The True God

I do not agree with you here. Not all religions can be helpful. In fact, they aren't helpful at all.

Christianism for example is merely used as a substitute for teaching common sense. I read something like this from someone not too long ago: "You don't need a god (or a book) to tell you that cheating on your wife is wrong. Those are basic moral principles (which differ in people)". The problem is that while trying to educate people into being good (and to not stray away from it), it adds a bunch of bullshit fantasy to it. Making people ignorant and weak of mind. People don't trust in God because they are weak and need strength. People are weak because they trust in God and all the nonsense involved in it. Believing that a holy being controls your and the universe, and that your life is to be used in service to him, renders you powerless. And if you disobey him, you will suffer for eternity. (not mentioning the "you shall not question what you do not know")


Atheism differs from religion in that it obides by no higher rules. Being skeptical about everything, questioning everything. That is the real essence of atheism. I believe technology and our world in general would be very different, and much more advanced, if only the ignorance brought upon us by the church would've been put away a long time ago.

note: My post is not meant to offend you Shaggy, nor the op. It's just my thoughts on the matter.
Also, my writting isn't the best. I will try to improve it.
note2: Feel free to question anything I said.

Actually, I wanted to address this earlier, but I didn't feel the need to say anything. Now I have it in me to address this:

Shaggy, I think you're full of shit. As if not believing in a god will "ruin" creativity. Are you afraid that people will no longer make those glass paintings with angels and shit in them? Hey, maybe we don't need to believe in something to make creative art, poems, etc. about it.

And not believing in a god ruins diversity too, right? Is your stance on the god debate really such an important part of diversity? Is having different culture, different views(excluding god), races, or nationalities not enough diversity for you?


Truly a sentiment deserving my disgust.

There's alot of hate here.

I have to wonder though, why do people hate religion so much? Sure there were wars and mass persecutions over it but what if the people found something else to start a war? What if influential people were forgotten in the sands of time because of no religion? What if America would be a bigger hellhole if the founding fathers didn't believe in God? There are alot of "what if"s that we will never know yet people(so far) view things in a negative light, deciding that the world will most likely be(read properly, not saying will be) a better place for everyone.

It's just a speculation.


As for people saying God is evil for punishing those that don't listen to Him are stupid. If you tell your kid to not play with your computer and he does, will you just let him go or will you use some form of discipline? If you were a king and you gave out an order for everyone to not visit a rival kingdom and they still do, will you let them off? If you set rules and don't reinforce them, then there's no point in having rules and you'll be trampled on by everyone.

I don't see a lot of hate here, mostly just honest discussion. It's a strange sort of fallacy (I believe) to debate that we'd be worse off without religion. We have whole generations being killed and stagnated in the name of religion. History shows us examples of both religious and secular wars and crusades. Would the world be better off without religion, mysticism, and superstition? Yes I believe it would be. A better question, I think, would be; what if instead of nations being founded on religious doctrines were instead founded upon general skepticism, free inquiry, and humanistic or environmental beliefs? Is this an alternative to religion? Not entirely, but it is definitely an exchange of pragmatism and oppression for individual rights and happiness I think. We did have almost an entire millennium of anti-science and anti-humanism due to religion. We now call it the dark ages, and we could have been far far ahead in terms of scientific achievements and humanitarian advancements.




We have through religion the idea of a God who punishes "his children" in horrific manners, not always for the sake of learned experience or betterment (certainly not in the case of eternal damnation), but for obedience and loyalty to the church and clergy of it's time. So now we still have a Biblical God. A supernatural creator, who in fact loves us so much, and is so jealous of our love and attention. If we fail to acknowledge this, or fail to return his love, we are punished by an eternity of hellfire and torture. This is in fact not a form of love but rather one of psychosis. The idea is an obvious fictitious and morally corrupt ideology perpetuated by the Abrahamic religions, who also fully endorse (indirectly or not) superstitious healing, intolerance, denial of scientific and historical facts (as displayed by our evolutionary-denialist OP - I mean no insult, however the fact remains true) oppression of women, violence & torture, prosecution of blasphemy and so on..

Most of the Founders were Deists, although some were Christian. Some were opposed to organized religion. If you read Article 6 ("...no religious test for any office..."), it's clear they were designing a secular society.

Random info in the spoiler.



If all religious people got up and said "We believe in a God and that God expects us to do good in the world". I'm pretty sure we can all find a few things that even Atheist's and Theists can come to an agreement on that would count as "good behavior". Then Atheists and Theists could live in general harmony but, that isn't going to happen.

I'm fairly certain that it's common knowledge that the Founding Fathers still believed in God even if they were not intent on establishing religion. Nobosaki's question was what if they didn't believe in God [at all]?

We have a secular government, being that we do not impose religious law. That doesn't say anything about the types of beliefs elected officials hold, or that the majority of citizens hold either. Atheism and secular beliefs are still a minority (although growing) group.

What he said

If I had to choose a political party, I'd pick Democrat. But I don't think every single person should be a Democrat. I'd hope that all people would feel the same way, that the political party they endorse should not be the only political party. Why? Because that makes people lazy. Without different sides, there is only uniformity. That's my view on politics. I have the same view on religion. If all people believe the same thing, what does that lead to? If nobody in the world believes in any sort of God, then some discoveries may never be made, discoveries that came about by people searching for a way to prove God's existence. Of course, the flip side is also true. If all people believed in God, then some discoveries may never be made, because they'd be made by people who don't believe in God and wish to find a reason that does not involve God.

