Can you explain why you have faith in your religion? (1 Viewer)

[shader]

A little closer to home, what about the slaughter of American Indian "savages" by a largely "Christian" nation?

 

[proninja]

Which wars are you aware of that have been driven and perpetuated by protestants?

Does the Afrikaner (Dutch Reformed Church) extermination of the Bushmen, Xhosa, and Zulu tribes count?

Of course. Nowhere have I contended there were none.

 

[proninja]

A little closer to home, what about the slaughter of American Indian "savages" by a largely "Christian" nation?

Despicable, though I'm not sure we were ever as Christian of a nation as many think.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm confused. It now sounds like shader is arguing that religion is awful.

 

[timschochet]

Which wars are you aware of that have been driven and perpetuated by protestants?

Does the Afrikaner (Dutch Reformed Church) extermination of the Bushmen, Xhosa, and Zulu tribes count?

Of course. Nowhere have I contended there were none.

But you're suggesting that far more were started by Catholics or Orthodox Christians, right? Even if this were true, isn't it only because Protestantism isn't nearly as old as the other two?

 

[timschochet]

A little closer to home, what about the slaughter of American Indian "savages" by a largely "Christian" nation?

I actually think this is a bit overstated. What we did to the native Americans was terrible enough, but it's important to note that the vast majority died not due to any deliberate mistreatment, but because they had no immunity to diseases such as measles.

 

[Jayrok]

Isn't G. W. Bush a protestant?

 

[shader]

I'm confused. It now sounds like shader is arguing that religion is awful.

Hasn't it been for most of history?

I didn't say Jesus or the Christian teachings in the bible were awful.

Can you imagine Jesus abandoning his ministry and joining the local militia to fight a war against invading savages? At some point the Church began fighting wars and engaging in politics, and it was downhill from there.

 

[proninja]

I'm confused. It now sounds like shader is arguing that religion is awful.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but he believes that his particular Abrahamic religion is the only true religion, and that Catholic/Protestants have it wrong and are not part of the true church. My guess is his argument toward the violence in the history of the church has to do with the fact that his particular religion didn't perpetuate it and that is evidence toward his belief that they have it right and Catholics/Protestants have it wrong.

Is that fair, shader?

 

[shader]

A little closer to home, what about the slaughter of American Indian "savages" by a largely "Christian" nation?

I actually think this is a bit overstated. What we did to the native Americans was terrible enough, but it's important to note that the vast majority died not due to any deliberate mistreatment, but because they had no immunity to diseases such as measles.

Perhaps it's overstated. But it was still awful.

 

[timschochet]

I'm confused. It now sounds like shader is arguing that religion is awful.

Hasn't it been for most of history?

I didn't say Jesus or the Christian teachings in the bible were awful.

Can you imagine Jesus abandoning his ministry and joining the local militia to fight a war against invading savages? At some point the Church began fighting wars and engaging in politics, and it was downhill from there.

Are you a pacifist, Shader?

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm confused. It now sounds like shader is arguing that religion is awful.

Hasn't it been for most of history?

I didn't say Jesus or the Christian teachings in the bible were awful.

Can you imagine Jesus abandoning his ministry and joining the local militia to fight a war against invading savages? At some point the Church began fighting wars and engaging in politics, and it was downhill from there.

I guess that depends on what religion you're talking about.

 

[shader]

I'm confused. It now sounds like shader is arguing that religion is awful.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but he believes that his particular Abrahamic religion is the only true religion, and that Catholic/Protestants have it wrong and are not part of the true church. My guess is his argument toward the violence in the history of the church has to do with the fact that his particular religion didn't perpetuate it and that is evidence toward his belief that they have it right and Catholics/Protestants have it wrong.

Is that fair, shader?

My argument in this sidebar is just that most Protestant and Catholic religions have been heavily involved in warfare and violence. I doubt Jesus approves.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm confused. It now sounds like shader is arguing that religion is awful.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but he believes that his particular Abrahamic religion is the only true religion, and that Catholic/Protestants have it wrong and are not part of the true church. My guess is his argument toward the violence in the history of the church has to do with the fact that his particular religion didn't perpetuate it and that is evidence toward his belief that they have it right and Catholics/Protestants have it wrong.

