Is The Bible True or False?
Submitted by blindsider on Fri, 11/28/2008 - 13:11
Tags:
Author Comments:
Everybody at some point in their life starts questioning their beliefs, or human kinds purpose on the earth. I myself am not sure what I personally believe, but I want to hear other people's opinions on the topic. Please post your ideas below.
I was too lazy to read this whole discussion and I'm not about to spend hours of time researching this argument but I'll still try to make a few points.
Maybe the Old Testament was lacking of morals and Judeo-Roman Society did have a system of retributive justice that was cruel and unforgiving. Maybe God (Jewish/Christian or not) then decided to send/inspire a messenger to preach forgiveness and change the way these people thought. Maybe Jesus was not the son of God but simply didn't agree with some of the ideas of his society and sought to change them. Now whether or not Jesus was divine, no one would have listened to him if he had just said, "Hey, I'm a carpenter, no more stoning, love thy neighbor as thyself, etc.", with out doing it through the context of religion. In the gospels, Jesus renounces many of the old testament teachings, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The Merciful shall receive Mercy. Judge not, that you will not be judged, and etc." Divine or not Jesus' teachings have given hope to millions over the last 2 millenniums and have helped shape our modern society.
Now lets imagine a world without Jesus or Muhammad or Confucius and whoever else for a minute. The effects of Jesus' teachings on the declining Roman Empire are debatable, however, they certainly inspired hope to some Roman citizens-- as the conditions of life worsened, it was inspiring to know that when you died their was salvation after death. If Rome had never adopted Christianity, the new European Nations wouldn't have either. Christianity was the primary uniting force in Europe, and although it was manipulated to justify the crusades and later colonialism, it stopped the Europeans from fighting each other (as much). Europe would have never grown as it did with out the unity it shared through Christ. Some might argue that Christianity and the Papacy brought about decades of scientific suppression through their strict fundamentalism, however, western scientific achievements would have never been possible if Europe had been torn between small kingdoms constantly fighting amongst themselves for 100s of years.
The same is true for the middle east, which before Muhammad, had been in a state of decline. Between 600 and 800 A.D., Arabia went from being a decentralized land divided heavily between pillaging nomads and under developed settled people to being a massive empire spanning from Spain through modern Pakistan. Muslim society was then able to develop and improve the standard of life dramatically, leading to major advancements in math and science.
I'm tired of typing now, but whether or not Jesus, Muhammad, Confucius, Bahá'u'lláh or who ever were divine, they have had a more positive impact on the world than negative. I personally believe in God and that the previously mentioned people were all inspired atleast partly by him. I'm not going to tell you any other belief is wrong or that mines right because I don't believe God wants us to spend all our time and energy worshipping him and I don't believe in hell. This has been a waste of time, I just realized the last post here is from 2008. God Damn it.
Hehe not necessarily. I've been hoping some one else would post their thoughts on the topic-and it's a very broad topic at that. You brought up a different point on the positive effects of religion regardless of the truth behind it-Kudos!
I apologize if I was wordy or essay-like with my responses. I get very passionate about this issue, mainly because I was part of a fundamentalist Christian church as a very young child. If I offended or bothered anyone, it was unintentional.
I don't see why anyone should take offense. At least you're not standing on the corner in front of a high school preaching to students and handing out brochures. The whole point of these posts is to state your opinion, so I thank you for your responses.
Cool, good to hear :D
Pantheism makes the most sense to me.
.
Is a library of books and letters compiled over thousands of years by writers and editors of different nations, languages, and religions TRUE OR FALSE?
Ummmm...
I'm asking if you believe in Christianity. There is a reason that religion is called a 'faith'. You have to believe it even if there is no physical proof. Ex. I believe in Christ, and God and all that, but I don't neccessarily believe that the story of Noah's Arc is real, or that the Red Sea was parted. The only thing supporting those stories is words in a book. You can choose whether to believe it or not, but it has no proof behind it.
Ah, okay.
I believe about the Jewish Bible and the Christian New Testament what I believe about the Koran, the Vedas, the Homeric Epics, the Upanishads, the Tipitaka. There's wisdom in each of them, but since they are ancient much of it is embarrassingly credulous, sexist, racist, and hateful. They are interesting bits of history, but I don't need any of them to be far more knowledgeable and moral than ANYBODY on the planet was when they were written.
I think the Bible is real from a bird's-eye view. I do believe in God, or at least that there is a spiritual side to the universe, and I do think the Bible paints a good sense of morality in broad strokes.
Once you start zeroing in on every detail of the Bible, I agree with it less and less. I don't believe that a flood wiped out every creature on earth except the ones on Noah's ark, for example, and I also don't believe that it is wrong to wear clothing made of two different types of cloth.
How does the Bible paint a good sense of morality at all, in any strokes? Case(s) in point:
1.[in the 10 commandments] "I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me."
2.Or how about this beauty:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judg%2019:22-29&version=31
So it's OK to rape and torture a woman, but not a guest, but only if the woman who was raped and tortured is a virgin and a man's second wife, and only if said woman is later tortured to death?
3.Or this lovely moral message (Deuteronomy 22:5): "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this."
The LORD your God hates neurological diversity.
4. Or my personal favorite:
(Deuteronomy 22:13-20) If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death."
5."No one born of a forbidden marriage or one of illegitimate birth nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation."
If one of your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents didn't like one of your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, after you die you will be immolated with fire while your entire body is impaled by spikes and you scream and cry in unending, inescapable, indescribable suffering forever and ever and ever.
But not if one of your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents didn't like one of your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents - in that case, when you die you'll be rewarded with eternal bliss.
6. (Deuteronomy 11:6-12) "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death..." [and so on]
In summary, anyone with a different religion must be tortured to death.
There is very little in there that I would call good morality, actually, and of the little that is there, most is inherent human behaviour anyway, and doesn't need religion to tell us that (IE: thou shalt not kill, steal, etc.). Unless of course we start re-interpreting the bible so that every story has a reasonable message, but if we're going to do that, I might as well re-interpret turds I drop into the toilet to preach morality (that swirl of brown surrounding that other swirl of brown represents that we must love our neighbors as ourselves). In fact, I'd even argue that the God of Judeo-Christian mythology is one of the most evil, jealous, sinister, childish, and conniving assholes I've come across in any piece of literature or mythology. If I had a kid who acted anything like the biblical god, I'd get him tested for sociopathy.
By the way, on that note...
Sure, anyone can point to plenty of details where the morality discussed by the Bible is incredibly dated. That's why I said it works in broad strokes. Most of what you've mentioned is a detail of the Bible that its followers have been ignoring for centuries because even the most fundamentalist of its observers know that this stuff is dated.
