Post Any Evidence For God Here

[crispybits]

I don't hold any animosity towards the people (forgive them father, for they know not what they do). I despise the idea. I despise the message.

So you say murder of defenceless and innocent people isn't evil unless it's actually committed? That the concept itself cannot be evil, it only becomes evil when someone actually gets killed?

Still avoiding my questions too I see....

[Neoteny]

Murdering defenceless and innocent people is fun and everyone should do it.

That's an idea - is that good or evil?

It is neither. People can be evil; actions can be evil; ideas cannot be. An idea cannot be prescribed a sense of morality. It is just a meaningless thing to say. Maybe a better way to point this out is: what exactly do you mean when you say that religion is evil? What statement are you trying to express? Are you trying to say something about religious people? Then say it. Because people are the only things that give ideas meaning. They are meaningless without people to believe in them.

Similar theme. Restricting abortion access and even just routine medical procedures through legislation, intimidation, shame... you know, the standard Christian methods. Happens every day at many clinics.

Indeed. Ardent anti-abortion folk actually have committed violence in the name of their beliefs, like bombing abortion clinics. Also, who could forget about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassinat ... rge_Tiller

I was mainly asking if crispybits has suffered personal harm from a Christian, which I think would make the animosity more understandable to me.

Fortunately, I can't say I've suffered much personal harm. But I still get pretty up in arms when I think about harm to others. I don't see how that might be more or less understandable.

I see what you are saying there. Christians would just not call it "harm". Just as you would call killing a child "not harm".
Two points different points of view.

It is a matter of perspective. Some of us are just above the intimidation.

[Metsfanmax]

I don't hold any animosity towards the people (forgive them father, for they know not what they do). I despise the idea. I despise the message.

So if all Christian people cannot be blamed for what they do, is it ok for them to commit murder? Why not, we can just arrest religion and put in jail right? Your "brainwashing" argument is absurd because it completely abdicates people from responsibility for their own actions. If we cannot view people as autonomous agents, there is no reason to treat them as moral persons.

So you say murder of defenceless and innocent people isn't evil unless it's actually committed?

How can something that never happens, be evil? Evil is a judgment about the morality of an action, and only actions can be moral. It is literally meaningless to ascribe morality to an idea, in the sense that the words don't form a logically complete idea.

Fortunately, I can't say I've suffered much personal harm. But I still get pretty up in arms when I think about harm to others. I don't see how that might be more or less understandable.

Because the people who do harm to others are the type of people who will do harm anyway. The fact that it is in the name of religion in particular is not relevant. It is generally a bad idea to commit violence against people (except in very extreme circumstances) regardless of your reason for doing so. If you want to be upset about "harm to others," so be it; but don't cherry pick harm based on the motivation. Violence is violence.

[crispybits]

I'll respond to that when you actually answer my questions instead of consistently avoiding them

[Metsfanmax]

I'll respond to that when you actually answer my questions instead of consistently avoiding them

This is an answer to your question. The whole premise of your sports analogy is that the idea is inherently evil, and so spreading it is a bad thing. I'm challenging the assumption behind the analogy, not the analogy itself, which is valid.

[crispybits]

OK then

So if all Christian people cannot be blamed for what they do, is it ok for them to commit murder? Why not, we can just arrest religion and put in jail right? Your "brainwashing" argument is absurd because it completely abdicates people from responsibility for their own actions. If we cannot view people as autonomous agents, there is no reason to treat them as moral persons.

No, the whole point is that it's NOT OK for them to do it. But they genuinely believe they are doing good, and so I can empathise and forgive them for it. Just like if my housemate floods the flat and damages some of my stuff, if they say "Haha I did that deliberately in order to damage your stuff" then I would blame them for destroyying the stuff, but if they said "the flat downstairs was on fire so I had to flood this place to try and save all our stuff", and the flat downstairs had never been on fire, but I can see that they honestly and understandably believed it was, I would empathise and forgive them (I might still be annoyed at the result, but I wouldn't blame them for it)

That's not removing accountability, it's called being a reasonable human being and taking into account all of the factors that led to the consequences.