Is that fair, shader?

My argument in this sidebar is just that most Protestant and Catholic religions have been heavily involved in warfare and violence. I doubt Jesus approves.

I also doubt Jesus approves, but probably for different reasons.

 

[proninja]

I'm confused. It now sounds like shader is arguing that religion is awful.

Hasn't it been for most of history?

I didn't say Jesus or the Christian teachings in the bible were awful.

Can you imagine Jesus abandoning his ministry and joining the local militia to fight a war against invading savages? At some point the Church began fighting wars and engaging in politics, and it was downhill from there.

Are you a pacifist, Shader?

You didn't ask me, but I am not a pacifist. However, I am much closer to it (and would much rather err in that direction) than most of American Christianity. I find most Christian's readiness to end life to be really sad.

 

[proninja]

I'm confused. It now sounds like shader is arguing that religion is awful.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but he believes that his particular Abrahamic religion is the only true religion, and that Catholic/Protestants have it wrong and are not part of the true church. My guess is his argument toward the violence in the history of the church has to do with the fact that his particular religion didn't perpetuate it and that is evidence toward his belief that they have it right and Catholics/Protestants have it wrong.

Is that fair, shader?

My argument in this sidebar is just that most Protestant and Catholic religions have been heavily involved in warfare and violence. I doubt Jesus approves.

I completely agree!

 

[timschochet]

One religious massacre of the 20th century that is rarely discussed (at least in terms of religious morality vs. secular morality)- the genocide of the Turkish Armenians at the end of World War I. Something like a million men, women, and children were exterminated for one reason only: because they were Christians living in an Islamic nation.

On the opposite side of the scale it is important to note that the most western and secular of nations during the 20th century, Great Britain, the one which even more than the United States encapsulated the ideas of the Enlightenment, was the same nation which introduced concentration camps to the world- during the Boer War.

Facts like the above two is why I keep pointing out that there is no correct answer in this debate over whether or not secularism or religion leads to a more moral society.

 

[Henry Ford]

One religious massacre of the 20th century that is rarely discussed (at least in terms of religious morality vs. secular morality)- the genocide of the Turkish Armenians at the end of World War I. Something like a million men, women, and children were exterminated for one reason only: because they were Christians living in an Islamic nation.

On the opposite side of the scale it is important to note that the most western and secular of nations during the 20th century, Great Britain, the one which even more than the United States encapsulated the ideas of the Enlightenment, was the same nation which introduced concentration camps to the world- during the Boer War.

Facts like the above two is why I keep pointing out that there is no correct answer in this debate over whether or not secularism or religion leads to a more moral society.

You know that you're debating that with yourself, right?

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

I'm confused. It now sounds like shader is arguing that religion is awful.

lol

 

[timschochet]

One religious massacre of the 20th century that is rarely discussed (at least in terms of religious morality vs. secular morality)- the genocide of the Turkish Armenians at the end of World War I. Something like a million men, women, and children were exterminated for one reason only: because they were Christians living in an Islamic nation.

On the opposite side of the scale it is important to note that the most western and secular of nations during the 20th century, Great Britain, the one which even more than the United States encapsulated the ideas of the Enlightenment, was the same nation which introduced concentration camps to the world- during the Boer War.

Facts like the above two is why I keep pointing out that there is no correct answer in this debate over whether or not secularism or religion leads to a more moral society.

You know that you're debating that with yourself, right?

Yes.

Seriously, no. I may be stating the terms of the debate a little more explicitly than others are, but when you see posts which are focused on the violence of the 20th century vs. other centuries, you know that's where they're going.

 

[shader]

I'm confused. It now sounds like shader is arguing that religion is awful.

Hasn't it been for most of history?

I didn't say Jesus or the Christian teachings in the bible were awful.

Can you imagine Jesus abandoning his ministry and joining the local militia to fight a war against invading savages? At some point the Church began fighting wars and engaging in politics, and it was downhill from there.

Are you a pacifist, Shader?