Broad strokes. For starters, the Ten Commandments is a good code to live by. Throughout, there's a general message of good triumphing over evil. You seem to undervalue all of that stuff, but I find your assertion that most of the good morality in the Bible is "inherent human behavior anyway" to be questionable at best. Scientists, sociologists, and hordes of other scholars have spend centuries debating what "inherent human behavior" is, that I'm surprised you feel comfortable using the phrase definitively. But let's say that the framework we're working with is natural selection and that inherent human behavior means whatever it takes to ensure one's survival and the passing on of one's genes. That's not so simple; there are obviously different strategies to do so. One way would be to trust no one, take whatever you can get your hands on, murder anyone who gets in your way, and have tons of non-consensual sex in order to sow your seed as much as humanly possible. Rest assured that there were plenty of pagan sects using this strategy in Biblical times, who probably would have told you that raping and pillaging was "inherent human behavior."
But another strategy is to say that self-preservation is easier when we foster a community that isn't quite so self-interested. That we just agree that I won't kill you and you won't kill me, because while my survival is important, your survival is important too. That although we all want to protect our own evolutionary strategy, maybe if we work together a little bit, we can visualize something larger than ourselves, and that convergence will help us all survive, be fruitful, and multiply.
So I don't think it's quite so clear-cut what "inherent human behavior" is, and if you disagree, I would argue that's because we've all been socialized a certain way based on thousands of years of moral codes, most of which have been based on... the Bible. If nothing else, the Bible argues in favor the second strategy of survival. If in its quest to foster a sense of community, it ends up dropping a couple of duds like telling men it's wrong to wear women's clothes, then so be it.
P.S. Granted, I don’t agree with anyone who thinks that atheists have less reason/likelihood to be moral in today’s day and age. But they’re abiding by society’s ethical codes, which are based on a gradual development of the Bible’s moral codes, and anyone who denies the Bible’s importance in shaping our ideas of ethics in society is doing the Bible a terrible disservice.
Or better, http://www.reason.com/news/show/35014.html - discussing a recent neuroimaging study showing a direct link between certain moral decisions and brain areas (which, if destroyed, as Gage showed, remove "morality"). I think "hardwired into the brain" is a pretty nice description of "inherent human behaviour." As for cross-cultural morality, a perfect example is the reciprocity norm - (in summary) the idea that favours should be repaid.
Note that while, yes, there are people who don't fit this sort of neurology, they are diagnosed as sociopathic, psychopathic, suffering from antisocial and borderline personality disorders, etc. - the message being that lack of morality is a medical problem. No training or treatment has ever been found to be effective with these people, and "moral teaching" is completely useless. Even if the bible had a good moral message, evidence from comparisons of sociopaths to the regular population seems to show that it would be preaching to the choir, so to speak, and make very little difference on behaviour. The inability to change an individual's morality is another nice piece of evidence for morality being inherent human behaviour.
And what exactly were these pagan sects who behaved in the way you described (besides those ruled by likely sociopaths, such as the Mongols under Genghis Khan)? And what christian societies didn't behave that way for the next 1500 years? Surely you don't think the crusades, the conquest of the Americas, etc. were anything different? It was only in the renaissance when the hold of christianity began to weaken where humanity began behaving any differently. The bible isn't even against rape and pillage, anyway.
Besides, no society I can think of ever really thought raping and pillaging was inherent human behaviour: they usually had excuses for it, such as that that they were not dealing with people, or that their god wills that behaviour (aka islam and christianity), or that a far worse fate will befall themselves and their family if they don't (threats from authority, as appeared often in modern times - kill a stranger or see your children tortured to death? What would you do?), or that they are a chosen people, etc..
I'm sorry if I repeated myself at all, I was a little distracted as I wrote the above reply.
Now this is a great post, and one that definitely lets me see your point of view better than your original one. I'm just so tired of hearing people in my generation masturbate to their own cleverness as they point out things in the Bible that no one ever follows anymore as if that's supposed to nullify the influence the Bible has had on society over the course of thousands of years. You clearly have thought this through quite a bit more.
Still, arguing that the Bible's teachings are irrelevant because someone else did it first? Who are you, Scaruffi? :-) There are billions of modern-day followers of the Bible; how many people in today's day and age do you think can describe themselves as hardcore Hammurabians? (I smell a new version of the endless Beatles vs. Scaruffi argument...)
You make some good points about retributive justice, and although I would argue that modern justice is still more skewed toward retributive justice than you're saying, I'm not sure that's a good thing. I'm also not sure that one of the Bible's main themes is retribution (maybe divine retribution, but not man-made retribution), but the point is arguable. I will say this. In ancient times, the Israelis had a rabbinical court called a beis din, which formed its opinions pretty much solely on the Talmud. As you can imagine, many common crimes were punishable by death; however, beis dins held such a high standard of proof that things rarely came to that. A Jewish history teacher once told me that a particularly bloodthirsty beis din might execute one person every hundred years. So what does that mean for this Bible-based justice system? Retribution is the way to go in theory, but the values taught in the Bible show that in practice, other goals are more important.
You obviously have more knowledge of neuroimaging given your course of study than I do. But my impression is that you are still looking at things from a far too modern perspective. Anytime you're looking at a mature brain with neuroimaging, you're looking at a brain that has been socialized by the development of thousands of years of ethical codes. There's no way to look at a blank slate brain that is old enough to understand complex moral decisions in today's day and age.
In any case, studies have found no neurological differences between Nazi brains and normal human brains, which just goes to show that if inherent human behavior causes us to follow certain basic moral paths, there have been cases even in the 20th century where the events have not been quite so clear-cut. Why excuse hordes of Mongols (or Nazis) just because they were led by one convincing sociopath? Maybe they didn't think what they were doing was inherent human behavior, but many of them thought that what they were doing was right (which is probably worse), and according to what you said, they did it without the excuse of psychological disorders.
Anyway, I'm certainly not trying to excuse the crusades (especially because they victimized my own people), but people have been misinterpreting the Bible for their own purposes for millennia. I still say that at its core, from a bird's eye view, the Bible made some good points (albeit ones that don't really need to be made anymore). Sure, Old-Testament God is spiteful and murderous, but the point of the Old Testament isn't, "Hey everyone, act just like God!" I would argue that the point of the Old Testament is just the opposite, as a matter of fact. It's composed of scores of larger-than-life stories, huge chunks of which are designed to encourage faith in - and fear of - God. But when you get down to the essence of its morality as should be applied to everyday human life, you get some good basic teachings. Even the dietary laws, which are an easy straw man argument today (Eating pork is wrong? Preposterous! And all gay-bashing Christians just ignore this rule!), made sense at the time, because keeping kosher genuinely would keep you healthier in Biblical times.
