Atheists and Theists are both right

[Guitarmasterx7]

you really give no evidence to support a lot of that, you just sort of make an assertion. Granted it is an assertion that would make sense on the pretense that there is a god of some sort. That being said, if there is a god, you would be right in the fact that he makes it seem like he doesn't exist and does nothing to enforce his existence. Not a completely unintelligent theory but I don't really see this as much more than an unorthodox "god works in mysterious ways" kind of thing. I say let people believe what they want just as long as they don't try to impose it on me. Problem is, they do try to impose it on me. Sanctomonious pricks.

 

[Captain Blackout]

"Faith does not undermine rationality." Straight from the dictionary: Faith- belief that is not based on proof. Rationality- the reliance on proof and logic to justify ones ideas. Rationality demands that we question everything, faith demands that we don't.

" The descriptive power of the Tao Te Jhing is impressive." I've read it. It's not that impressive. Remember that daoism was allowed to exist in the Chinese empire because it was a folk religion that encouraged peasants not to be rebellious.

My problem with the weak deist position (there is a disinterested higher power, whose presence we can feel in nature or through meditation but who takes no action in human affairs) is that it offers no greater logical basis for supposing its existence, it just avoids some of the absurdities of the interventionist position.


Debating religion on a games forum? Train wreck's barely a strong enough term.

I know plenty of people, myself included, who live with both faith and rationality in their lives. You're assuming one is automatically destructive of the other. It may for you but generalizing that to everyone else isn't an argument, it's a generalization.

Again, the Tao may not have been that impressive for you. That doesn't change the fact that for many it provides not only a descriptive guide but a predictive guide to both human behaviour and the workings of nature. That's pretty impressive. The folk religion and the original book are two different things. There's both a mystical aspect and a completely natural aspect to Taoism and I'm not convinced Lao Tzu was into hocus pocus. I've read translations of his "mystical" writings that made sense from a natural perspective. Finally, finding a way to live in peace with one's world is not an inherently bad thing. So what if China let it be to pacify the people? That says more about Chinese policy than it does about Taoism. It's a fluid philosophy that can work for various perspectives, whether it's the peaceful peasant or the ardent modern day sohei working for social justice.

I'm not working with a weak deist position. Maybe you should question more and talk less. Especially since you didn't have to show up on this thread casting aspersions. "Debating religion on a games forum?" Nothing inherently wrong with that. If you don't like it then don't debate, go play some games.

Finally, I called this thread a train wreck for my own perspective of it. After your post it's showing new life. Train wreck doesn't even seem to apply (although that could change quick considering the tone of the discussion between you and me.)

I understand the atheist point of view. It's one I've shared myself. I understand the theist perspective, holding it myself in some form. I don't hold to the anti-atheist or anti-theist perspectives. I find them both to be unproductive crap, sometimes even destructive without purpose. I started this thread because enough people are interested in religion on this website and since it doesn't belong solely to the anti-theist games only crowd it seemed a good place to build some bridges. I've already had some success, however minimal. That makes it worth it. Train wreck or not I got something worthwhile out of this. Did you?

 

[blaze96]

Why can't faith and logic both exist? Why must it be one or the other? Science and faith both have the same purpose anyway, to explain why we exist and what our purpose is. The only difference is science focuses in on the physical aspects of these (we exist because of A, B, and C and our purpose is to understand these and everything around us) while faith deals with the aspects of the soul and what it means to be human (we exist for this reason and our purpose is to fulfill this reason using A, B, and C). These are two pieces of a much larger puzzle that will require both to truly explain ,in my humble opinion. Religion is meant to be a guide for how to be a decent human being which science is not. In fact science has been used to justify worse tragedies than religion has ever caused (Hitler used Darwinism among other things as justification for the holocaust, Social Darwinism was used as justification for imperialism, monopolies in business, and even racism). I think we need to see things more as religion acting as the human conscience, while Science acts as the logical center of the mind, two parts of a much grander whole.