I would never fight in a war, if that answers your question.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Can't spell pacifist without FIST.

 

[Henry Ford]

One religious massacre of the 20th century that is rarely discussed (at least in terms of religious morality vs. secular morality)- the genocide of the Turkish Armenians at the end of World War I. Something like a million men, women, and children were exterminated for one reason only: because they were Christians living in an Islamic nation.

On the opposite side of the scale it is important to note that the most western and secular of nations during the 20th century, Great Britain, the one which even more than the United States encapsulated the ideas of the Enlightenment, was the same nation which introduced concentration camps to the world- during the Boer War.

Facts like the above two is why I keep pointing out that there is no correct answer in this debate over whether or not secularism or religion leads to a more moral society.

You know that you're debating that with yourself, right?

Yes.

Seriously, no. I may be stating the terms of the debate a little more explicitly than others are, but when you see posts which are focused on the violence of the 20th century vs. other centuries, you know that's where they're going.

We were debating the relative moral "correctness" of this century versus other centuries in society as a whole, and whether advancements in knowledge about the world around us/scientific thinking may correlate with advancements in moral thinking.

 

[timschochet]

One religious massacre of the 20th century that is rarely discussed (at least in terms of religious morality vs. secular morality)- the genocide of the Turkish Armenians at the end of World War I. Something like a million men, women, and children were exterminated for one reason only: because they were Christians living in an Islamic nation.

On the opposite side of the scale it is important to note that the most western and secular of nations during the 20th century, Great Britain, the one which even more than the United States encapsulated the ideas of the Enlightenment, was the same nation which introduced concentration camps to the world- during the Boer War.

Facts like the above two is why I keep pointing out that there is no correct answer in this debate over whether or not secularism or religion leads to a more moral society.

You know that you're debating that with yourself, right?

Yes.

Seriously, no. I may be stating the terms of the debate a little more explicitly than others are, but when you see posts which are focused on the violence of the 20th century vs. other centuries, you know that's where they're going.

We were debating the relative moral "correctness" of this century versus other centuries in society as a whole, and whether advancements in knowledge about the world around us/scientific thinking may correlate with advancements in moral thinking.

Sure. But why are you having that discussion in a thread about religious faith? Obviously, the implication is that faith is s necessary component for a moral society, or conversely it is not. There lies the debate.

 

[proninja]

Sure. But why are you having that discussion in a thread about religious faith? Obviously, the implication is that faith is s necessary component for a moral society, or conversely it is not. There lies the debate.

So, just to be clear. You're wondering what is productive about what we are discussing on the internet. Did I get that right?

 

[timschochet]

Sure. But why are you having that discussion in a thread about religious faith? Obviously, the implication is that faith is s necessary component for a moral society, or conversely it is not. There lies the debate.

So, just to be clear. You're wondering what is productive about what we are discussing on the internet. Did I get that right?

I never wonder about that. I consider all your posts to be fodder for my personal entertainment.

 

[Henry Ford]

One religious massacre of the 20th century that is rarely discussed (at least in terms of religious morality vs. secular morality)- the genocide of the Turkish Armenians at the end of World War I. Something like a million men, women, and children were exterminated for one reason only: because they were Christians living in an Islamic nation.

On the opposite side of the scale it is important to note that the most western and secular of nations during the 20th century, Great Britain, the one which even more than the United States encapsulated the ideas of the Enlightenment, was the same nation which introduced concentration camps to the world- during the Boer War.

Facts like the above two is why I keep pointing out that there is no correct answer in this debate over whether or not secularism or religion leads to a more moral society.

You know that you're debating that with yourself, right?

Yes.

Seriously, no. I may be stating the terms of the debate a little more explicitly than others are, but when you see posts which are focused on the violence of the 20th century vs. other centuries, you know that's where they're going.

We were debating the relative moral "correctness" of this century versus other centuries in society as a whole, and whether advancements in knowledge about the world around us/scientific thinking may correlate with advancements in moral thinking.

Sure. But why are you having that discussion in a thread about religious faith? Obviously, the implication is that faith is s necessary component for a moral society, or conversely it is not. There lies the debate.