Even if a million discoveries can be made by an atheist-only humanity, that may not be enough. A billion discoveries could be made if there were atheists and theists. One group does not have to be destroyed for the world to make progress or be good. I said what I said because it seems that a lot of people, on both sides, seem to believe that the other side must be wiped out for the world to be right. Going full circle, the same thing happens in politics, but what would happen if all Republicans suddenly died? I highly doubt the Democrats would get too far along.

If the Founding Fathers never believed in the first place we'd be in the same spot as we are in now. Deism in the 1700-1800's was equivalent to Agnostic today. Yes, the Founding Fathers believed in a God but, not a Judaeo–Christian god. This difference (though very slim to some) makes a huge difference. Look at the other "religious" countries around the world. What similarities do they have? How do they differ from the U.S. and (secular) Western Europe?



Political party has nothing to do with this type of conversation. There are idiots in both parties, in all parties actually. There are religious Democrats and secular Republicans.

Edit: Not saying that religious people are idiots with that statement just saying that political affiliation has nothing to do with the topic.

I have to disagree on that. It is because religion, my example being the bible, is so unspecific that it allows for the hatred you refer to. Because it has so many plot holes it forces followers to fill in the gaps and obviously different people will come up with different answers, hence all the fighting over religion. And by saying that anybody that uses logic is cold hearted and uncaring you are implying that religious people are all kindhearted souls. For lack of a better example, abortion clinic bombings are caused by religious people; does that not show a lack of compassion for the raped women and those beset by unfortunate circumstances?

Revelation is an apocalyptic book. It's not to be taken literally/verbatim/word-for-word.

I'm not entirely convinced that Deism then is equivalent to Agnosticism now. Deism then, as it is now, held a belief in a God, albeit without dogmatism or doctrine specifically. Agnosticism now holds no belief in a God, like Atheism. The difference is that Agnosticism allows for you to also hold no belief that God doesn't exist as well. It's an opinion of uncertainty, where Deism, by it's own definition, is a belief in a deity of some sort. Unless you are mentioning Agnostic Theism (which is still different) Deism hasn't ever been equivalent to Agnosticism, which is in fact closer to Atheism without any aforementioned attachments to other theistic beliefs at all.

How I was comparing them was the train of thought back then. Today we view agnostics as the "one the fence" people. Deists were just that back then, "one the fence" between religions.

Even if the Founding Fathers were complete and utter Atheists then the country couldn't be much different other than plainly stating that state will remain a secular one.

Other than that I see no way the country would have taken a big turn away from how it is now other than the western expansion of the U.S. never occurring. Due to the notion that White people would bring "God" to the heathen Indians or that the U.S. was "gods gift to us".

I'm not sure Deists were "on the fence" between religions, as if they could choose between them once persuaded. A few may have been persuaded but there is no evidence I know of to show of this. Deism has held a belief in a God or Deity without religion. Regardless, being on the fence of religious belief still may concede a belief in God. Agnosticism does not, and that is the difference.

I've also not argued that if the Founding Fathers were Atheists we'd be any different today from it. We'd likely have the same documents, and same separation of church and state. I've only argued - well at least speculated - that nations themselves would be better off not being founded by religious beliefs. Or at least, I should say not propagating the belief system in schools, government, and societies. Better than they would be with them.

The problem here isn't with integration of church into government, or doctrine into law, as it is in Saudi Arabia and other countries. The problem is with the belief system itself being supported and spread among individuals. Intolerance, anti-science, and discrimination. Obviously these are things that can't be controlled or dictated due to our individual freedoms - I view this as a good thing anyways. The problem with society this way is that education isn't as good as it should be, it isn't encouraged, and children are often indoctrinated into certain religious beliefs without choice. If we are to make progress with regards to freethinking and humanism it'll have to come through better education, and social and cultural changes. These are dictated, if anything, by the people and generations themselves. Our world is changing in ways that it never has before. I wonder sometimes if we are on the verge of another intellectual renaissance & enlightenment, or on the brink of a new dark age of anti-science, mysticism, paranoia and nationalism. Coupled with terrorism and nuclear ambition it is really a frightening prospect.

I'm trying to see where we disagree which I'm having no luck finding. Wait, does that mean we actually agree?

Where are we on this discussion right now...?

Nice hotlink. But I see your oh snap in the URL anyways =P

This makes me sad.

Jesuit casuistry, which, as I may kindly remind you two, is heretical and thus blasphemous. Besides, The Bible makes it clear elsewhere, too, that modification of His Holy Word is forbidden.

SCRIPTURE SAYS:

Deut 4,2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it.

Deut 12,32
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

also Prov 30,6 etc.

Apocalyptic = coded/written specifically for the ones to whom the book is authored to. Revelation was written in times of oppression against the Christians.

The bible is a compilation of myths, teachings, norms stories and history. The book is compiled by the community, under divine intervention. Not by humans who interpret the words verbatim.