How can something that never happens, be evil? Evil is a judgment about the morality of an action, and only actions can be moral. It is literally meaningless to ascribe morality to an idea, in the sense that the words don't form a logically complete idea.

How can people be put in jail for "conspiracy to murder" if nobody ever gets killed? Would you prefer if I said "morally wrong"? An idea can give people a false sense of entitlement to perpetrate evil. If I raise a baby from birth, separated from the rest of the world, and teach it that "all chinese people are food", and then lock it in a room with an unconcious chinese person, is the (now adult) baby evil for eating them? Maybe in that example you could say that I am evil for teaching it, but then in the religious case I was taught the same thing by whoever raised me, and them by their parents, etc etc etc. The person who started the idea is long dead and gone. So what do we do? Say "nothing evil exists here" or do we say that the idea we have been brought up with is itself evil?

Maybe evil is semantically the wrong word. There must be a word to describe it. So in the absence of knowledge I'll invent a new word. Lom. Defined as "an idea which has evil consequences if enacted". Religion is Lom. Happy now?

[Metsfanmax]

No, the whole point is that it's NOT OK for them to do it. But they genuinely believe they are doing good, and so I can empathise and forgive them for it. Just like if my housemate floods the flat and damages some of my stuff, if they say "Haha I did that deliberately in order to damage your stuff" then I would blame them for destroyying the stuff, but if they said "the flat downstairs was on fire so I had to flood this place to try and save all our stuff", and the flat downstairs had never been on fire, but I can see that they honestly and understandably believed it was, I would empathise and forgive them (I might still be annoyed at the result, but I wouldn't blame them for it)

This whole argument is predicated on the assumption that religious people do net harm to society. What is the harm that they collectively perpetrate? It's circular reasoning to say that just the fact that they try to convert people is harmful; that's only true if you can show that it's objectively bad to be a Christian. That's all I'm really asking you to show. What is it that Christians really do that make it, on balance, worse to be a Christian?* You haven't really given any concrete examples, you've just made vague insinuations that religion is evil. Only Neoteny really made any argument that describes something evil that some religious people do today; but as I pointed out, violence against innocent people is generally to be regarded as bad independent of the motive. You need to show that Christianity itself calls people to commit violence against others as a core tenet of its religion in order to make this point. I just don't think that's the case. Most of the official church doctrines deal with stuff like loving your neighbor and giving charity to the poor. I think it's fine to believe that the Christian theology is senseless; I don't see the basis for the belief that the Christian ethics is evil.

(*Note: I think that people who deny the teachings of science are bad for society, but that just has to do with being ignorant.)

[MeDeFe]

No, the whole point is that it's NOT OK for them to do it. But they genuinely believe they are doing good, and so I can empathise and forgive them for it. Just like if my housemate floods the flat and damages some of my stuff, if they say "Haha I did that deliberately in order to damage your stuff" then I would blame them for destroyying the stuff, but if they said "the flat downstairs was on fire so I had to flood this place to try and save all our stuff", and the flat downstairs had never been on fire, but I can see that they honestly and understandably believed it was, I would empathise and forgive them (I might still be annoyed at the result, but I wouldn't blame them for it)

This whole argument is predicated on the assumption that religious people do net harm to society. What is the harm that they collectively perpetrate? It's circular reasoning to say that just the fact that they try to convert people is harmful; that's only true if you can show that it's objectively bad to be a Christian. That's all I'm really asking you to show. What is it that Christians really do that make it, on balance, worse to be a Christian?

This is only true if you're an adherent of utilitarian consequentialist ethics (and even then there are positions from which you can argue that a particular belief can be bad). From a Kantian or other position of virtue ethics one can demonstrate that adherence to nearly any religion can be a bad thing, even if none of the adherents of said religion ever cause any harm.

I'm just saying that your implied premise is limiting you.