 

[JohnSmith]

The problem with Theism and Atheism co-existing is that belief and the scientific method are inherently opposed. There is however a larger problem with this argument as a whole, Atheists do not require religion to guide their morality, it is based on societal values generally those they were exposed to during their upbringing, this does not make those values necessarily more "good/right/correct" than those handed down by various religious powers though it does leave atheists with rather a lot more flexibility, to change with society. Theists have much less room to remove inherently misguided moral principles from their dogma because once they start doing that then the entire point of their religion falls apart.

In essence you end up with a situation where the debate runs in general forms on these lines.
Religion: "It's right because we have always done it that way"
Atheist: "That isn't proof that it is right just that you may have always been wrong"

 

[Uncompetative]

There is no ultimate answer to the meaning of life, grand goal for humanity, or ideal morality. This is because a definitive answer cannot be given to a question without regarding the topic objectively and it is impossible to regard 'life' objectively as we are within it. In other words we are not able to express the question in terms that share a common frame of reference with our normal lives whilst outside of the universe of discourse. There is no loophole to this. You can not say "God knows the answer" on the grounds that a metaphysical super-being could have a privileged objective perspective on life, the universe and everything as this god would be part of the people's spiritual life. Ironically it is the very fact that people believe in some sort of God that makes it impossible for such an entity to take a independent, unbiased, definitive view.

Conversely, if no one in the entire history of the universe believed in God this God would still not be able to ask the question, as this lack of knowledge of metaphysics and spirituality in culture would be such a serious omission from the universe of human discourse that even if the answer to the meaning of life did not depend on such foundational concepts you couldn't be sure that the answer God had arrived at without us having knowledge of God was complete. Everything has to be under consideration in a question for the answer to not be in doubt. You can not exclude a bunch of concepts even if they have no bearing on things, you must include everything that is known and in this case God is in the awkward position of knowing too much.

I can't prove God doesn't exist, but I prefer to believe that there isn't one. I prefer to live in "reality" and a 'God' is definitely intangible for me.

However, I am not a Nihilist. Just because I have proven that the question:

"What is the meaning of life?"

is erroneous (not unanswerable and mysterious, but simply semantically flawed and fundamentally impossible to ask), as I find the whole notion that it doesn't ultimately matter what humanity achieves, or how we should act towards each other, or what we should worship, etc. is incredibly liberating. There is nothing, ultimately, stopping me from attempting anything. I don't feel as if I ought to be doing 'X'.

That said, I have adapted over the years to cope with other people and have found that the application of:

Good Manners,
Tolerance and
Avoidance

in roughly that order, has worked out rather well.

I don't need to follow some Bible or even the Law of the land as the things I tend to do fall well within acceptable behaviour - i.e. I do not feel like murdering anyone, so telling me I will go to prison, or Hell, if I do doesn't have any effect on me (I wasn't going to anyway).

Finally, this ultimate meaning of life is all to do with the 'Eternal' which I am not interested in. I am far more interested in the short-term, those things that you forget, or will be erased by History. I speak of the often overlooked 'Ephemeral'. A nice ice-cream on the first sunny day of the year, or just a decent cup of tea when you really feel the need of one.

Don't forget. We can all make our own meanings within our lives. Things to live for, goals to accomplish. However, as all of these ultimately fall into the class of the Ephemeral (as far as humanity is concerned), none of us should think that their (way of) life is better than others. I will include myself in this and put this alternative viewpoint forward of a life without God, meaning, or karma as a polite recommendation for some of you to consider as it has worked well for me, however, I respect your beliefs and opinions on life if you choose to ignore this.

 

[Captain Blackout]

The problem with Theism and Atheism co-existing is that belief and the scientific method are inherently opposed. There is however a larger problem with this argument as a whole, Atheists do not require religion to guide their morality, it is based on societal values generally those they were exposed to during their upbringing, this does not make those values necessarily more "good/right/correct" than those handed down by various religious powers though it does leave atheists with rather a lot more flexibility, to change with society. Theists have much less room to remove inherently misguided moral principles from their dogma because once they start doing that then the entire point of their religion falls apart.

