Do you believe in God? (1 Viewer)

[Teebag]

Precisely.

I hear a lot of people say the bible was "Written by God"

It was br8

 

[AAEldar]

Precisely.

I hear a lot of people say the bible was "Written by God"

It's deemed to be the word of God yes, but to say God actually wrote it I think is incorrect.

 

[Absolutezero]

It's deemed to be the word of God yes, but to say God actually wrote it I think is incorrect.

The bible was compiled as a reaction to an individual (Marcion, I believe) trying to release his own heavily edited version. Because the church didn't want that to happen (and become the official version), they compiled their own version that became the traditional canon. To say that it was compiled by God is a complete misnomer

 

[Annihilist]

The bible was compiled as a reaction to an individual (Marcion, I believe) trying to release his own heavily edited version. Because the church didn't want that to happen (and become the official version), they compiled their own version that became the traditional canon. To say that it was compiled by God is a complete misnomer

Of course. But many people still believe it. The claim that it was "written by God", however, I think refers to God channelling his will through the mere mortals who actually did write it. Or something like that.

 

[Absolutezero]

Of course. But many people still believe it. The claim that it was "written by God", however, I think refers to God channelling his will through the mere mortals who actually did write it. Or something like that.

I would claim (without the statistics on me to back it up), that the majority of Christians believe that it is the word of god, because that's what is taught from childhood. Many are unaware of it's compilation of the process of translation, editing, and the choice of included books that went into it originally.

Inspired by God, sure, it's plausible (in the strictest sense). But it was not created by God as a whole text. It's reactionary writing.

 

[soloooooo]

There is nothing wrong with believing in a God so long as the views formed around that belief are not violent.

 

[Absolutezero]

There is nothing wrong with believing in a God so long as the views formed around that belief are not violent.

There are plenty of negative things about it that don't centre around violence.

 

[soloooooo]

There are plenty of negative things about it that don't centre around violence.

Such as?

 

[Absolutezero]

Such as?

Unquestioning belief
Intolerance
Prejudice
The influence upon living this life

I'm not saying religion holds the monopoly on these things but it can easily contribute to it.

 

[Annihilist]

There is nothing wrong with believing in a God so long as the views formed around that belief are not violent.

Discouraging independent thought
Encouraging judging moral absolutes
Obedience without question
Denying evidence
Single-mindedness and bigotry
Chastity and asceticism

Overall lack of intelligence due to above list.

EDIT: Maybe the distinction between "belief in God" and "religion" should be made here.

 

[alstah]

All the things you stated can be qualities that are possessed by an atheist.

I hate how some people associate intellectual inferiority to a belief in God. It goes to show how they lack in intelligence for assuming such a thing, it was out of religion that science and education was fostered in Europe throughout the Middle Ages and well into the 20th Century.

 

[RANK 1]

All the things you stated can be qualities that are possessed by an atheist.

I hate how some people associate intellectual inferiority to a belief in God. It goes to show how they lack in intelligence for assuming such a thing, it was out of religion that science and education was fostered in Europe throughout the Middle Ages and well into the 20th Century.

i think you'll find that it was actually religion that was restricting the growth of science and knowledge, not just the middle ages but throughout all of history

 

[funkshen]

trap sprung

 

[Annihilist]

All the things you stated can be qualities that are possessed by an atheist.

I hate how some people associate intellectual inferiority to a belief in God. It goes to show how they lack in intelligence for assuming such a thing, it was out of religion that science and education was fostered in Europe throughout the Middle Ages and well into the 20th Century.

Galileo was persecuted by the religious dogmatism of the time for questioning the claim that the sun revolves around the earth.

Belief in God is part of a religious dogma. Dogmatism relies entirely on sacrificing individual thought, and observation of evidence to preserve such a belief. So there is a lack of intelligence there. Dogmatism relies on following what you are told without question. If it's not lack of intelligence, is extreme naïvety.

Yes, these qualities can be possessed by atheists, but it's not inherent to atheism in general. Christianity (for example), on the other hand, goes hand in hand with unquestioning obedience, naïvety, denial of evidence and observation, etc. Because to believe in God one must disregard all evidence to the contrary. To believe in God one would also believe in his omnipotence and therefore believe in and obey his commands without question.