You find even more teachings worth following in the New Testament, which I haven't been discussing since I'm Jewish, but I should really just admit that New-Testament-based interpretation has been affecting Jewish study of religion for centuries (Hebrew school never depicted God as a ruthless killer; we talked about a loving, merciful God, who honestly is more in line with Jesus than anything in the Old Testament; this is assuming you actually look at Jesus's moral teachings rather than the baffling [from a moral standpoint, anyway] Protestant belief that you can commit whatever sins you want because Jesus already died).
Basically, I was talking about the Bible's influence on today's morality in my most recent post, which may be a separate argument from my point: that there's plenty to agree with when you look at a broader picture of the Bible's morality. Whether the Bible had a serious influence on how ethics looks today or whether the Bible just used common sense lessons and moral teachings that preceded it is a complex argument worthy or Biblical and historical scholars. But either way, I stand by the original statement.
I agree that the bible has had great influence over society, I just argue that it's a bad influence.
The irrelevance of the bible because someone else did it first: I was arguing that the concepts of thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal were already well-accepted at the time of the bible's writing - that the bible didn't cause these ideas to be accepted in the world. The bible simply codified the rules already accepted in the society that generated it, and these were rules accepted in pretty much every society at the time, and they would have continued to be accepted to this day without the bible.
I agree that modern society is still fairly skewed towards retributive justice, but I'd argue that it's because modern society is still quite religious. It certainly isn't secular humanists forensic psychologists arguing that people should get what they deserve - it tends to be people waving the bible/koran/etc around. The secular world - IE science (especially social science) - is the strongest proponent of rehabilitative, deterrent and restitutive justice that exists to protect the safety of society.
Retribution in the bible: the rules it outlines are retributive - IE society should stone women who get raped and don't cry out loud enough - this calls for man-made retribution - it outlines a punishment to be given by humans for a "crime" for no other reason than revenge. The new testament could be perhaps argued to be based on divine retribution only, but someone who believes in divine retribution, I would argue, is probably more open to the idea of man-made retribution (and a lot of Christians follow the whole bible anyway).
As for the neuroimaging research being modern only - remember that this is physiology we are looking at. I suppose I can never prove that people back then didn't have differently organized brains, but it seems quite unlikely. There are certain moral rules that have been seen throughout history, and certain conditions are almost always met when they get broken en masse. Read about Stanley Milgram's studies on following authority - in the wrong circumstances, you can make anyone do horrible crimes that they don't morally believe in (definitely do read about this, you'll be quite amazed). Nazi brains are no different than regular brains, as for the most part, nazis are just regular people in the wrong circumstances. The bible wouldn't stop someone from being a nazi anyway - Hitler advocated christianity:
"by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
- Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kampf
Psychopaths (like Hitler probably was) are really cleverly manipulative, and successful ones have figured out human nature enough to know exactly which buttons to press to make people do whatever they want them to. Many of them thought that what they were doing was right, for sure, but a lot of people are psychopaths (estimates range from 1 to 4 percent, because they're a very slippery group that is really hard to pin down). Besides, even non-psychopaths will "dehumanize" a group of people they are forced to kill - this is how soldiers do what they have to do. It doesn't make them evil, it makes them a victim of their own psychology and circumstance. I don't think you'd call someone evil (or maybe you would) for saying "we need to kill Muslims to keep Americans safe because they are all evil and all want to bomb Americans" - you'd probably call them deluded and a victim of too much propaganda. Same deal in Hitler's Germany.
I'm really wondering, what was beautiful about Jesus' teachings? He outlines that you have to believe in him, or you'll burn in a fiery pit of suffering. That is essentially his central idea, and the central idea of christianity. Sure, you can talk about love and mercy, but when you pepper it with messages of divine retribution, it really becomes hard to swallow. Imagine a world leader doing that, advocating love, peace, and mercy, who just so happens to throw people who disobey him into a giant furnace. There would not be a single reasonable person who believed that he was a good man, or that he should be considered a great man for his message of peace. And who would follow a modern book of advice that contained such a message? If you have to cherry pick the bible for positive messages (and there are...some, I think, although I can't find any that don't require a lot of interpretation of ignoring of context), then isn't it your own conscience guiding what you do and don't follow, and not the bible?
Anyway, the Protestant argument that you can commit any sins you want just because Jesus died is the one most in tune with what Jesus actually said. If you're not following that message, then it isn't the bible influencing your morality, it's something else: probably society and your own conscience.
When it comes down to it, I just don't see what the bible says that wasn't already believed at the time, and what improvements the bible gives over the morality of the time (a lot seems regressive, even for those times). I can't find any positive influence it has had on morality. Influence: for sure. Positive, I disagree.
I think what makes this argument so convoluted is that it's hard to get an unfiltered version of Biblical teachings, one that hasn't been tempered by millennia of the Bible's followers trying to bastardize its words and make God's word suit their own agenda. A lot of what you are saying isn't the Bible's word being immoral, it's people interpreting the Bible immorally. I think the idea that "someone who believes in divine retribution... is probably more open to the idea of man-made retribution" is probably true, but I also think that the Bible is essentially against it. I think the Bible advocates a drastic separation between God's power and man's power, and that if the Bible seems to have a lot of stories of retribution in it, it is not so that man can enact his own retribution, but rather to enforce an important message: don't fuck with God.
Similarly, I think it is absurd to say that the Bible would not be against Nazism. This again is Hitler bastardizing the text of the Bible for his own purposes.
My basic point about the Mongols was that it is better to have a society organized under the Bible's version of morality than under Genghis Khan's. Admittedly, some followers of the Bible bastardized its teachings enough that they were probably just as bad as the Mongols. I would argue that they were not following a pure version of the Bible's morality. Hence this point isn't really here nor there, I'm afraid.
As for neuroimaging, again you certainly know more about this than I do, but I would think one's conscience influences how one's brain reacts to things, just like one's brain reacts differently to telling the truth and telling a lie. So if you sincerely believe that, say, rape is immoral, your brain would react differently than if you thought that was a perfectly just action.
The Bible certainly has its fair share of positive messages that I think stand alone as essential to its basic themes. I will admit it also features divine beings doing some pretty fucked-up things, and a lot of outdated rules. I would argue that your view of the Bible is inclined towards cynicism, which causes you to focus more on the latter than the former. I do have a more positive view of the Bible, which causes me to focus more on the former. Ultimately I think this is just a matter of your perspective.
"If you have to cherry pick the bible for positive messages (and there are...some, I think, although I can't find any that don't require a lot of interpretation of ignoring of context), then isn't it your own conscience guiding what you do and don't follow, and not the bible?"