[Metsfanmax]

No, the whole point is that it's NOT OK for them to do it. But they genuinely believe they are doing good, and so I can empathise and forgive them for it. Just like if my housemate floods the flat and damages some of my stuff, if they say "Haha I did that deliberately in order to damage your stuff" then I would blame them for destroyying the stuff, but if they said "the flat downstairs was on fire so I had to flood this place to try and save all our stuff", and the flat downstairs had never been on fire, but I can see that they honestly and understandably believed it was, I would empathise and forgive them (I might still be annoyed at the result, but I wouldn't blame them for it)

This whole argument is predicated on the assumption that religious people do net harm to society. What is the harm that they collectively perpetrate? It's circular reasoning to say that just the fact that they try to convert people is harmful; that's only true if you can show that it's objectively bad to be a Christian. That's all I'm really asking you to show. What is it that Christians really do that make it, on balance, worse to be a Christian?

This is only true if you're an adherent of utilitarian consequentialist ethics (and even then there are positions from which you can argue that a particular belief can be bad). From a Kantian or other position of virtue ethics one can demonstrate that adherence to nearly any religion can be a bad thing, even if none of the adherents of said religion ever cause any harm.

I'm just saying that your implied premise is limiting you.

I am an adherent of consequentialist ethics, and therefore obviously I am going to evaluate things based on that framework. I don't consider that a limitation, because consequentialism is the form of ethics that makes the least number of arbitrary assumptions about the way things should work (and so, if we really believe what crispybits is saying about not making unnecessary assumptions, crispybits should be a consequentialist too).

[MeDeFe]

consequentialism is the form of ethics that makes the least number of arbitrary assumptions about the way things should work

*snicker*

Only until someone starts asking questions about what constitutes a good life. You're very quickly left with unpalatable options that you have to call ethical or moral, or you have to introduce a fair number of arbitrary restrictions to make the theory work out.

[oVo]

This isn't evidence, just another POV though. Falling Plates
with a nice video

[PLAYER57832]

They threaten my eternal soul every time they preach. If they are wrong then they are deluded. If they are right then they are threatening me. Either way it doesn't convince me to join them.

Ah, well, thanks for again proving that you are even more of a closed minded bigot than those you condemn...

[MeDeFe]

They threaten my eternal soul every time they preach. If they are wrong then they are deluded. If they are right then they are threatening me. Either way it doesn't convince me to join them.

Ah, well, thanks for again proving that you are even more of a closed minded bigot than those you condemn...

So what was that about noone finding god except through jesus and the sinners not getting into paradise? I think there are a few passages like that in the bible. I hear the revelation according to John is particularly juicy.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't mind debating, am happy to do it. I am not offended by people who disagree. However, for someone to come out and talk about evidence and proof and then outright condemn a whole realm of ideas simply because he doesn't agree... is showing a serious limitation in thinking. You can claim many things, but to make statements like that and claim high intelligence.. is well, you are mirroring the thing you claim to reject. That is you are taking an idea and utterly rejecting those who disagree, claiming effectively that they lack sense and intelligence, just as many with firm beliefs will do to you.

I simply say you are a complete hypocrite.

I agree with this, but only to a limited extent. crispybits was right to criticize the religious people like Viceroy who claim that they can justify their views in the realm of science and logic, when that is patently absurd (just as I assume the "faith" that crispybits has is not grounded in any sort of logical reasoning).

Nope, no dice. He might have launched into the line of debate due to a particular person, but when it goes into a general attack on all religion... then it is not a specific attack on a specific person, it is a condemnation of anyone who believes or who even respects people who believe.

I absolutely accept science and am among the first to criticize folks claiming that religion provides proof that contradicts science, etc...

However, above you make assumptions that are false. You cannot disprove my ideas, you cannot disprove my beliefs. It is as logical to believe as I do as to believe I am wrong.

Also, logic is not limited to scientifically producable and replicable proof. Logic is based upon a consecutive set of ideas, built upon others. All things are possible until proven false is a core of logic. You forget that.. that while it is true that what is proven is fact, it is also true that what is not disproven might well be true. The converse is always true also.

By their own construction, religious folk believe in something that is on a totally different intellectual plane. When one comes across someone who refuses to engage their beliefs in the framework of science or rationality*, it is absurd to try to use rationality to convince them of the falsehood of their beliefs. So the mistake occurs on both sides; the religious folk err, in assuming that they can use logic to convince non-believers of their position, and the atheist folk, in assuming that because religious folk attempt to use logic to prove their position, that logic can be used to dissuade them of their beliefs.