Atheism, on the other hand, is not a dogma. It is simply lack of belief in a God. We do not believe in God because we do not swallow any religious bullshit we are fed. We take it and look at it objectively and question it's validity, and we come to the logical and rational conclusion that it does not make sense. Religious people, on the other hand, believe anything they are told - and we know this because they believe in religion, and it's portrayal of a God.

Atheists look at the world as they see it - as reality. Religion looks at reality and extrapolates that into ridiculous claims of the supernatural.

 

[kaz1]

i think you'll find that it was actually religion that was restricting the growth of science and knowledge, not just the middle ages but throughout all of history

What not all the time.

Ancient Greeks and Mayans and shit all had their pagan gods and made lots of contributions and there is also the Golden Age of Islam in Al-Andalus.

 

[alstah]

No, in the middle ages, monasteries were the central places of learning until Christian universities were formed in England (notably Oxford and Cambridge). It were these highly religious educational institutions that fostered the Arts and Sciences for hundreds of years, expanding human knowledge of science and the world. For most of human history (even pre-dating Christ), religion and education were inextricably linked. In Egypt the most educated people were the priests, as well as the pharisees in the ancient Jewish world. Even in Ancient India, knowledge of mathematics and science was interlinked with religion.

So I disagree with your premise. Religion did not restrict science and education, in fact, if it wasn't for religion, our knowledge of the world around us would be infinitely limited. Under religion, science and mathematics evolved and the arts and humanities progressed.

 

[Annihilist]

What not all the time.

Ancient Greeks and Mayans and shit all had their pagan gods and made lots of contributions and there is also the Golden Age of Islam in Al-Andalus.

Sure. But I doubt religion was what pushed their society towards scientific contributions. Rather, they happened to coexist. Correct me if I am wrong though.

 

[alstah]

Sure. But I doubt religion was what pushed their society towards scientific contributions. Rather, they happened to coexist. Correct me if I am wrong though.

For the Mayans it did, the science of cosmology was central to their religious beliefs and predictions and required vast scientific feats in the field of mathematics, as seen in the accuracy of their calendar and constellation commentaries.

 

[RANK 1]

What not all the time.

Ancient Greeks and Mayans and shit all had their pagan gods and made lots of contributions and there is also the Golden Age of Islam in Al-Andalus.

yeah but it wasnt religion that caused the contributions

 

[alstah]

Galileo was persecuted by the religious dogmatism of the time for questioning the claim that the sun revolves around the earth.

Belief in God is part of a religious dogma. Dogmatism relies entirely on sacrificing individual thought, and observation of evidence to preserve such a belief. So there is a lack of intelligence there. Dogmatism relies on following what you are told without question. If it's not lack of intelligence, is extreme naïvety.

Yes, these qualities can be possessed by atheists, but it's not inherent to atheism in general. Christianity (for example), on the other hand, goes hand in hand with unquestioning obedience, naïvety, denial of evidence and observation, etc. Because to believe in God one must disregard all evidence to the contrary. To believe in God one would also believe in his omnipotence and therefore believe in and obey his commands without question.

Atheism, on the other hand, is not a dogma. It is simply lack of belief in a God. We do not believe in God because we do not swallow any religious bullshit we are fed. We take it and look at it objectively and question it's validity, and we come to the logical and rational conclusion that it does not make sense. Religious people, on the other hand, believe anything they are told - and we know this because they believe in religion, and it's portrayal of a God.

Atheists look at the world as they see it - as reality. Religion looks at reality and extrapolates that into ridiculous claims of the supernatural.

Believing in atheistic evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and it requires placing one’s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past. To accept that worldview, you must have faith in a professor or textbook—or yet another secondhand source and that secondhand source’s interpretation. After all, not a single person was alive to see how the universe began (Big Bang) or how life began (Abiogenesis) or the supposed evolution of life on earth (Darwinism). Any argument or idea that makes claims about the unrepeatable past requires belief. We may have reasons (right or wrong) to believe what we believe, but we cannot go back in time to see if that belief is right.