My conscience does guide me far more than the Bible in my everyday life. There are many people out there for whom this isn't true, millions of Jews and Christians doing charity work and living their lives as better people because they think it's what God would want. Yes, there are also millions who live lives of hatred and bigotry due to the Bible. But on the basis of the former group, I can't get behind your assertion that the Bible has had no positive influence on morality.
Some positive and some negative? Definitely.
I honestly cannot think of a single example in the bible that has anything to do with modern morality. OK, there's the three universally agreed upon of the 10 commandments - basically don't kill, steal, or give a false judicial testimony. However, all three of those had existed long before the bible: these have been around for thousands of years, and had even been written down since (at least) Hammurabi's code in 1760 BC, which at least pre-dates the bible by 500 years. Plus, they've been codified by many cultures since, separate of the bible, such as in the Justinian code of the Romans who were certainly not Jewish or Christian.
I would actually argue the opposite - that modern morality comes from a move away from the use of the bible as a moral framework. The bible prescribes a form of justice known in modern law as retribution, which essentially states that people should be get what they deserve for their crimes. This is an intuitive but incredibly counter-productive way to deal with crime, as it either:
1) creates a society that breaches pretty much all modern ideas of human rights (in its biblical extreme) with cruel, unusual, and torturous physical punishments or death for pretty much everything; or
2) creates a society in which criminals are likely to recidivate, thus hurting both the criminal and society.
Modern justice (inarguably a far superior form of justice - although if you feel the need to argue that, we can have that discussion, but I'm sure you agree with me there) is based on rehabilitation, deterrence, the protection of modern human rights (meaning removal of torturous and excessive punishments), and the protection of society. In other words, make the criminal and society realize that certain actions are harmful to society and other individuals, then take steps to ensure that the offender can fully re-join and once again contribute to society with minimal risk of he/she recidivating. This is goes completely against the bible. Even the god of the bible prescribes retribution, and in a more extreme form than even the most sadistic of humans have ever carried out in all of human history. At least the suffering humans inflict on one another is temporary - the suffering that (evil) god claims to inflict is forever.
Also note that the nation most credited for progressing the modern ideals of human rights - the United States - was founded out based on Freemasonic (and therefore deist) and Roman concepts, not christian ones as is commonly stated (why else "separation of church from state"? Do you think a Christian nation would have such a policy?). It has lost the distinction of being a leader in human rights since moving in a more christian direction, and has been supplanted by more secular nations (like Canada, Sweden and a number of other European nations). In fact, whenever christianity is called on today, it is always to restrict the rights of others (bans on gay marriage, anti-abortion, retributive punishments on drug prohibition violaters, restricting atheists from political office [look this one up, you'll be quite surprised], restrictions on stem cell research, and so on).
Inherent human behaviour refers to behaviours that have been recorded universally across cultures, and are therefore considered to be directly wired into our neurology (some have even have directly observed to parts of our brain, actually). Quite a number of such behaviours have been documented, and there are even a number of cases in which we have seen brain damage result in deficits in "moral" behaviour. The classic example is Phineas Gage, who upon suffering an extreme frontal lobe injury changed from being a generous and well-loved man, to being impatient, angry, hostile, volatile, and essentially what we would describe as evil. Neuroimaging has recently been finding a lot of links in the brain to moral decisions (as an example, read: http://www.amazon.com/Hardwired-Behavior-Neuroscience-Reveals-Morality/d...)
[I'll finish this post later, I missed on a few things but have no time right now to finish]
The Bible is a silly, fun, mythological read =)
Has some cool quotes though, and a badass character called God.
I grew up on the Bible, I went to church every Sunday and blah blah blah. Obviously I am not religious anymore, but that does not mean I do not agree with "don't murder, don't rape" etc. Overall, I live by the morales taught to me (to a certain extent, there is one thing I cannot help that the bible outright teaches against, but as I said, it cannot be helped), but I do not agree with the "religion" part of it.
In other words, the Bible is fine, it's just the people that I don't like. Not ALL of the people, but the majority.(sorry for the roundabout paragraph)
Thanks for the opinion. Whether the bible is real or not it definitely has good lessons to live by. If everyone lived by the commandments, regardless of whether or not they actually believed in God, then we'd all be happier I'm sure.
Commandments like "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name" or "you shall have no other gods before me"? Yeah, the world would be a much better place if everyone were a Christian and every other religion and system of belief ceased to exist, wouldn't it? When you say "diversity, tolerance, and acceptance," you really mean "blasphemy, evil, and sin."
And what about "You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor"? (covet meaning desire, I've looked this up in multiple places, and there's no special biblical meaning for this) So if I my neighbor buys a big-screen TV and invites me over to watch a movie on it, and I say "Nice TV, where did you get it?", I'm committing a mortal sin?
Or the useless: "Honor your father and mother." What if your father and mother don't deserve to be honored? What if your father is a crack addict who beats your mother whenever he isn't cheating on her? Should I honor him then? What if I don't even know my father? [my parents are not those things, I come from a normal upbringing, I'm just giving a case in point]. Wouldn't "honor those who have earned your honor" be a far better moral message? It's not a piddling detail - a perfect moral message sent down by an omnipotent, omniscient god should take something like this into consideration, especially taking into account what a significant percent of children get physically and sexually abused every year, which was probably even higher in ancient times (there being a lack of things like child protection services).
There are basically 3 good commandments: thou shalt not kill, steal, or bear false witness on your neighbor; and all three are pretty much universal - we don't need the bible to tell us that those things are bad. Maybe do not commit adultery (defined as sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman who is not his wife), but this is only really a problem in traditional nuclear families. What about swingers? Those in open marriages? Consensual polygamists? Married couples who enjoy threesomes? Are they not people too? Nonsense.
The Bible doesn't claim "don't rape" by the way, in fact it even gives some specific circumstances where rape is acceptable. "Don't rape" is a concept of secular morality (and likely present in other religions, although I haven't come across it directly as such).
I don't think I said what I meant to say. Here:
I agree (almost) wholeheartedly with what Christ (Jesus) taught. I think he tried to send a fairly peaceful message "treat thy neighbor as thyself" etc., I don't think he wanted to happen what happened, I honestly don't think the message that is sent by Christians (which by the way means "like Christ," or so I've been told) today is what he wanted...portrayed. What I think happened is the people today have this extremely skewed point of view towards the bible, and even the people back then had it. The Christians fucked up the message. It caused some of the WORST wars known to mankind, and they went on (and still are) for thousands of years. Some of the best intentions lead to the worst disasters.