This is flat out wrong and is exactly why you will be met with disdain by people who actually do believe. Having different ideast than your own is not the judge of whether something is logical. Nor, as I noted above is whether something is absolutely provable or not.

The problem is that at some level, EVERYONE has beliefs. Crispybits has declared essentially that it is his belief that all things are subject to tangible proof. That's fine, except when he pronounces that this belief is logical and others are not. You are making a similar error.

You cannot prove anything about our origins, about what happens to our spiritual selfs after death. Trying to claim that my ideas about such is somehow deficient , not as good as your ideas is just arrogance, not logic or intelligence.

The only position that logic and rationality* supports is that we live a life without externally defined purpose, floating in a cosmic ocean without being told how to live. That may be depressing to some people, who feel the need to have a greater purpose. But it's never been about logic.

Really? Show your proof.

*To be precise, one rational defense of religion is that for some reason it innately makes you more satisfied to believe. But there are lots of natural things that are also often bad, like our inclination to be violent, so it's not really a response in the realm of the rational.

You are simply describing your own beliefs. That is fine, but it doesn't express any greater understanding of the universe or how it works than anything I could provide.

Nor are you addressing anything real about my beliefs.

[PLAYER57832]

They threaten my eternal soul every time they preach. If they are wrong then they are deluded. If they are right then they are threatening me. Either way it doesn't convince me to join them.

Ah, well, thanks for again proving that you are even more of a closed minded bigot than those you condemn...

So what was that about noone finding god except through jesus and the sinners not getting into paradise? I think there are a few passages like that in the bible. I hear the revelation according to John is particularly juicy.

Does it say that no one is capable of having other ideas or that people who disagree are utterly illogical or is it just saying that this is the belief, the religion?

Do I believe Christianity is the one, true religion? Yes. However, I have never said it is anything but belief. Neither does the Bible. In fact, Crhist himself stated that not everyone would believe his words or listen to him.

I am not objecting to crispybits beliefs. I object to the pronouncement that his ideas are logical versus religious brainwash beliefs. The bit about evil is something else, but its too complex for me to want to get into right now.

(the short answer is that humans are imperfect, and therefore are drawn to evil and can use virtually any tool for evil.. or good.)

[crispybits]

No, the whole point is that it's NOT OK for them to do it. But they genuinely believe they are doing good, and so I can empathise and forgive them for it. Just like if my housemate floods the flat and damages some of my stuff, if they say "Haha I did that deliberately in order to damage your stuff" then I would blame them for destroyying the stuff, but if they said "the flat downstairs was on fire so I had to flood this place to try and save all our stuff", and the flat downstairs had never been on fire, but I can see that they honestly and understandably believed it was, I would empathise and forgive them (I might still be annoyed at the result, but I wouldn't blame them for it)

This whole argument is predicated on the assumption that religious people do net harm to society. What is the harm that they collectively perpetrate? It's circular reasoning to say that just the fact that they try to convert people is harmful; that's only true if you can show that it's objectively bad to be a Christian. That's all I'm really asking you to show. What is it that Christians really do that make it, on balance, worse to be a Christian?* You haven't really given any concrete examples, you've just made vague insinuations that religion is evil. Only Neoteny really made any argument that describes something evil that some religious people do today; but as I pointed out, violence against innocent people is generally to be regarded as bad independent of the motive. You need to show that Christianity itself calls people to commit violence against others as a core tenet of its religion in order to make this point. I just don't think that's the case. Most of the official church doctrines deal with stuff like loving your neighbor and giving charity to the poor. I think it's fine to believe that the Christian theology is senseless; I don't see the basis for the belief that the Christian ethics is evil.

(*Note: I think that people who deny the teachings of science are bad for society, but that just has to do with being ignorant.)

No, it's predicated on the premise that religious people do harm to people. Not society.

A threat of eternal torment is harmful. Not physically harmful, but it is harmful, because you are causing someone mental distress if they believe you are credible in that threat. Every single person who is either a current adherent or a recipient of an attempt at Christian conversion is threatened with eternal pain and torment if they do not follow that particular idea. The credibility of the threat is built upon unproven and unfalsifiable appeals to authority. Without religion, this kind of threat could not be made, it would be impossible. And this is the form of violence that Christianity undeniably perpetrates as a core tenet.