In essence you end up with a situation where the debate runs in general forms on these lines.
Religion: "It's right because we have always done it that way"
Atheist: "That isn't proof that it is right just that you may have always been wrong"

I've met dogmatic atheists and I've meet philosophically fluid theists. Some theists have PLENTY of room to maneuver and some atheists have none.

 

[Stakhanov]

I know plenty of people, myself included, who live with both faith and rationality in their lives. You're assuming one is automatically destructive of the other. It may for you but generalizing that to everyone else isn't an argument, it's a generalization.

Again, the Tao may not have been that impressive for you. That doesn't change the fact that for many it provides not only a descriptive guide but a predictive guide to both human behaviour and the workings of nature. That's pretty impressive. The folk religion and the original book are two different things. There's both a mystical aspect and a completely natural aspect to Taoism and I'm not convinced Lao Tzu was into hocus pocus. I've read translations of his "mystical" writings that made sense from a natural perspective. Finally, finding a way to live in peace with one's world is not an inherently bad thing. So what if China let it be to pacify the people? That says more about Chinese policy than it does about Taoism. It's a fluid philosophy that can work for various perspectives, whether it's the peaceful peasant or the ardent modern day sohei working for social justice.

I'm not working with a weak deist position. Maybe you should question more and talk less. Especially since you didn't have to show up on this thread casting aspersions. "Debating religion on a games forum?" Nothing inherently wrong with that. If you don't like it then don't debate, go play some games.

Finally, I called this thread a train wreck for my own perspective of it. After your post it's showing new life. Train wreck doesn't even seem to apply (although that could change quick considering the tone of the discussion between you and me.)

I understand the atheist point of view. It's one I've shared myself. I understand the theist perspective, holding it myself in some form. I don't hold to the anti-atheist or anti-theist perspectives. I find them both to be unproductive crap, sometimes even destructive without purpose. I started this thread because enough people are interested in religion on this website and since it doesn't belong solely to the anti-theist games only crowd it seemed a good place to build some bridges. I've already had some success, however minimal. That makes it worth it. Train wreck or not I got something worthwhile out of this. Did you?

Well, yes in a sense. I've been reading a lot of atheist literature recently, in an attempt to refine what it is I think, so I'm brimfull of anti-theist sentiment at present. It's ironic you're a Daoist, daoism ad a lot of appeal to me when I was a teenager. Back in Scotland I still have my copies of the Tao Te Ching, The Tao of Pooh (which is very funny), the Book of Five Rings and a couple of daoist poetry collections. I've even got a copy of the vinegar tasters on the wall.
You're using daoism as a philosophy/ guide for living? All power to you. When I'm getting heated it's not really aimed at you, as I'm sure you'd gathered. Please accept my apologies, I was shouting across you at the people who'd really pissed me off.

My disenchantment with daoism sprang from my increasing disenchantment with religious explanations of origins and the religious conception of an interventionist god enforcing a behavioural code. It's not enough to say that that makes no sense to me, to me it sounds palpably absurd. When I reread the tao I saw all these nice phrases masking a gap where the 'why is this all here?' question didn't get satisfactorily answered. That was fine for a while but I need that answer now and daoism doesn't really offer it.

I try to visualise what the world would have to be for God to be interested in human behaviour, able to hear our thoughts, willing to punish digressions from his rules with eternal damnation and still remain undetectable, expressing his will only through ancient, oft-revised texts and it just doesn't make sense. I've read the Bible and the Qu'ran cover to cover and not only do I see no evidence of divine grace there, I see two sprawlingly incoherent texts, full of brutality and contradictory instructions.

The more I see and the more I learn the less inclined I am to say that we should accept each others beliefs and move on. I love the notion that life and debate are a marketplace of ideas, that everyone could debate, offer evidence and approach truth that way. I see the comforts of faith (irrespective of object), I see how happy people are when they're certain, I just don't see any truth. Then I see what religion inspires and I see some good and I see some evil but the part that really rankles is I see people saying that: asking too many questions is bad, that accepting the world as it's presented to you is right and that teacher always know best and I think 'without this, we'd be so much better off.'

