Skinny.

I've been thinking it over and listening to some interpretations of the bible (watch the first third of Zeitgeist) and I'm certain christianity is bollocks. Jesus was pretty much proved not to exist (see obove), heaven is a fairy tale explanation for what's going on in death, created in old times to stop people from fearing death and the mith has somehow survived into modern times where you think people would be smart enough to have worked out you don't sit on a cloud forever after your body shuts down. The mith of hell was created by people in power a long time ago to keep the masses in order and again, somehow the mith has survived into modern times where you think people would have realised that if there was a god the way the church and the bible describes it, he wouldn't put you in a place like that for any reason. There is no devil, because if god was powerful enough to kick him out of heaven, god would be powerful enough to stop the devil from persuading us to do evil. All bollocks.

Also, if this life was to test our spirits, why wouldn't god tell us so himself. They say it is to test our faith, but we need to develop faith to have it tested and people in robes retelling old propaganda and explanations for things we can now explain our selves with the various forms of science we have that have logical explanations for diseases and numerous things the bible tries to exlplain just isn't enough to develop lifelong faith. It just isn't going to cut it.

I stated earlier in the thread that having religion is good becuase it teaches morals ect., but maybe it's doing more harm than good. With such a large percentage of people shutting out the logic and believing in tall tales that have no meaning in reality, how much can humanity accomplish? As we (the human race) advance more people are turning thier back on religion and they are realising what a pile of crap it all is. Wich leads to this point, if we advance and simultaniously begin to shut out religion, it could work both ways, meaning, if we all stop listening to this **** we would advance quicker and have a better chance at answering questions like "why are we here?" or "what happens after death?" rather than accept what is clearly a load of bollocks if you look hard enough, as the answers to the important questions, wich could be answered.

I'm not sure what happens after death (probably nothing) but if we just accept what the bible tells us happens (with no proof) then we will abolish any hope of finding out what happens at death, before the time comes, so if you believe what the bible says, you're in for some disapointment, or if, like me, you've decided not to take what certain people say as fact with no proof, then you'll just have to wait and see unless we all wake up.

Meph1986

Isn't that the same movie that stated that the WTC were brought down by controlled demolition?

Skinny.

Yes, it is. It was a three part movie, I made a reference to the first part wich was about religion, why did you bring up the second part wich was about the events on September Eleventh?

mr dave

so why does your belief in the illegitimacy of christianity have more value than the legitimate belief of a christian?

how is your opening post remotely controversial when NO ONE tries to push religion in this forum aside from a few instances of other 'enlightened' members trying to crap on organized religion?

how does choosing to believe in the message the producers of zeitgeist push mean more than choosing to believe the message any other preacher pushes?

__________________
i am the universe

Skinny.

Well, for one, the producers of zeigeist are using facts to prove what they say is true. Very diffrent from a book full of stories.

Typical response. Educated material enters conversation about religion and suddenly I'm crappying on everyones dreams...

The Unfan

Zeitgeist is a terrible example but I'll attempt to field this question. Skepticism holds basis in known, observable reality, blind faith is just blind. Believing in something real has more value than believing in something that doesn't exist. You can accomplish more scientifically when your brain functions in the reality of existence as opposed to the falsehoods of ancient texts. Skepticism cures diseases, faith does not. Skepticism asks the questions that are important in hopes of getting a real answer, faith claims to have the answers and then searches for the questions which skepticism hasn't answered yet as "proof" for its claims. Therefore I can conclude skepticism has more validity and usefulness until some faith can be proven empirically true.

mr dave

skinny - you're missing my point. it's not whether the belief is valid but that one chooses to believe in something. can you actually prove all the claims made by zeitgeist or just refer to them as factual for convenience?

unfan - you're totally right that skepticism drives science. but would a group of people have a reason to be skeptical if there wasn't a group of people who believed? doesn't the skepticism develop from a desire to prove a belief to be either true or false? you kind of need one to have the other no?

__________________
i am the universe

The Unfan

Personally, no. My skepticism derives from wanting to understand things. There doesn't need to be a belief to be questioned, just a thing to be questioned.

However, I want to make another point. Faith is not invalid if derived from rationality. If you honestly observe what you know and it brings you to belief that belief isn't invalid. Not all rational lines of thought bring you to the right answers always and even science is often wrong. The difference is science intends to correct its errors where faith does not.

mr dave

absolutely, but that's all about personal perceptions of life. i don't think it's science so much as the individual scientists who intend to correct its errors. which can also be said about rational devout individuals, you can find close minded zealots on both sides of the science/religion fence.

as for you're comment about 'rational lines of thought bring you to the right answer'. while i agree with the sentiment, how can anyone really define 'the right answer' for anyone else's existence?

__________________
i am the universe

The Unfan

Actually, I said not all rational lines of thought bring you to the right answer. As to define the right answer, the one which is correct. God can't be both non-existent and existent. If we can find empirical proof for either side, than the other side is wrong. I might be wrong as an atheist, but I doubt it.

The problem I have is that most if not all religions don't seek understanding because they already claim to have all the answers. I question how anyone can accept something that conceals studies and ignores anything contrary to it. How can something that teaches you to be satisfied without full understanding of the world ever bring forth knowledge or hope?