Losing Faith In Faith

[bush_cheney2004]

... Why keep the fairy tale baggage when humans are already superior to the gods?

Because humans are not superior to natural gods....pagans rule !

[Big Guy]

It was only a matter of time.

[GostHacked]

I do think that it's great that so many Christians are reinterpreting or rebranding Christianity for the kinder, gentler world we live in. However, if humans are free to invent a new superior moral position for their god, doesn't that suggest that this god isn't real? Why keep the fairy tale baggage when humans are already superior to the gods?

Existential question : How can we be superior if no god(s) exist? We can't be. We can just exist.

[Mighty AC]

Existential question : How can we be superior if no god(s) exist? We can't be. We can just exist.

Good point, but it's like being morally superior to characters like Walter White or Tony Soprano.

I just don't understand how people can knowingly dilute, twist, cherry pick and warp the messages in some horrible old books into something more acceptable for today, yet still believe they somehow represent the wisdom and instructions of an all knowing, omnipotent, supreme being. How can anyone still believe in a concept (without evidence), whose only existence lies in text so horribly flawed that mere mortal humans are left to invent excuses for it? Then after pretending away the sadism, rape, torture, misogyny, slavery, homophobia and fear they cite this damaged and disturbing character as the source of morality. It's like a relationship with an abusive, alcoholic husband or father.

Indoctrination and mind control are powerful tools, especially when reinforced by a culture.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Mighty AC

[carepov]

I just don't understand how people can knowingly dilute, twist, cherry pick and warp the messages in some horrible old books into something more acceptable for today, yet still believe they somehow represent the wisdom and instructions of an all knowing, omnipotent, supreme being. How can anyone still believe in a concept (without evidence), whose only existence lies in text so horribly flawed that mere mortal humans are left to invent excuses for it? Then after pretending away the sadism, rape, torture, misogyny, slavery, homophobia and fear they cite this damaged and disturbing character as the source of morality. It's like a relationship with an abusive, alcoholic husband or father.

I think that your perspective is all wrong.

IMO, most Christians give very little weight to the old testament. Their reasons for people being religious are as varied as the number of religious people.

[Mighty AC]

I think that your perspective is all wrong.

IMO, most Christians give very little weight to the old testament. Their reasons for people being religious are as varied as the number of religious people.

The NT introduces the eternity in hell concept, still endorses slavery and tells us that the rules and laws of the OT still apply. However, your statement is an example of what I'm talking about. The scriptures are our only information about this god and his wishes. How is it that people have the power to cherry pick the passages they will abide by?

If Christians accept that god was wrong about slavery or hell or shellfish or mixed fibers or subservient women, why can't he be wrong about homosexuality as well? I know that some sects have already ignored the couple of passages that condemn gays, and that's great. BUT, if humans have to ignore a god's word to behave morally and have to edit the scriptures to make them relevant is there really a need for this god? Plus, how is it possible to even entertain the idea of that such a god exists, when there is no evidence and the only material we have is so ridiculous and horribly flawed?

[carepov]

The NT introduces the eternity in hell concept, still endorses slavery and tells us that the rules and laws of the OT still apply. However, your statement is an example of what I'm talking about. The scriptures are our only information about this god and his wishes. How is it that people have the power to cherry pick the passages they will abide by?

If Christians accept that god was wrong about slavery or hell or shellfish or mixed fibers or subservient women, why can't he be wrong about homosexuality as well? I know that some sects have already ignored the couple of passages that condemn gays, and that's great. BUT, if humans have to ignore a god's word to behave morally and have to edit the scriptures to make them relevant is there really a need for this god? Plus, how is it possible to even entertain the idea of that such a god exists, when there is no evidence and the only material we have is so ridiculous and horribly flawed?

IMO, most people do not give their religion so much thought. To many, it is about having a personal relationship with God/Jesus and hanging out with others that do the same. For some religion helps to answer (or just put aside) questions like, what is the purpose of life, what happens after we die, how was the universe created? Some go to church for an hour of rest and meditation per week. Some go just for the doughnuts and coffee. Some go to widen their business network...

[Mighty AC]

IMO, most people do not give their religion so much thought. To many, it is about having a personal relationship with God/Jesus and hanging out with others that do the same. For some religion helps to answer (or just put aside) questions like, what is the purpose of life, what happens after we die, how was the universe created? Some go to church for an hour of rest and meditation per week. Some go just for the doughnuts and coffee. Some go to widen their business network...