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I'd just love for Dawkins (who is in at least in spirit the worlds most well known forum-troll) to flaunt his "there probably isn't a god, so stop worrying and enjoy life" banners to them.

OT: I have always wondered about that little sentence "there probably isn't a god, so stop worrying and enjoy life". Was it really Dawkins who said it? If so it is chock full of shit.

1. "Probably isn't a god" - He doesn't know. He should really stop pretending that he does. A more honest phrase would be "I don't think there is a god", but if he actually admitted that he was telling people what to do on the basis of his own opinion on something then he would be admitting his megalomania.

2. "Stop worrying" - I wasn't aware that religious people spent their entire time worrying about god, and I equally wasn't aware that atheists didn't worry about anything at all.

3. "Enjoy life" - I wasn't aware that being religious means that you are somehow forbidden to enjoy life, and I was equally unaware that atheists go around enjoying everything such as being run over by busses with stupid signs on them.

Was he being ironic when he said that or something? If so it is lost on me.

 

[AgentNein]

I'd just love for Dawkins (who is in at least in spirit the worlds most well known forum-troll) to flaunt his "there probably isn't a god, so stop worrying and enjoy life" banners to them.

OT: I have always wondered about that little sentence "there probably isn't a god, so stop worrying and enjoy life". Was it really Dawkins who said it? If so it is chock full of shit.

I'm not sure if he's the originator of the quote, but he is the dude who commissioned this to be put up on buses around London.

Point being, it is my opinion that most atheists who look down on the religious probably haven't bothered to even try and come to terms with how the world works. Really look at it, in all it's horror and glory with an unblinking eye. If more did, then they'd be more likely to comprehend why one would turn to faith, possibly show some empathy. Maybe less "lol they talk to sky fairies".

Well here I disagree completely. The idea that atheists have looked at the world less clearly than those who believe that a supernatural being is personally interested in their welfare is ridiculous. If there is one thing that rationalism values above all others, it is the ability to look clearly at the world.

I never actually said that atheists see the world less clearly than one who is religious. That's not my point at all. My point IS that being an atheist demands seeing the world as clearly as possible, and while a lot talk the talk, it's not quite as common to walk the walk. And when doesn't 'walk the walk' you can tell by the complete lack of empathy.

 

[Stakhanov]

I'd just love for Dawkins (who is in at least in spirit the worlds most well known forum-troll) to flaunt his "there probably isn't a god, so stop worrying and enjoy life" banners to them.

OT: I have always wondered about that little sentence "there probably isn't a god, so stop worrying and enjoy life". Was it really Dawkins who said it? If so it is chock full of shit.

I'm not sure if he's the originator of the quote, but he is the dude who commissioned this to be put up on buses around London.

Point being, it is my opinion that most atheists who look down on the religious probably haven't bothered to even try and come to terms with how the world works. Really look at it, in all it's horror and glory with an unblinking eye. If more did, then they'd be more likely to comprehend why one would turn to faith, possibly show some empathy. Maybe less "lol they talk to sky fairies".

Well here I disagree completely. The idea that atheists have looked at the world less clearly than those who believe that a supernatural being is personally interested in their welfare is ridiculous. If there is one thing that rationalism values above all others, it is the ability to look clearly at the world.

I never actually said that atheists see the world less clearly than one who is religious. That's not my point at all. My point IS that being an atheist demands seeing the world as clearly as possible, and while a lot talk the talk, it's not quite as common to walk the walk. And when doesn't 'walk the walk' you can tell by the complete lack of empathy.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign If you read up on this campaign you'll see that Dawkins was a supporter but not only was the campaign not his idea, he only gave 5,500 pounds out of a total of 136,000. Notice also that this was a response to a 'Christian' group who stated that unbelievers would burn in hell. Not so good.

Lack of empathy? Every major religion, with a very few notable exceptions, states that unbelievers are going to be eternally punished. Where's their empathy?

