Question for all the God-bothering Christian types on here

[shaunbhoy]

Unfortunately me old barnacle, 'Itler was a good old fashioned Catholic.

http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

Rumour has it he was a St. Pauli fan as well. Fascist scumbags.

All that and a "Hun" to boot.

[xoggoth]

As long as no one is forcing their beliefs on you

Trouble is CM, while forcing people to believe is largely history except in some Islamic countries, many are still trying to force particular laws on the rest of us based on religious dogma. Even in the UK, which is pretty secular by world standards, laws on some issues like abortion, gay marriage and right to die are still shaped by religious lobbyists. In much of the rest of the world, Islamic countries, Uganda, even the US, it is far worse.

If I ever have a stroke and life is unbearable I want the right to decide my own fate. While I understand rational concerns about a law change, perhaps that vulnerable people may be coerced, I certainly don't see why my right on my own life should be determined by other people's religious ideas.

So how can we counter religious views on these issues unless we question the basis for them? SAS raises a valid point. Why would a just and loving god allow so much confusion to happen? And what about all the poor souls who died without ever hearing "the word" at all?

[xoggoth]

Some more:

Why are behaviours that are commonplace in animals and which god presumably gave them for their survival such as promiscuity, defending one's own tribe to the death, eliminating one's rivals and their children, only sinful for mankind?

If they are given by god who knows all and can see the future, why is there absolutely nothing in any religious text that indicates any knowledge beyond the time and culture of its creation? How about a warning against things that cloud the mind generally rather than just alcohol for example?

How is a stark salvation/damnation outcome just when there is no true free will, when it is observably true that everyone is shaped by genes and upbringing?

Why is every religious "proof" one reads mere simily? A common one is confusion of the soul with consciousness.

The big one. Why would a loving god who could have put us all into paradise in the first place, test us like rats in a laboratory maze and then punish us for not getting it right?

Lastly. If god gave us judgement and intellect and ability to think for ourselves, why is it wrong to use it in this context?

[SueEllen]

Some more:

Why are behaviours that are commonplace in animals and which god presumably gave them for their survival such as promiscuity, defending one's own tribe to the death, eliminating one's rivals and their children, only sinful for mankind?

If they are given by god who knows all and can see the future, why is there absolutely nothing in any religious text that indicates any knowledge beyond the time and culture of its creation? How about a warning against things that cloud the mind generally rather than just alcohol for example?

How is a stark salvation/damnation outcome just when there is no true free will, when it is observably true that everyone is shaped by genes and upbringing?

Why is every religious "proof" one reads mere simily? A common one is confusion of the soul with consciousness.

The big one. Why would a loving god who could have put us all into paradise in the first place, test us like rats in a laboratory maze and then punish us for not getting it right?

Lastly. If god gave us judgement and intellect and ability to think for ourselves, why is it wrong to use it in this context?

Either:
1. Find an intelligent Quaker, or
2. Find someone who has studied Theology i.e. a vicar

[Cliphead]

I'm not religious and I don't have a problem with anyone who has a faith but I'd rather that religion and law were kept seperate. Too often religious beliefs influence legislation to a lesser or greater degree, not too hard to find examples.

[doodab]

Some more:

Why are behaviours that are commonplace in animals and which god presumably gave them for their survival such as promiscuity, defending one's own tribe to the death, eliminating one's rivals and their children, only sinful for mankind?

If they are given by god who knows all and can see the future, why is there absolutely nothing in any religious text that indicates any knowledge beyond the time and culture of its creation? How about a warning against things that cloud the mind generally rather than just alcohol for example?

How is a stark salvation/damnation outcome just when there is no true free will, when it is observably true that everyone is shaped by genes and upbringing?

Why is every religious "proof" one reads mere simily? A common one is confusion of the soul with consciousness.

The big one. Why would a loving god who could have put us all into paradise in the first place, test us like rats in a laboratory maze and then punish us for not getting it right?

Lastly. If god gave us judgement and intellect and ability to think for ourselves, why is it wrong to use it in this context?

The bible says that god made man in his own image. So it's probably safe to assume he's a c**t.

[Gibbon]

The bible says that god made man in his own image. So it's probably safe to assume he's a c**t.

I have to agree when I look in the mirror!

[Spacecadet]

The bible says that god made man in his own image. So it's probably safe to assume he's a c**t.

actually if you read the bible properly you realise that he is a vengeful and spiteful God who's not averse to wiping out the population from time to time just to keep them in check, or sending plagues to anyone who bothers his chosen people

[Gibbon]

What I was getting at is at what point we say peoples beliefs are "wrong". And what you and CM have pionted is it's when those beliefs affect other peoples 'elf and safety.
But philosophically that is an arbitrary (albeit important and practical) criterion and my point is that peoples beliefs may be "wrong" at a much earlier stage than when they decide murder in the name of faith is justified. Probably at the stage, contrary to Occam's Razor, when they decide to believe in "something" for which there is no evidence.

Yes, it is difficult to comprehend, but there is no compelling evidence the other way. Look at the recent questioning of the 'light' theorem.

Personally out of the lot of them I prefer the polytheistic religions as they have mechanisms for tolerating other beliefs. I have a Hindu friend who's family actually adopted Jesus as another of their gods when they came over and actually lament the reduction of religious output on TV around Xmas and Easter.

[TimberWolf]

actually if you read the bible properly you realise that he is a vengeful and spiteful God who's not averse to wiping out the population from time to time just to keep them in check, or sending plagues to anyone who bothers his chosen people

He calms down a lot by the second book and who knows how nice he would have got in the third had the trilogy been completed.