What's worse is that anyone who believes the threat instantly becomes a slave to the ideology, and it is their religious duty to perpetrate that same violence on others too.

Yes it gives the way out too. Follow these simple rules and you'll go to heaven instead. But so do muggers. I will stab you, but give me your money and I will walk away and do you no personal harm. Does that make it alright?

On a personal level, how many people must find spiritual peace (and many believers don't, or we would never hear of crises of faith in individuals) before we balance out the mental distress of the conversion method? How many Christians are 100% confident they are definitely going to heaven, and how do you balance out the doubt that many have professed freely over the years that they, as fallible humans, may fall short of divine expectations?

Even societally how much charity work or good deeds does it take to balance a single death from religiously motivated violence? How do you balance one life taken in a suicide bombing (not referring the Christians here obviously but Islam is a religion too - I'm an equal opportunities anti-religionist) against a homeless person being sheltered or a truckload of food being sent to Africa? How do you balance one woman dying in Ireland because she was denied an abortion against an elderley person being given a hand around the house or a school being funded?

Finally, because I just went back to check I hadn't missed anything in your post. Christian ethics, as they relate to real life situations are pretty much OK by me for the most part (with predictable exceptions around abortion and homosexuality among other issues). The ethics are to a large extent reinterpretted by every generation to fit societal ethical values. They lag slightly behind on many issues, but they do move or Christians the world over would still be fighting the abolition of slavery and calling for removals of currently established women's rights and stuff like that. Strange as it may sound for an ideology that professes absolute moral authority based on their book, which is unchanging, the ethincs of the Christian majority is remarkably flexible. It is the theology that is not only senseless, but when taken seriously rather than simply dismissed is lom. (please correct my semantics if you don't want me to keep using that made up word by the way, if you don't want me using evil then there must be a word that means the same as I defined "lom" to mean - personally I still think evil is good enough)

[PLAYER57832]

A threat of eternal torment is harmful. Not physically harmful, but it is harmful, because you are causing someone mental distress if they believe you are credible in that threat.

Does a parent who punishes (not abuses, just punishes) a child do harm?

A threat of harm can be seen as inherent harm.. or it can be seen as a motivator to do good, to learn, to move beyond hardship to achieve greater things.

[jonesthecurl]

So would eternal torment be harmful?

[Metsfanmax]

consequentialism is the form of ethics that makes the least number of arbitrary assumptions about the way things should work

*snicker*

Only until someone starts asking questions about what constitutes a good life. You're very quickly left with unpalatable options that you have to call ethical or moral, or you have to introduce a fair number of arbitrary restrictions to make the theory work out.

I have no idea what you mean. The purpose of the categorical imperative has always been to provide an answer to the question of how you should act, and the idea of universalizability of (desires/preferences/pleasures/utility/you name it) is pretty much all you need to construct a reasonable ethical framework. An ethical life is one in which you act according to the prescriptions of that system of ethics, and since by construction the system of ethics works to maximize whatever good you've chosen to use as your metric, an ethical life maximizes good done. It's simple, and therefore the least restrictive.

crispybits: you've completely gone off the rails now. For me, the idea of death is instinctively terrifying, because I'm fairly confident that it will be the end of my existence. My emotions would be calmed significantly by the idea that as long as I didn't screw up by committing murder or rape, I could get into an eternal paradise. It sounds like a pretty sweet deal.

[crispybits]

A threat of eternal torment is harmful. Not physically harmful, but it is harmful, because you are causing someone mental distress if they believe you are credible in that threat.

Does a parent who punishes (not abuses, just punishes) a child do harm?

A threat of harm can be seen as inherent harm.. or it can be seen as a motivator to do good, to learn, to move beyond hardship to achieve greater things.

If the threat (or punishment) is proportional then it may be good. Eat your greens or you'll be sent to your room with no TV. Don't murder people or we'll throw you in jail. Once it gets disproportional it changes. Eat your greens or I break your arms.

If you threaten someone based on a finite testing period with infinite pain, terror and misery that's not proportional. Especially when failure to pass the test could be that you followed all of the rules and lived the most ethically Christian life possible except for saying "Hey God, thank you for Jesus, I worship your name and ask forgiveness for my sins."