 

[LewsTherin]

Spoiler: Post

There is no ultimate answer to the meaning of life, grand goal for humanity, or ideal morality. This is because a definitive answer cannot be given to a question without regarding the topic objectively and it is impossible to regard 'life' objectively as we are within it. In other words we are not able to express the question in terms that share a common frame of reference with our normal lives whilst outside of the universe of discourse. There is no loophole to this. You can not say "God knows the answer" on the grounds that a metaphysical super-being could have a privileged objective perspective on life, the universe and everything as this god would be part of the people's spiritual life. Ironically it is the very fact that people believe in some sort of God that makes it impossible for such an entity to take a independent, unbiased, definitive view.

Conversely, if no one in the entire history of the universe believed in God this God would still not be able to ask the question, as this lack of knowledge of metaphysics and spirituality in culture would be such a serious omission from the universe of human discourse that even if the answer to the meaning of life did not depend on such foundational concepts you couldn't be sure that the answer God had arrived at without us having knowledge of God was complete. Everything has to be under consideration in a question for the answer to not be in doubt. You can not exclude a bunch of concepts even if they have no bearing on things, you must include everything that is known and in this case God is in the awkward position of knowing too much.

I can't prove God doesn't exist, but I prefer to believe that there isn't one. I prefer to live in "reality" and a 'God' is definitely intangible for me.

However, I am not a Nihilist. Just because I have proven that the question:

"What is the meaning of life?"

is erroneous (not unanswerable and mysterious, but simply semantically flawed and fundamentally impossible to ask), as I find the whole notion that it doesn't ultimately matter what humanity achieves, or how we should act towards each other, or what we should worship, etc. is incredibly liberating. There is nothing, ultimately, stopping me from attempting anything. I don't feel as if I ought to be doing 'X'.

That said, I have adapted over the years to cope with other people and have found that the application of:

Good Manners,
Tolerance and
Avoidance

in roughly that order, has worked out rather well.

I don't need to follow some Bible or even the Law of the land as the things I tend to do fall well within acceptable behaviour - i.e. I do not feel like murdering anyone, so telling me I will go to prison, or Hell, if I do doesn't have any effect on me (I wasn't going to anyway).

Finally, this ultimate meaning of life is all to do with the 'Eternal' which I am not interested in. I am far more interested in the short-term, those things that you forget, or will be erased by History. I speak of the often overlooked 'Ephemeral'. A nice ice-cream on the first sunny day of the year, or just a decent cup of tea when you really feel the need of one.

Don't forget. We can all make our own meanings within our lives. Things to live for, goals to accomplish. However, as all of these ultimately fall into the class of the Ephemeral (as far as humanity is concerned), none of us should think that their (way of) life is better than others. I will include myself in this and put this alternative viewpoint forward of a life without God, meaning, or karma as a polite recommendation for some of you to consider as it has worked well for me, however, I respect your beliefs and opinions on life if you choose to ignore this.

A good point, I think the main mistake people on both sides of the fence make is that the whole purpose, cause, and ultimate "Why?" is extremely likely not to be a concept that can fit inside someones head or be able to be worked out on paper. Or, alternately, God's reasoning for creation would be impossible to comprehend with our limited understanding.

 

[caross73]

Really look at it, in all it's horror and glory with an unblinking eye. If more did, then they'd be more likely to comprehend why one would turn to faith, possibly show some empathy.
Maybe less "lol they talk to sky fairies".

We can make they same argument for people who turn to taking out their frustrations on kittens. Life is hard, they need something, anything, no matter how ultimately destructive to make it bearable. For one, its incredibly condescending to assume most people can't handle existence without a meaningless placebo. Dawkins isn't going around to people in the slums of Brazil and saying "Haha, not only is your existence one of meaningless suffering, but you have nothing to ever look forward to." He's speaking to the educated and well off. Whereas religion excels at telling the poor and uneducated, in essence, suffering is great, self-denial is great, you'll be eventually rewarded for it!