Now, I cannot say whether or not Christ really did want to send the message today, he very well could've, but I think a man of that stature wouldn't have done something like that. Now the Christian cult is spreading hate throughout the world, and only GOD (har har har) knows how much damage it's done. Anyway, to get to the point, I do not agree with what the Bible teaches, but if I am correct about what Jesus meant to say (and I could be wrong), that is not the message that is meant.
I don't know, I've never really read the Bible, I burn them if I receive them now, and when I was a Catholic I never really opened it. It always seemed stupid to me. Religion has always been a difficult thing for me, because my entire family is religious (except for my step-dad), so I'm really the only Athiest in the whole place. The morals I was taught as a child was based off of - what at the time I perceived to be - the morals in the Bible, maybe not for the rest of the world, but for me it was. So that's kind of why I give some credit to the Bible...or what I believe should have been said in the Bible.
I think of all people I would be the last to agree there is a God and that I will worship him. I mean, fuck, I'm shunned by my Dad and his entire side of the family for my "problem" as they so love to put it, so why the fuck would I be religious in the first place?
Basically DT, I agree with what you said, just in a different way. Sorry for the quirky reply, if you have any questions or if I didn't correctly portray the message I will gladly clear it all up. I'm better at talking than writing about my feelings.
P.S. Something is nagging me about what I put here, and I can't place my finger on it =/... I just don't think I correctly (again) said what I wanted to say the first time. Oh well, this is like the 5th revision, so I'm done correcting it XP.
No, what you're saying makes sense, and it is (understandably, considering how people talk about the bible) a really common misconception that the bible is full of messages of hope, joy, and altruism, among those who have not read it - especially in the new testament. But note that even the commonly lauded Jesus aspect of the bible was not exactly the friendly message of love most christians (at least claim to) associate with it today. The core of his message was essentially, believe in me and you will be saved. Don't believe in me, and you will go to hell. And he does talk about hell many times.
IE: (both said directly by Jesus):
(Luke 10:15) "And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? Thou shalt be brought down unto Hades."
(Mark 9:14-19) "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. Everyone will be salted with fire."
And sin could be as simple as not believing in Jesus:
(John 3:16-18) "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."
Which means that by kind, gentle Jesus' message, tribesmen born in Papua New Guinea who never get the chance to hear of christianity all suffer in pain for eternity, according to the bible, and according to kind, forgiving Jesus. Honestly, who wants to be like that? I would never want to be like Jesus.
I especially understand your thinking on the bible, because I was the same way too - I was raised christian, and had to go to quite an oppressive church as a child. Until about 2 years ago, there was still some aspect of me that believed that it was all true simply because it was how I was raised (although my most of family were much more liberal christians). It was only once I actually took another look at the bible once I was old enough to properly understand it, and got more training in psychology, history, and neuroscience that I could get rid of that last piece of religion. Luckily my immediate family has basically followed me into atheism or at least agnosticism, and religion is now avoided as a subject with the extended family. Good luck dealing with your relatives, I really do wish you the best - it's hard dealing with irrational people, especially when they believe you are evil.
Awesome work with burning bibles, BTW, although I personally prefer using them as rolling paper. It's a poetic sort of justice, sort of like, this book claims it can give me a spiritual experience, and I read it and didn't have one, so I'm going to take it up on its promise by using it to smoke hallucinogens. [the hallucinogenic experience is widely believed to be neurally similar, if not exactly the same as the "spiritual" experience, BTW - read up on Michael Persinger's research for some stuff on this - they're even found the area of the brain that (when over-activated) produces the spiritual experience. Many hallucinogens (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, and DMT in particular, and possibly marijuana and salvia divinorum) are suspected to produce activation in this area (among other brain areas that they activate, obviously)]. When people hand me bibles now, I say to them "Thank you. This will give me a wonderful spiritual experience." Plus it's a great joke at parties, if you hang out with the right crowd :D Of course, I've only done it twice, because bible paper tends to be harsh (and as interested as I am in hallucinogens from a scientific perspective, I don't do them all that often), but it was a nice symbolic gesture of having finally excised the last vestiges of that pathetic cult from my moral thinking and beliefs.
Don't worry about your message, it made sense to me. I have that problem when I write longer messages too.
First off, altruism. I'm sure you've read The Fountainhead, which is, at the moment, my favorite book of all time. So, although I believe everyone has altruistic traits, I tend to have less respect for the whole "altruistic" thing. I guess because soooo fucking many charities are "altruistic" when, in reality, all they are trying to do is convert people. I got a lecture from some fat bitch at this Salvation Army about God, and I basically told her to go get laid and shut her stupid fucking preachy mouth(that's nice coming from me, I wouldn't call that too harsh, would you?).
Anyway, I totally agree with what you said about the whole "hell" ordeal. Hell is really the only way anyone becomes a Christian in my opinion. People are afraid (key word: fear) of something they can't see, touch, hear, smell, or taste. A guy who has gone to college (or not) and has gotten a degree in speaking comes onto a stage and talks about how this guy loves you, how there are 3 of this guy (the father, son, and holy spirit), then tells you to go convert friends and family to keep them from going to hell. Then they pass the basket around asking for "donations."
IT SICKENS ME
Anyway, it was actually the love of my life that convinced me that it was all bullshit. I always tried to believe in God, and finally it came clear to me one afternoon
Christians, along with all other religious cult followers, are fucking insane.
FUCKING insane
I realized that I was following the beliefs of people I absolutely LOATHED because I felt bad (step-mom and dad) that I was doing something wrong. I remember when my step-mom told me that masterbation was wrong and horrible. It took months to recover from that one (in more than a mental way). Anyway, I'm truly happy that you have turned to atheism...just one more intelligent being in the world, which is very necessary in today's world. And thanks, I left the irrational people two years ago (my step-mom and dad).
ROFL I am TOTALLY fucking pulling that next time the mormons come to my door. By the way, are you going to make that acid list anytime soon?
Thanks for understanding, it really annoys me when people don't get what I try to say and I'm doing my best. Take care man!
Oh yeah, you may find this video funny.
I think that the biggest reason why people are leaving Christianity is the Christians themselves. Most people who call themselves Christian would not even offer to help you should your tire go flat in front of their house. I've met a number of people who are truly progressive and selfless, people who are among the most interesting and thought-provoking I know, who are Christian - on the other hand there are people who pick and choose the parts they like out of the Bible so they can be condescending and smug without any effort to help their fellow man. The Bible is pretty clear on how these people are not the true Christians.
I think people who embrace Cristianity sometimes put themselves up on a moral pedestal. You're no better because of your beliefs, but your actions. I think what the foundation of Christianity was intended to be was to help others, not yourself (and that doesn't mean brainwashing people to believe your religion).
