planet, if you want to follow 1 of the thousands of religions, then go ahead, I'll be worshiping this planet, and having fun not thinking about blind morals and bullshyt codes of ethics.

[marina]

I tried to read Richard Dawkins book, and a few other athiest-type literature when that hit the scene a few years ago. I don't know what I was expecting, but it sure as hell wasn't the same insular, dogmatic, judgmental, close-minded, arrogant proclamations that bothered me so much about religious people in the first place. But that's what those books were filled with.

And since then, I have had the opportunity to realize that those yelling, crazy bastards I disliked so much about Christianity aren't representative of the entire group (shocking, I know - but I'm apparently not a fast learner).

Every group has jerks, no matter which group you're talking about. An individuals belief, in God or not God shouldn't be relevant, except that Jerks (who need groups in order to appear legitimate in their ass-holery) have convinced regular people (who like groups because, initially because they are enjoyable, and eventually because they feel safe there), that it does matter.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

As to my IQ, like my weight, I choose to stay blissfully ignorant.

^5 Nothing good can come from knowing either. (Says the only living member of team fatty, so take that with a gain of salt.)

[Sparrow]

Right or wrong in the core belief system itself, there's merit to religious community and service. The levels of intense directed energy can be seriously inspiring--I've felt the 'spirit' move. It's a basic human need to belong; if religion is where that need is satisfied and it compels you to be a decent person and to improve the lives of those around you then, sure, let's all gather at the river.

[Mikey]

Originally Posted by Ant-LOX

We were created by something that we cannot understand.

this

[Junkenstein]

No. There is no god. There is no soul. Alll form of spiritual belief are something people make up because reality is too scary. The only real things are the one you can feel, touch and see. The rest are castles of sand built by your head.

And when you die, you rot in the ground and that's it. No heaven, no hell, no reincarnation, no karma, nothing. that's it.

[madeyeshawn]

No God, or anything spiritual or super natural exists.

I also don't publicly hate on others beleifs. I think there are more productive ways of making this a better place to live in by promoting individualism.

That being said I also believe in venting frustrations on the interwebs instead. For example: Fuck agnostics. You people rail against religions for having rules and boring rituals so that you can shrug and say "there's probably a creator but i'm to lazy to go find one, but it counts that I say it". If you don't have an actual idea or theory on what created the universe and yet you have some magical gut feeling that something created us, way to add deep insight to the topic. It's one thing to not have an answer to a tough question it's another to be proud of it. I should say that to every question like: Are you gay? "99.9% of evidence says i'm heterosexual but that .01% can't be ignored so i'm bi".

I don't hate any theists or agnostics that don't hate me, I just get frustrated. Dawkins also pisses me off but he does do some good with his charitable works in supporting science education.

[JPeppard]

I think IQ is basically bullshit, there is a basic ability to test if someone is functionally retarded or not, sure, but higher intelligence is a bit trickier.

I never did find a reason to believe in God, people just said I should. The more and more I study biological sciences the more I am relying on the belief in sheer chance than the belief in complete and all encompassing control.

[Junkenstein]

Cool avatar Jpeppard. Finally somebody who pays respect to the king of all kings. Who was very spiritual and a strong believer, by the way.

[daemon]

Yes.

[siric]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Good grief. Dawkins's book was riddled with holes, it made assumptions, and was poorly written. If you think Dawkins has a point in The God Delusion, you really haven't put much thought into religion.

And before you start calling bias, I'm an atheist. That book is dumb and it does as much harm to the religious discourse in the world as Christianity.

What holes is the book riddled with? What assumptions does Dawkins make in the book? And finally "was poorly written" is an extremely vague, subjective statement, which has absolutely nothing to do with his point.

To give another example: "I don't think the baptist religion is true because I don't like gospel music." <===(Not a valid point)

And believe me, I have spent A LOT of time thinking about religion. I am in the fourth chapter and so far have found at least a dozen valid points, many of them from prominent historical figures (Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Charles Darwin, etc.)

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

See, this is the sort of dumb comments that Dawkins's book fosters. You're either purposefully or unintentionally picking the most absurd case of a creator god in order to attack all of them.

Dawkins tries to make Christian thought synonymous with the word "religion", and Christianity tries to make Christian thought synonymous with the word "religion". The Christian God is one deity, not a representation of them all.

Labeling the opposing argument "dumb" is not a valid rebuttal. As for picking the most absurd cases of a creator god, Dawkins goes over the various types of creators people believe in in the beginning of the book. He considers them all absurd.

Your second claim is just plain wrong. Dawkins does not try to turn religion into Christianity. He makes several preemptive arguments before even going into depth about Christianity.

First, he explains the similarities between the big 3 (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, which all came from the same place). He explains that he is speaking of what he has the most experience with (Christianity), but even more, he is discussing the harm caused by the blind faith required by ALL religions. His points move easily between religions, just as the techniques used by theologians can be found in many religions (inciting mob violence, hatred through prejudice, blind faith and acceptance that your group alone is right and everyone else is a danger).

Originally Posted by marina

I tried to read Richard Dawkins book, and a few other athiest-type literature when that hit the scene a few years ago. I don't know what I was expecting, but it sure as hell wasn't the same insular, dogmatic, judgmental, close-minded, arrogant proclamations that bothered me so much about religious people in the first place. But that's what those books were filled with...

...An individuals belief, in God or not God shouldn't be relevant, except that Jerks (who need groups in order to appear legitimate in their ass-holery) have convinced regular people (who like groups because, initially because they are enjoyable, and eventually because they feel safe there), that it does matter...

I beg to differ. Or I should say, I beg to differ in theory. You are absolutely right, an individual's beliefs in god should not be relevant. But believers make their beliefs relevant by forcing them onto non-believers. I can't marry my boyfriend because of Christians.

What is their reason for forcing their belief on me? "Homosexuality is morally wrong." Says who? A fictional character in a fictional book that claims, wrongly and dangerously, to be an accurate account of history?

"Teaching abstinence is the only morally correct way to teach teenagers about sex." Now there is a dangerous religious belief; in my opinion, one of the most dangerous. Condoms are bad and don't work. Okay, so now when teenagers have sex (which most of them will) they will get pregnant and get STDs. Once again, this is an example of religious people causing harm by forcing their beliefs on others.