Failure to bow down and worship is, in fact, the only sin that is truly unforgivable. So it is literally "believe in our idea, or eternal torment for you, no matter how morally you try and live." Does that sound proportional?

Edit

crispybits: you've completely gone off the rails now. For me, the idea of death is instinctively terrifying, because I'm fairly confident that it will be the end of my existence. My emotions would be calmed significantly by the idea that as long as I didn't screw up by committing murder or rape, I could get into an eternal paradise. It sounds like a pretty sweet deal.

As above, nothing to do with if you commit murder or rape, do that as much as you like as long as you genuinely repent and accept the big idea before you die you're fine.

Or because people are scared of death that gives them the right to threaten a fate much, much worse than simply ceasing to exist on anyone who disagrees with them? Is that what you're trying to say?

[MeDeFe]

consequentialism is the form of ethics that makes the least number of arbitrary assumptions about the way things should work

*snicker*

Only until someone starts asking questions about what constitutes a good life. You're very quickly left with unpalatable options that you have to call ethical or moral, or you have to introduce a fair number of arbitrary restrictions to make the theory work out.

I have no idea what you mean. The purpose of the categorical imperative has always been to provide an answer to the question of how you should act, and the idea of universalizability of (desires/preferences/pleasures/utility/you name it) is pretty much all you need to construct a reasonable ethical framework. An ethical life is one in which you act according to the prescriptions of that system of ethics, and since by construction the system of ethics works to maximize whatever good you've chosen to use as your metric, an ethical life maximizes good done. It's simple, and therefore the least restrictive.

Kant's categorical imperative is a prime exhibit of a system of virtue ethics and not at all consequentialist. In fact, you're supposed to disregard the consequences of any individual action. Following a strictly Kantian system of ethics, once you've determined that lying is bad, you're supposed to tell the nazi where the jews are hiding if he asks you.
(Possible solutions to this could be a hierarchy of maxims, or claiming that it is better to act against a maxim oneself than to cause another to act against a maxim.)

It also has nothing to do with "maximizing whatever good [one has] chosen to use". That's a utilitarian approach to ethics. As you surely know, utilitarian ethics can be, somewhat facetiously, summed up as "the ends justify the means". That is contrary to the categorical imperative which doesn't consider your ends at all, you might have the most noble of intentions and be able to save hundreds of lives, but if doing so requires you to act against a maxim it's still an unethical course of action.

[chang50]

A threat of eternal torment is harmful. Not physically harmful, but it is harmful, because you are causing someone mental distress if they believe you are credible in that threat.

Does a parent who punishes (not abuses, just punishes) a child do harm?

A threat of harm can be seen as inherent harm.. or it can be seen as a motivator to do good, to learn, to move beyond hardship to achieve greater things.

An infinite punishment for a finite crime is the worst form of abuse and utterly reprehensible and indefensible.

[Gillipig]

crispybits: when is the last time a Christian ever threatened to harm you because of their beliefs?

Gillipig: One of my parents is Christian and the other is Jewish, and I am neither...

Well you're hardly the norm in this case then. The vast majority (way over 90%) have the same religious belief as their parents. That's just a fact and not deniable! I like that fact because it shows that all the dreamish reasons given as to why you believe something is just bs. You believe in it because your parents did, to me that doesn't sound koherent with religious dogmas in general.
But all this is just semantics and should't really affect what you believe in, the main thing to keep in mind is that religion is unsupported by evidence, and when something is unsuported by evidence there's no reason to believe in it. Like the tooth fairy or santa claus. Just because more people seriously believe in Christianity for example doesn't make it true. The search for truth is not a popularity contest, and the number of believers says nothing of it's likelyhood of being true. You can't trust the vote of the majority on matters which people are ignorant of, and if you could that still wouldn't have been any help as nonbelief has more supporters worldwide than any single religion.

What religious debators often do to feel better about themselves is to add all religions together and unify them under the word "religious belief", as if they're in it together against none belief, but they clearly aren't. A muslim is a heathen in Christianity, and he will go to hell if the christian god exists. And vice versa with most other religions. An atheist will also go to hell, not a special "no believer at all hell", but the same hell as the muslim.