I think that people are either genuine good people, or they aren't. Being a Christian doen't make you any better than someone in a street gang. Converting to a religion doesn't change who you are, your actions do.(maybe I'm being a little redundant there).
I think if you act based on what YOU believe is right, then you have every reason to go to heaven(depending on if there is one).
Where in the bible does it say christianity is about helping others? You're not being a true christian by behaving that way. It says plenty in the bible about being bigoted, racist, sexist, and generally what would now be accepted as pure evil. Sure, it has some messages that are morally OK, but why is following those messages and not others more truly christian? Besides, helping others is not a christian idea. In fact, there are places in the bible where helping others has resulting in being killed by god (IE the guy who helped out by steadying the ark of the covenant), and there are many places where it advocates hurting others, for no reason other than being different ("worshipping false idols").
I'm sorry, but saying that you're not a true christian unless you ignore negative christian messages and only follow the positive christian messages is idiotic. If someone today published a book that advocated mercy to your enemies, forgiveness, altruism, and killing babies, would you say "you ignore the killing babies part, and if you don't, you're not truly following the book"? "True followers of the book practice mercy, forgiveness and altruism, it's those killing babies people who give the book a bad name." Wrong, the book gives itself a bad name by advocating killing babies, just like the bible (and therefore christianity) gives itself a bad name by having bigoted, sexist, and racist ideas in its holy book.
If you behave based on what you think is right, then you're not using christian morality, you're using secular morality. It's not being a good christian when you do good things, it's being a good person. Christianity doesn't enter into it. Secular thinkers have come up with far kinder ideas anyway.
And Jamool, if you don't pick and choose what to accept and not accept from the bible, why aren't you advocating forcing women who are raped to marry their rapist and other such nonsense? If you didn't pick and choose from that book, you would be a horrible person.
Liberal christians pick and choose just as much as fundamentalists (if not more), they just pick and choose different things. Christianity does not deserve credit for any good in liberal christians.
Well, DARKTREMOR, you seem to be well-read, and probably have more knowledge on this topic than anybody I've met. I myself, being only 17 years old, have little to no real knowledge on the subject.
Now, you've written a lot about what you think ISN'T true, and what you DON'T believe, but what exactly DO you believe? Do you support the big bang? Do you believe in some type of greater power? Are you a Pastafarian?(hehe, you mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster).
I can't really try to make an in-depth point on the subject(like I said, my knowledge is limited) without you contradicting it. For all I know, you might just be talking out your a**(please, no offense intended), or you might be one of the smartest people I've ever encountered. Please tell me your honest beliefs. *All I want is the thesis statement, not a 5 paragraph essay. Your posts can be a little wordy(again, no offense intended)
Hey blindsider, no offence was intended towards you - I was actually replying more to Jamool with that post (we essentially agreed with our most recent posts). And also, no offense taken, I do talk way too much.
My posts tend to be wordy, because I usually post stuff online when I'm procrastinating studying, so I come back to the posts like 7 times before I post it, not having coherently written it all at once.
I don't really know as much about the subject as you say, and I don't think I'm really either blazingly smart or talking out of my ass. I just read the bible when I was very young and was sickened by it, and had to go to a fundamentalist church for a while where I was told things so insane that I couldn't help argue. I'm ADHD, so naturally I couldn't just keep my damn mouth shut. Plus the ideas in psychology/cognitive science/neuroscience are pretty at odds with religion.
I aim to have no beliefs. I just follow scientific evidence (as best I can). I go out of my way to extricate things from my concept of the world that are not empirically based, and am constantly searching for irrationality to remove. Big bang seems OK as a theory, and M-theory shows promise for me. Nothing concrete. If it isn't extremely well-evidenced, I won't say it's definitively true (at least, I'll try not to, I mess up sometimes). So yep, I'm a pastafarian :D
Because that rule is outdated? I'm obviously not saying you can't pick and choose. Some people do it in ways that are morally reprehensible. Let's not forget how long ago this book was written. I certainly don't believe it's the end-all-be-all of the rules of the world and morality and whatever. I mean from what I understand the New Testament was supposed to more or less "replace" the Old Testament which even acknowledges the fact that times do indeed change.
Hilarious video. "You're lucky I saved you from my cock!" lmao!
Nothing is too harsh dealing with fundamentalist nutbags, they have no grasp of reality whatsoever.
Emotions are a powerful thing, and they can easily over-ride rationality. I think the popularity of religion may have something to do with a two-way connection that exists in our brains between the amygdala (the negative emotion centre, specifically fear and anxiety) and PFC (the rational thinking centre). It's an inhibitory pathway, so as one's activation increases, the other decreases. The trick with Catholicism, I think, is to turn the amygdala on so strongly that the PFC is choked out of any possible activation, preventing any rational thought. It's really no one's fault that they end up being religious, it's quite understandable that you (and I) got sucked in for so long. I love neuroscience :D
The acid list is coming, I just have exams right now.
Good to hear you're free now :D
So what's your favourite bible passage? :)
I've read you and darktremor's posts, and it made me think of religion in a different light. I agree that some of the commandments don't really make sense(i guess i should have worded my first post differently). Also, according to Christians, Christianity is the true religion(this is obvious...), and according to Muslims, their religion is true(again...obvious), but logically, only ONE religion can be true. So, somewhere along the line, some 'revolutionary' religious douche lied to everybody, and made them believe something false(Joseph Smith?). Why should Christianity be the true religion? It's the same story as any other religion:believe what we say, because that's how it is (with no real evidence to back it up)
On the other side of the coin, I also have a hard time believing that everything we know in the world could just happen by accident (big bang). Obviously I don't have all the answers, but when I look outside at the trees, flowers, animals, I can't imagine it NOT being created by some greater power.
But of course, that greater power would have to come into existence by accident, which just makes the problem even more difficult, since a cosmic super-intelligence "just existing" is much more difficult and unlikely than the universe "just existing," as anything intelligent and powerful enough to create the universe would have to be even more complex than the universe. All this cosmic super-intelligence (god) does is displace the problem, which is already hard enough to solve without adding random unevidenced things to it. Besides, we have plenty of evidence that the universe exists (obviously), and nothing on the cosmic super-intelligence.
Saying "god created the universe" in answer to "how does the universe exist?" is similar to saying in answer to the question "how did life get started?" that "life was brought to earth by a meteorite." Great, so a meteorite brought it to earth. That still doesn't solve the problem of how life got started, and now we have to deal with the extra step of how it got attached to a rock and flung into space.