I think it's your use of terminology that's confusing me.

Secularism isn't an opposition to religion or faith, it's opposed to the integration of religion into government.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Otis, I haven't read every post in this thread, so I apologize if this has been discussed (though I don't think it has). I think you mentioned early in the thread that you believe there is a higher power but not in a particular "higher power" as defined by organized religions. I would be interested to know what you believe happens after we die. If there is a higher power, do you believe he/it has any plan or next step for us? Do you believe we only get this lifetime on earth and that's it? Religious or non-religious, to me, that is an important question for all of us. Why are we here? If this is all there is, why does it make any difference how I live in this brief moment I'm here. If there is something after this life, how does my time on earth affect what comes next?

Is your position just that we have no way of knowing and you aren't satisfied with the "answers" presented by organized religion? Or do you have your own belief about that issue?

Thanks. Surprisingly, a pretty thoughtful discussion in this thread, I think.

Ray, good questions, and the answer is honestly "I don't know." I like to think that my passed family and friends still look down on us, guide us, pull cosmic strings for us, and are "with us" in some way. My grandparents had an association with cardinals, and they always seem to fly into the backyard at uncanny times, so my extended family's view, whenever we see one, is it's our grandparents coming back to say hello or watch over us. It's a nice, comforting sentiment. Is it true? Who knows. If it is, I'm definitely not satisfied that any organized religion that was written about thousands of years ago is the reason for it.

What will happen to me when I die? I don't know. I am pretty happy with the chance we have here on earth. It's a wonderful life we've been given, what an incredible opportunity. I don't need there to be something more to say it was worth it. If there is something more, that's gravy. Either way I feel compelled to do what is "right," including by others around me. That's not because I fear some fire and brimstone ending. The only clear path that way in my mind would be to abide by the rules in ALL religions, and that's more or less impossible. I do my best, try to live a good life for the sake of living a good life and setting a good example. If it's curtains at the end, I'm ok with that. If there's more, what a nice surprise. But I certainly don't believe in the notion that I am damned forever, living a good life and trying to be thoughtful, and logical, and sensible, simply because I did not accept Jesus or Noah or Buddha or whomever. It would be a pretty stupid and nonsensical god who damns most of the world from the start simply arbitrarily, and that's effectively what this god in the books would be doing. I like to think the universe and nature are a lot more sensible than that. They tend to be in nearly all other ways.

Hi Otis,

I see many different types of birds because of the very tall old trees around where I live. Often the bright colors of the blue birds would catch my eyes but yesterday morning I found cardinal when I opened my front door. He wasn't doing anything, just sat on the grass looking up at me for 15 seconds then flew away. The bird had bright red feathers and a yellow beak. He looked just like a round little Angry Bird but I call him Bobby.

 

[Otis]

Here are population estimates

If we assume a 280k (roughly the middle of the estimates) and 70k people lost to the muslim conquest of the indian subcontinent, 25% of the world's population died over the course of 500 years. All the wars in the 20th century don't touch that. Even if we assume a 400k population (which is probably more fair given that it lasted a long time) it's an enormous number. And if we add in the death numbers from the other huge wars over that 500 year time period, it's astonishingly high.

Exactly. I don't understand how anyone could argue we are not becoming a more and more civilized society over time. Silly argument.

 

[The Commish]

Here are population estimates

If we assume a 280k (roughly the middle of the estimates) and 70k people lost to the muslim conquest of the indian subcontinent, 25% of the world's population died over the course of 500 years. All the wars in the 20th century don't touch that. Even if we assume a 400k population (which is probably more fair given that it lasted a long time) it's an enormous number. And if we add in the death numbers from the other huge wars over that 500 year time period, it's astonishingly high.

Exactly. I don't understand how anyone could argue we are not becoming a more and more civilized society over time. Silly argument.

Well part of the confusion is that the definition of "civilized" is evolving with society. As society becomes more "civilized" the threshold for "uncivilized" also gets smaller.

 

[johnjohn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r83ROf8coSU this link exposes atheists for having belief/faith just like religious people.