It does me no good to tell a dying person that in reality, they will not live on after death. They have done all the damage they are going to do with their false beliefs. But on an internet forum, with supposedly intelligent people who actually like philosophy and reason?

The truth is to the contrary. It is extremely important that people not suffer in this life, because this is ALL THEY GET. The churches can overlook abominations, suffering, because its either part of God's plan or those people will live forever in paradise. Atheists simply can't.

Thats why I look on Mother Teresa with such scorn. Here was a person, elevated among the God-fearing, who apparently while doubting her faith pursued it with zeal; who for most of her life encouraged suffering while prolonging life, didn't alleviate it -- no pain killers even. Why? Because suffering made one holy; those who suffered were "closer to God." Honestly, there are things I'd rather die of than suffer with, but even THAT would be denied to me by some of the religious, if they had their way.

"The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering." - Mother Teresa

"the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ"
- Mother Teresa

 

[Captain Blackout]

Notice also that this was a response to a 'Christian' group who stated that unbelievers would burn in hell. Not so good.

Lack of empathy? Every major religion, with a very few notable exceptions, states that unbelievers are going to be eternally punished. Where's their empathy?

I would not say every major religion. Unfortunately many religions have the concept of eternal punishment. However many of those are Christian and many others are from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic group (the Abrahamic religions). Outside of the Abrahamic religions not so much. Also, there are those Christians who believe in universalism, the concept in it's most basic form that everyone goes to the same place. For a lot of Christians this means heaven. In my case, I believe heaven and hell are part of this existence so universalism for me translates to something like re-incarnation.

Quite frankly I think Jesus had something like this in mind: Heaven and hell are right here, right now. Our job is to have empathy and compassion and create heaven for each other. Compassion literally means "with suffering." It means to suffer with each other. You're never getting away from suffering as long as you exist according to Buddhism. Jesus answer to that (indirectly, the problem of suffering is an issue for all religions) was if we work together we transcend the suffering and have not only existences but lives worth having, suffering and all.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I'm sure whatever I have to add has already been said by this point, but whatever.

First of all, the topic title is just plain wrong.

1. Atheists believe there is no God in existence today.

2. Theists believe there is.

I don't see how these beliefs can be reconciled. It's been a while since I checked the Original Post, but it sounded like a bunch of nonsense and supposition to me. An interesting idea, maybe, but completely unfounded.

Anyway, what does it matter? These two beliefs are fundamentally opposed to one another (for goodness' sake, the opposition is in the names!), and we'll never know positively (well, to the point of proof, anyway) until we die.

You know what? After we die I'll be happy to debate the subject as much as anyone wants, but right now I see any such discussion as completely pointless.

 

[dantheman931]

This may be somewhat off-topic, but here goes anyway...

My big problem with religion is that it loves to accuse science of "not having all the answers" when science never claimed to have them in the first place. Any good scientist will tell you that, as much as we know, we still don't know everything; but religion tends to see that gap in knowledge as proof that science has somehow failed. Meanwhile, religion attempts to come up with scientific answers that are somehow relevant despite having been written thousands of years ago by people who still thought the Earth was flat and that trepanning and blood-letting were sound medical procedures. In other words, it's like two kids on a playground: Science is the kid playing by himself in the sandbox, and religion is the kid who keeps trying to pick a fight with science and cries to its mommy when science fights back.

Besides, religion can't even agree with itself on what God is or what he, she, it, or they want from us. (Why do so many people think God is a man, by the way? Last time I checked, women had a hell of a lot more to do with giving life than men do.) Hell, Christians can't even agree among themselves on that; put a methodist and a snake handler in the same room and see what happens. For that matter, toss in a Jew; it's all the same thing when you get right down to it. So if religion can't even figure that out, what right does it have trying to convince me? It's like showing up in court to defend yourself, but having fed all your legal briefs to the dog instead of, you know, reading them. I can't say for sure that there are no gods, for the same reason religion can't say for sure there are--i.e., no human being can observe the entire fucking universe--but I'm not going to start worshipping any of them until someone can give me a compelling reason why I should. A book doesn't cut it (doesn't prove anything), nor does spewing a lot of crap about morals (religion is neither a prerequisite nor a guarantee of morality).