Aren't they both equally unlikely? If I claimed to be able to walk on water would you treat me more seriously than if I claimed I could float in the air? We know of no way anything can just "come into existance", nor do we know the scientific rules by which it happens, so why are we conjecturing on what is more probable when it does happen?
It's like in 17th century England(or sometime around there) when they blamed everything that they didn't understand as 'magic' or 'witchcraft'. Further scientific study has proved these things false, but we still are a long way from discovering the secrets of creation. The only explanation we have is God (or the big bang theory).
Do you think that if religion was proven scientifically to be wrong all this time, that people would let go of their religion? Or would they cling to it despite being proven wrong?
I think there is a difference in that the question of creation goes a little deeper than "witchcraftery". We can study the laws of the universe but we cannot determine how they got set the way they are.
Do you think that if religion was proven scientifically to be wrong all this time, that people would let go of their religion? Or would they cling to it despite being proven wrong?
Interesting question. Indeed, some would cling to it, but I think a lot of people would let it go. I think that many people would be relieved to know they aren't being constantly judged. Then again it's not really an easy question since disproving that there is a God is near-impossible. It still comes down to the question of origin.
Remember, atheism doesn't declare that definitely there is no "god," it simply declares that it is unlikely and not evidenced. Either way, the biblical god is absolutely disproven by science, unquestionably. If there were a "god" it would in no way resemble any sort of biblical god (those being Yahweh and Jesus (aka Horus/Dionysus)).
Science simply currently disregards the concept of "God" for the same reason it disregards that the universe was sneezed out of the great cosmic nose, or blown out by the flying spaghetti monster or what have you. There is no evidence. If evidence for a god appeared, scientists would consider it. The idea of a great intelligence bringing the universe into existence is equally far-fetched to those earlier ideas - like I said before, all of these things just add an extra step that is entirely unnecessary - and like I said, what created god? It's just as difficult, if not more so than the universe just existing (which science doesn't take a hard line on anyway - it's just what the evidence currently points to).
As for people letting religion go if science disproves it, of course they won't. Science and history has already disproved a huge portion of the bible, and countless hordes still accept its every word as fact. The amount of research that supports young earth creationism and the biblical creation story: 0. There is no respected university that accepts christian science as a field - it's pure pseudoscience, motivated not by attempts to empirically understand the world, but to reinforce dogmatic and political beliefs.
Anyway, "disproving god" is not neccessary - the burden of proof comes from those making the extraordinary claim. What would you tell me if I told you "the universe was printed out by the great cosmic inkjet in the sky?" If you didn't call me a nutcase, you'd tell me to prove it, and until I showed you some evidence for it, you'd think I was spouting garbage, and telling you "I feel it in my heart" or "I have faith that it's true" would not be acceptable to convince you of its reality. There is nothing special about the concept of a great omnipotent superintelligence engineering the universe that exempts it from this simple rule of science: parsimony.
How many people do you know that accept everything in the Bible as fact? I have known priests, brothers, nuns and other clergymen and very few believe that. Most people's view of Christianity has more to do with Jesus. If you took a poll - "Do you believe Noah's Ark really existed?" I doubt very many would respond yes.
I don't think adding a God to the theory of the universe complicates things as much as you say - if you're asking "Why are the laws of the universe so-and-so...", well, let's say there is a God, and he made all this so that life could be sustained. Seems to take away a few steps really.
Either way I don't think the Bible was intended to be a scientific textbook. It's a great spiritual textbook but a lousy scientific one. I don't think you'll find many people who would disagree with that.
With god:
Insanely complex processes --> a super-intelligent cosmic being --> insanely complex processes --> the universe
Without god:
Insanely complex processes --> the universe
It seems much more difficult with a god present, asrather than dealing with "how did the universe come to be?", we now have "how did god come to be?" and "how and why did god create the universe?" Plus we now have to analyze the nature of this god character for which there is no evidence.
As to biblical literalism, isn't that what this discussion is all about? Anyway, a lot of people really are biblical literalists (I honestly don't see how considering how self-contradictory it is) - how else do you explain the fact that 50% of the US believes in young earth creationism? That's pretty much the most absurd claim in the entire book. And how about the rights of gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender individuals? Restrictions on abortion? Bans on certain (highly useful) types of stem cell research? An almost universal lack of support for consensual polyamory? These things suggest that a lot of people are (supposedly) taking it word-for-word.
Besides, like I'm sure I've said before, what's so great about Jesus' message anyway? I'd argue what Jesus says is worse than anything in the Old Testament. While god brutally murders hordes of innocent people in the old testament, at least their punishment ends at death. With Jesus, the suffering lasts forever - anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus (like Papua New Guineans who have never even heard of him) goes to hell and gets tortured forever. Oh, and all you have to do to avoid this is believe in him, because he died for our sins, so no matter what an evil bastard you are, so long as you believe in Jesus, you'll be saved. And I don't think him "saving us from hell" is actually kind and generous. Imagine I built a huge furnace and said "I'm going to throw you in unless you get down on your knees and grovel to me and call me your Saviour and worship me." Then, imagine if when you then got down on your knees and groveled and called me your Saviour and worshiped me because you didn't want to get thrown in the furnace, I said "look how kind and gentle I am, saving you from the furnace." Imagine then, that when you stopped groveling, I threw you in the furnace and said "Look what you did! You threw yourself in the furnace by not groveling to me." Any reasonable person would think I was sadistic and likely a psychopath. In fact, that sort of behaviour is often seen in abusive husbands and torturers - blaming the victim for the abuse ("It's the sin that sent you to hell, not me." "Look what you made me do, getting me angry by not doing the laundry, making me hit you!" - see any parallels?). So Jesus saves us from hell. Yeah, THE HELL THAT HE CREATED.
Sure, you can say "but look at all the nice things he said!" But wouldn't we hold anyone today accountable for the glaring detail above? Doesn't that sort of horrendous behaviour discount pretty much anything else he said? Hitler had some great military ideas, and fantastic economic policies. Do we remember him for his economic policies and military ideas, or for the Holocaust? And Jesus was arguably worse - Hitler just tortured a few million people to death - Jesus tortures billions for all eternity (if you believe the bible - I mean, how many people have lived that weren't christian?).