So, in my belief I find comfort, just like in an atheists belief they find comfort. Its all about comfort more than anything

 

[Otis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r83ROf8coSU this link exposes atheists for having belief/faith just like religious people.

So, in my belief I find comfort, just like in an atheists belief they find comfort. Its all about comfort more than anything

For religious people it probably is. For atheists it's most certainly not.I would argue atheists are more honest, both intellectually and with themselves, and they are more willing to face harder truths.

 

[Bonzai]

Here are population estimates

If we assume a 280k (roughly the middle of the estimates) and 70k people lost to the muslim conquest of the indian subcontinent, 25% of the world's population died over the course of 500 years. All the wars in the 20th century don't touch that. Even if we assume a 400k population (which is probably more fair given that it lasted a long time) it's an enormous number. And if we add in the death numbers from the other huge wars over that 500 year time period, it's astonishingly high.

Exactly. I don't understand how anyone could argue we are not becoming a more and more civilized society over time. Silly argument.

Steven Pinker's recent book takes a good look at this. Very much worth a read.

 

[johnjohn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r83ROf8coSU this link exposes atheists for having belief/faith just like religious people.

So, in my belief I find comfort, just like in an atheists belief they find comfort. Its all about comfort more than anything

For religious people it probably is. For atheists it's most certainly not.I would argue atheists are more honest, both intellectually and with themselves, and they are more willing to face harder truths.

I would disagree on the basis most atheists consider evolution theory a fact (intellectually dishonest) and they look down on religious people for having beliefs (hypocrites)

By the way, did you bother to watch my video?

 

[Henry Ford]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r83ROf8coSU this link exposes atheists for having belief/faith just like religious people.

So, in my belief I find comfort, just like in an atheists belief they find comfort. Its all about comfort more than anything

For religious people it probably is. For atheists it's most certainly not.I would argue atheists are more honest, both intellectually and with themselves, and they are more willing to face harder truths.

I would disagree on the basis most atheists consider evolution theory a fact (intellectually dishonest) and they look down on religious people for having beliefs (hypocrites)

What part of the theory of evolution do you believe is false?

 

[johnjohn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r83ROf8coSU this link exposes atheists for having belief/faith just like religious people.

So, in my belief I find comfort, just like in an atheists belief they find comfort. Its all about comfort more than anything

For religious people it probably is. For atheists it's most certainly not.I would argue atheists are more honest, both intellectually and with themselves, and they are more willing to face harder truths.

I would disagree on the basis most atheists consider evolution theory a fact (intellectually dishonest) and they look down on religious people for having beliefs (hypocrites)

What part of the theory of evolutiomdo you believe is false?

“Random mutations much more easily debilitate genes than improve them, and that this is true even of the helpful mutations. Let me emphasize, our experience with malaria’s effects on humans (arguably our most highly studied genetic system) shows that most helpful mutations degrade genes. What’s more, as a group the mutations are incoherent, meaning that they are not adding up to some new system. They are just small changes - mostly degradative - in pre-existing, unrelated genes. The take-home lesson is that this is certainly not the kind of process we would expect to build the astonishingly elegant machinery of the cell. If random mutation plus selective pressure substantially trashes the human genome, why should we think that it would be a constructive force in the long term? There is no reason to think so.”

 

[timschochet]

Why, Henry Ford, why???

 

[johnjohn]

Why, Henry Ford, why???

why are you trolling a serious thread?

 

[Henry Ford]

Sorry, that appears to be an analysis without statistics about someone else's beliefs. Should I assume that you believe that genetic mutation did not create "the cell" in whatever form you're discussing? And that's because of the alleged percentage likelihood of genetic mutation leading to cell degradation?

Edit: darned phone

 

[Henry Ford]

Why, Henry Ford, why???

I've been drinking and am really fascinated by people who think pseudoscience is useful.

 

[timschochet]

Why, Henry Ford, why???

I've been drinking and am really fascinated by people who think pseudoscience is useful.

Go ahead if you want then. But I dont think he's capable of having an actual discussion/debate with you. We've been down this road.

 

[Henry Ford]

Why, Henry Ford, why???