I completely understand the social aspect, along with the enjoyment and benefits they bring. I participate in group activities for the same reasons. It's the answering or putting aside questions part that I'm talking about here. Belief is required for the 'God did it' answer to hold any value and as I have mentioned I don't know how belief can be maintained when people play so fast and loose with the, so called, word of their god. I suspect most don't read the bible though and just hear about the parts that support the chosen stance of their sect. I think that's why they say that reading the Bible is the best way to create atheists.

[Mighty AC]

You claimed that none of the followers of Jesus ever met him. A number of the writers did. Perhaps some of the later writers did not but there certainly were some that did. The reason for the delay in writing also had to do with the fact that the need for the written word wasn't brought forward until the word started to spread past their immediate area. Most people in that area had either seen Jesus or had heard the stories on first hand accounts.

I just finished "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All" by David Fitzgerald. In the book, Fitzgerald patiently and very pragmatically piles up a mountain of evidence that makes the actual existence of a historical Jesus very unlikely. If you are interested in this topic I highly recommend it; however, if believing in the existence of a human, or possibly multiple humans merged into the Jesus character, is important to you....then it is best not to read it.

[Accountability Now]

I just finished "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All" by David Fitzgerald. In the book, Fitzgerald patiently and very pragmatically piles up a mountain of evidence that makes the actual existence of a historical Jesus very unlikely. If you are interested in this topic I highly recommend it; however, if believing in the existence of a human, or possibly multiple humans merged into the Jesus character, is important to you....then it is best not to read it.

Sounds good. I don't really spend a lot of time researching this stuff but maybe I should. Having said that I did spend a little time watching a few of Dan Barker's videos and I found many of the things that he called evidence to be loose associations that had many holes in it. There isn't an argument that he has made where I thought....yup he's nailed it. So when it comes to 'evidence' I would say I'm skeptical as most of these arguments or evidence seem to be of the nature that if I disprove one small part then somehow that disproves the entire thing.

[Scott Mayers]

Accountability Now,

On the MacLean's pictures there:

Many South Asians have a certain intolerance to alcohol.

I'm not sure what 'belief' the girl in the veil is representing, but if this was a Muslim of Osama Bin Laden's clan, is suicide by virtue of religious cause AND without depression count?

On the (Jewish boy?), how is this NOT representative of non-religious too?

[Accountability Now]

Many South Asians have a certain intolerance to alcohol.

Is this a random comment/observation or do you have a stat to back this up.

I'm not sure what 'belief' the girl in the veil is representing, but if this was a Muslim of Osama Bin Laden's clan, is suicide by virtue of religious cause AND without depression count?

Not sure. You'd have to read the study

On the (Jewish boy?), how is this NOT representative of non-religious too?

Not sure I understand your question. You are saying that that non-religious people would be less likely to move from dabbling to abuse? The pictures they use are not any indication for that specific claim. In other words the less likely to move from dabbling to abuse is not a function of being Jewish but of being a part of any religion. As such when they say 50/60/70% more or less likely to do something...that is compare to non-religious people.

Essentially it was a study indicating that people who believe in some sort of religion will benefit from certain life challenging aspects.

PS...in the future I would suggest that you use the quote feature instead of just calling out the persons name. Quoting something that we say helps us to know exactly what image or text you are referring to. More importantly, it will actually notify the person that you have responded. I just happened to see your post come up on the main page when it could have easily not been seen at all.

[freekundli]

I know people who smoke pot and yet vote Conservative.

I have seen lot of peoples too who smoke pot.

[Guest]

Conservatism wasn't always dominated by scared and hateful, old cranks. I'm hopeful that it can be rescued by someone like Michael Chong.

[eyeball]

Thinking conservatively about things is simply listening to that voice in your head that says be careful.

It only developed into a problem when it burst forth like a bunch of Aliens bent on becoming an organized political force in the world.

[Michael Hardner]

Conservatism wasn't always dominated by scared and hateful, old cranks. I'm hopeful that it can be rescued by someone like Michael Chong.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/08/12/torys-approval-rating-down--a-bit-poll

The heart of Liberal Canada - Toronto - has a mayor who is so Tory that that is his name. Approval ratings are close to 70%.

[Guest]

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/08/12/torys-approval-rating-down--a-bit-poll

The heart of Liberal Canada - Toronto - has a mayor who is so Tory that that is his name. Approval ratings are close to 70%.

Exactly. If it can shed it's social con, anti-science, ideological baggage there is hope for conservatism.