I'm sort of wondering what your definition of spirituality is. I personally describe it (as science does) in terms of the spiritual experience: a certain mystical feeling - a sense of awe and wonder in the face of cosmic grandeur that is associated by most who go through it as "feeling as if one is in the presence of god," "oneness with the universe," etc. (the interpretation depends on the person's beliefs, and the exact nature of the experience). I don't see what about reading the bible is likely to give spiritual experiences. Fasting, sleep deprivation, certain plants and drugs, meditation, sensory deprivation, lucid dream induction, extremely heavy exercise, dehydration - yes; reading, no. There aren't even instructions to make yourself feel this way inside, anywhere - excepting maybe to drink the "blood of christ" (alcohol), which will eventually induce delerium tremens if you do it consistently then stop. That might explain the pessimistic nature of christianity - if its spiritual experiences come from the horrific visions of delerium tremens, I can understand why it would promote an idea like "hell." [Plus christianity's accidental source of spiritual experience, St. Anthony's Fire (aka ergot poisoning/ergotism - ergot fungus being a tiny mushroom that sometimes grows on grain), was literally an excruciatingly painful bad LSD trip that was often fatal (LSD is essentially ergot with the dangerous side effects removed). It also caused bloody and terrifying miscarriages in any pregnant women who accidentally ingested ergot - probably the source of "demonic possession" ideas.]
[I apologize if I've told you this before, but I'm not sure, and it's quite relevant - note that genuine, valid spiritual experiences can be generated through the things I listed above [I can link several studies to you showing this - including a few in which LSD and psilocybin were given to subjects (including priests, in one study), who then rated their subsequent "trip" as more spiritually significant than any previous experience of their entire life, another in which spiritual experiences were induced through electrical brain stimulation, etc.]).
In concept I guess that makes sense; the truth is we know nothing of those processes so how can we say which is 'more complex'? For example; a letter arrives in Boulder Colorado, how did it get there? Did I write it -> then I dropped it in the mailbox -> letter gets processed -> letter goes to airport -> letter gets on plane -> letter gets dropped off in Denver -> etc. etc., or, did Did I write it -> wish it in Boulder -> presto! Perhaps neither the 'insanely complex processes' associated with God are even 1/10000th as complex as the one without?
The idea that an intelligent being created the laws of the universe makes more sense to me than the laws just being there blindly. And who created that being? Maybe he just is always there? I don't know; to tell the truth neither explanation really makes any sense to me.
A lot of people are biblical literalists? I guess this is a hard point for me to argue because I don't believe I've come across very many at all. Most people I know seem apathetic towards religion. The arguments against abortion/gay marriage/stem cell research do go beyond religion, but many seem to dismiss those arguments to concentrate on the religious ones since it makes the gays/mothers who want the easy way out seem like victims of something that's unscientific. People eat that stuff up...
Jesus didn't create Hell. Furthermore, Hell is not a physical place (at least, not according to the previous Pope). The idea of Jesus was that he was selfless, non-judgemental (he hung out with the wicked more than the righteous), and willing to sacrifice for others. I realize the "believe in me or you'll burn" argument doesn't make sense in the modern era or that it doesn't fit your sense of morality. Maybe in 2000 more years it will again.
Listen, believe me, I have my own problems with Christianity. But it seems that many of the people on 'my side' had not much more than an elementary school-level understanding of the issue. The Bible, as I understand it, was never meant to be taken literally.
Maybe you can scientifically prove the Bible induces spiritual experiences, and yet, there's many people who claim it does. Not scientific, I know, but it doesn't make all these people "fakers". Of course LSD can give a spiritual experience. But because it was drug-induced, there's no way it could involve anything supernatural since we know of the drugs used? I mean there have been documented cases of people on LSD trips who have gained access to information that they could not have known. Likewise, although NDEs have been somewhat replicated, it doesn't make them fake, and it doesn't discount the supernatural experiences some of the people who have had 'real' experiences have had.
There are quite a number of places in the bible where Jesus talks about burning people in hell:
Matthew 5:21-22: "Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire."
Matthew 5:29-30: "And if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell. And if thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell."
For example - there are many others. Maybe the concept of Jesus that many christians hold is a nice one, but the bible paints a very different picture. And if god created the universe, then he created hell as well, and since jesus is seen as the son of god, but also one of three parts that make up god, then jesus, being god, therefore created hell, and is therefore evil. And the bible is pretty explicit about hell being physical - I believe it's referred to as a "lake of fire."
The argument I would make is that all spiritual experiences can be boiled down to neural activity, and all historical spiritual experiences have a source of some sort. If you don't know about neural activity, and about the effects of certain behaviours (as I mentioned above) - you can easily stumble into a spiritual experience, and without knowing the source, attribute it to something supernatural, when in fact, it was just your brain firing a certain way. I see no reason to believe that any spiritual experiences are actually caused by supernatural events. Most behaviours and substances thought to be lines to god (blood of christ, meditation, etc.) throughout history have eventually been found by science to be hallucinogenic.
What are some arguments against stem cell research and gay marriage that aren't part of religion? Abortion I can maybe see a scientific side (albeit a very shaky one that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny), but those two seem to me to be pure dogma. I've actually never heard a non-religious argument against either of those things.
The believe in me or you'll burn idea doesn't fit into proper human decency - it's barbaric and downright sociopathic, and immediately racist against every single person not part of your religion. If in 2000 years torture (which it obviously is) ever fits into our concept of proper morality, we will unquestionably have regressed into a far inferior way of thinking.
I agree that it is difficult to say what is more or less complex. However, invoking god to explain what science can't yet has always faltered throughout history. IE
IE: How did humans and animals come to be? God created them 5000 years ago! Then science discovered evolution.
Well, god still made the earth that evolution happened on! ...Then science discovered how planets are farmed from star debris.
At least god got the universe started, right? ..And science discovered the big bang, M-theory, etc.
The religious explanation that tried (still) to reconcile with science is that god set the universe in motion, that he created the big bang and all the laws that it generated. I think this is just another "god of the gaps" theory - science can find a better way. The fact is, there is no evidence for a god, but there is obviously evidence of the universe.
Here's my question - of all the things that could have made the universe be, why invoke a god? What makes the idea of a preceding intelligence so special? Remember how insanely complex even our puny intelligence is - we're talking several billion neurons that are constantly shifting between over 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible combinations of connections (I didn't just pull this number out of no where, it's from a textbook somewhere - I could dig the source out if you want, but I don't think it's hard to believe). Our brains are the most complex individual objects in the entire known universe. A super-intelligence would have to be exponentially more complicated than that, and would have to have a basis universe already existing for him to exist in (otherwise all of the complexity of his superintelligence couldn't exist - without laws governing matter/energy it cannot exist - matter and energy is essentially made up of a series of laws). The idea of that coming into existence out of nowhere seems a lot harder to me than a few dozen fundamental laws and a bit of matter - which is really all the universe is. When it started out, it was just a ball of hydrogen atoms - the complexity we see now came only through interactions between those few laws and that bit of matter. The universe is fundamentally quite simple. Intelligence is not - it takes billions of years of those interactions to come into being.