I've been drinking and am really fascinated by people who think pseudoscience is useful.

Go ahead if you want then. But I dont think he's capable of having an actual discussion/debate with you. We've been down this road.

Well, usually either there is a decent discussion or the person who can't have one leaves.

 

[buck naked]

Why, Henry Ford, why???

I've been drinking and am really fascinated by people who think pseudoscience is useful.

Go ahead if you want then. But I dont think he's capable of having an actual discussion/debate with you. We've been down this road.

I thought this thread was about why someone has faith. My mistake. Can someone point me in the right direction where that thread has gone?

 

[Henry Ford]

Why, Henry Ford, why???

I've been drinking and am really fascinated by people who think pseudoscience is useful.

Go ahead if you want then. But I dont think he's capable of having an actual discussion/debate with you. We've been down this road.

I thought this thread was about why someone has faith. My mistake. Can someone point me in the right direction where that thread has gone?

It's here. However, the link in question is a fairly silly YouTube video which was the basis of a thread that was locked. So the concern is that's not the basis of his faith, but rather an attempt to derail this thread.

Now, the answer that it's "comforting" is a reasonable response. And totally reasonable. Believing something because it makes you feel good is a pretty normal thing.

 

[johnjohn]

Atheists - We had a look around, and just between us we couldn’t see anything therefore there's nothing to be seen(god). Because there’s nothing to be seen there’s no reason to worry about any effort being made to compromise the authority of the scientific institution itself.

take note of the bold part because of the scientific basic principle revered above all others be it the position be constantly under surveillance and constantly under criticism

We are all adults here we know it isn’t constantly under surveillance and criticism, there is a faith, you guys have, just like us.

Its fine to have faith, I am all for it, but please, stop looking down on religious people for having faith(not referring to anyone here in particular just in general I think some people do)

 

[Henry Ford]

That's not an answer as to why you have faith, it's an attack on atheism. Many atheists, myself included, have been very respectful about theism in this thread. Is there a reason you define your faith by an attempt to tear others down by misstating their position?

 

[Otis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r83ROf8coSU this link exposes atheists for having belief/faith just like religious people.

So, in my belief I find comfort, just like in an atheists belief they find comfort. Its all about comfort more than anything

For religious people it probably is. For atheists it's most certainly not.I would argue atheists are more honest, both intellectually and with themselves, and they are more willing to face harder truths.

I would disagree on the basis most atheists consider evolution theory a fact (intellectually dishonest) and they look down on religious people for having beliefs (hypocrites)

By the way, did you bother to watch my video?

Nope.

 

[johnjohn]

That's not an answer as to why you have faith, it's an attack on atheism. Many atheists, myself included, have been very respectful about theism in this thread. Is there a reason you define your faith by an attempt to tear others down by misstating their position?

I am not attacking atheists I am attacking atheists that act that way. There is a distinct difference.

But I really believe most atheists do have faith just like a religious person, so if you are an atheist looking for answers from us religious folks on why we have faith you might find the answer within yourself.

 

[Henry Ford]

That's not an answer as to why you have faith, it's an attack on atheism. Many atheists, myself included, have been very respectful about theism in this thread. Is there a reason you define your faith by an attempt to tear others down by misstating their position?

I am not attacking atheists I am attacking atheists that act that way. There is a distinct difference.But I really believe most atheists do have faith just like a religious person, so if you are an atheist looking for answers from us religious folks on why we have faith you might find the answer within yourself.

You can believe whatever you'd like, but it doesn't make it true.

 

[tommyGunZ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r83ROf8coSU this link exposes atheists for having belief/faith just like religious people.

So, in my belief I find comfort, just like in an atheists belief they find comfort. Its all about comfort more than anything

For religious people it probably is. For atheists it's most certainly not.I would argue atheists are more honest, both intellectually and with themselves, and they are more willing to face harder truths.

I would disagree on the basis most atheists consider evolution theory a fact (intellectually dishonest) and they look down on religious people for having beliefs (hypocrites)

By the way, did you bother to watch my video?

I watched the first 4 minutes. It was beyond ignorant.