[PLAYER57832]

A threat of eternal torment is harmful. Not physically harmful, but it is harmful, because you are causing someone mental distress if they believe you are credible in that threat.

Does a parent who punishes (not abuses, just punishes) a child do harm?

A threat of harm can be seen as inherent harm.. or it can be seen as a motivator to do good, to learn, to move beyond hardship to achieve greater things.

An infinite punishment for a finite crime is the worst form of abuse and utterly reprehensible and indefensible.

Its not actually analagous to Christianity, except loosely. My point was you said that pain is evil, but i was showing that it all depends upon the context.

I understand that you dislike, disagree with Christianity. It certainly has been a tool used for great harm. However, its also been a tool that has spurred people on to do good. You cannot just pick one side.

And that, ultimately is the message of Christ. Hell is not so much a place of eternal punishment as a place where God is absent. To a Christian, to many faiths that represents the greatest harshness there is. However, it is a self-selected harshness. We believe God created us, gave us all we have... and to ask for worship in return, to allow ultimate forgiveness in return, is not a great deal.

Also, many Jews don't believe in Heaven or Hell.... so saying that its "believe in God or eternal damnation" is, again showing only a narrow understanding of the way some people, but not all view one religion, Christianity. It is hardly anything to do with all of Christianity, never mind all of all religious beliefs.

Besides, my basic point is that your beliefs, too are religion. Just because your belief is that everything is based in facts that can be proven doesn't make it less a belief once you get beyond those bounds.. and neither I nor most people here have said anything about dismissing scientific proof. We just look to where there are no scientific answers yet.

[PLAYER57832]

crispybits: when is the last time a Christian ever threatened to harm you because of their beliefs?

Gillipig: One of my parents is Christian and the other is Jewish, and I am neither...

Well you're hardly the norm in this case then. The vast majority (way over 90%) have the same religious belief as their parents. That's just a fact and not deniable! I like that fact because it shows that all the dreamish reasons given as to why you believe something is just bs. You believe in it because your parents did, to me that doesn't sound koherent with religious dogmas in general.

Actually most people believe something similar to, but not exactly like what their parents believe.
AND.. most teenagers question their beliefs. That holds true for ALL types of beliefs, not just those dealing with origins and other religious matters.

But all this is just semantics and should't really affect what you believe in, the main thing to keep in mind is that religion is unsupported by evidence, and when something is unsuported by evidence there's no reason to believe in it.

Religion has evidence,but when it comes to deep beliefs, it is just not evidence most people can trot out and display. Saying its not real is like saying that ou cannot trust what ANYONE says becuase you yourself have not seen it directly. Its arrogance, not truth or intelligence to make such statements.

Like the tooth fairy or santa claus. Just because more people seriously believe in Christianity for example doesn't make it true. The search for truth is not a popularity contest, and the number of believers says nothing of it's likelyhood of being true. You can't trust the vote of the majority on matters which people are ignorant of, and if you could that still wouldn't have been any help as nonbelief has more supporters worldwide than any single religion

What religious debators often do to feel better about themselves is to add all religions together and unify them under the word "religious belief", as if they're in it together against none belief, but they clearly aren't. A muslim is a heathen in Christianity, and he will go to hell if the christian god exists. And vice versa with most other religions. An atheist will also go to hell, not a special "no believer at all hell", but the same hell as the muslim.

While its true that majority rule has almost nothing to do with fact, that is not what religious people say. They say they believe, for their own reasons to many to list here. And, while some spout off pure idiocy, no doubt, so do people of any belief system. Many also speak sense. Yet, you seem to wish to claim only the idiots represent theological ideas and only intelligent people represent atheistic ideas., becuase the only ideas you counter are idiotic ones.

Just to begin with, Hell is not a universal religious concept.. at all. Even many Jews don't believe in the "afterllife", good or bad. The only real context in which unifying religious belief makes sense is when people try to proclaim, as you have, that their beliefs are special and not somehow a matter of belief like these others they disdain. But, the truth is that arrogance and bigotry are arrogance and bigotry whether they hold a religious "flag" or not.