(I know these are sweeping generalizations, by the way. I've known some fine people who also happen to be religious, and I've known some right assholes who are also atheists or otherwise non-religious. So please, if you'd be so kind, no flames.)

 

[Trace2010]

What's the crux of my arguement? Simply that we CAN'T answer some questions i.e. Does God exist. We have to choose. Atheism and Theism are choices.

But WHY do we have to choose! Is it not accaptable to have the nice thought that there is a higher power waiting for us to save us from sin, but on the other hand have a nice thought that we are truly free, that nothing matters, we can think and do as we please with no divine power intervening in the afterlife!

"There is no God...There is no Hell...There is no hurry."

Indecision IS a decision...so is straddling a fence (and it is usually the most painful decision to make in all walks of life).

 

[Trace2010]

@LEWS FROM ABOVE-

"A good point, I think the main mistake people on both sides of the fence make is that the whole purpose, cause, and ultimate "Why?" is extremely likely not to be a concept that can fit inside someones head or be able to be worked out on paper. Or, alternately, God's reasoning for creation would be impossible to comprehend with our limited understanding.[/quote]"

Nor measured by any standard of mankind's capabilities-

 

[Sewblon]

It sounds to me like you are saying that it doesn't matter if God exists. The problem with that is, What if God does exist and he will only give you true completion and serenity in death if you explicitly believe in him, or what if he doesn't exist and the only way to achieve completion and serenity is to accept that. Also, The universe may look natural and complete to some people but I look at it and see a faulty, amoral incomplete thing.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign If you read up on this campaign you'll see that Dawkins was a supporter but not only was the campaign not his idea, he only gave 5,500 pounds out of a total of 136,000. Notice also that this was a response to a 'Christian' group who stated that unbelievers would burn in hell. Not so good.

"What these Christian groups are doing is wrong, immoral and unethical! We will do exactly the same!"

Lack of empathy? Every major religion, with a very few notable exceptions, states that unbelievers are going to be eternally punished. Where's their empathy?

[CITATION NEEDED]

I think that you are confusing religion with certain extremist religious people. Please, don't anyone go quoting the Bible when they know it is not the commonly held view of Christians that the Bible is to be taken literally. I share your distaste for the notion of a benevolent and loving god who condemns souls to hell for all eternity for not applauding loudly enough, but in all honesty the number of religious people who believe this to be the case is rather small, so doesn't really apply unless we are discussing extremists (which we are not).

A truly wise man knows how much he doesn't know.

 

[Captain Blackout]

http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign If you read up on this campaign you'll see that Dawkins was a supporter but not only was the campaign not his idea, he only gave 5,500 pounds out of a total of 136,000. Notice also that this was a response to a 'Christian' group who stated that unbelievers would burn in hell. Not so good.

"What these Christian groups are doing is wrong, immoral and unethical! We will do exactly the same!"

Lack of empathy? Every major religion, with a very few notable exceptions, states that unbelievers are going to be eternally punished. Where's their empathy?

[CITATION NEEDED]

I think that you are confusing religion with certain extremist religious people. Please, don't anyone go quoting the Bible when they know it is not the commonly held view of Christians that the Bible is to be taken literally. I share your distaste for the notion of a benevolent and loving god who condemns souls to hell for all eternity for not applauding loudly enough, but in all honesty the number of religious people who believe this to be the case is rather small, so doesn't really apply unless we are discussing extremists (which we are not).

A truly wise man knows how much he doesn't know.

When dealing with beliefs you will automatically have to deal with extremists. This thread alone is proof of that. The real question is how will you deal with them.

BTW: What are you attempting to accomplish here? Even non-literalists believe in eternal hell, and when you include Judaism and Islam there are a LOT who fall into this category, literalists and non-literalists alike. There are better approaches than: "Please don't anyone go quoting the bible.." depending on who you're talking to. For example READ THE THREAD before you post and you'll see such an example.