Is Believing In God...?

[Woodruff]

Would there be less war and strife?

No, there's always other reasons for war lying around waiting to be picked up and used.

Yeah, but...would there be less?

Honestly, the question is ridiculous because religion or spirituality can never be destroyed.

Of course it can, and it will, don't be so myopic.

Spirituality will never be destroyed, period.

But, if we want to be ridiculously serious about this question, I'd say no because if there's no religion, then people will find other differences to rely upon and use (much like the exploitation of religion). It doesn't matter if there is or isn't religion; there'd be just as much war. There are plenty of differences among everyone, so there's still plenty of reasons to hate and kill one another.

That is such a nonsensical, blindly illogical viewpoint, I find it scary that people, for religion, will bend over backwards so far their head is between their legs.
Statement A - people that killed for religion would have killed anyway
Statement B - Castration doesn't stop rape
Both of those statements could technically be true. But you won't see people running around saying castration doesn't stop rape.
History is not on your side, and neither is logic.

Your two statements (A and B) do not create a workable analogy. As well, you clearly believe that the death penalty prevents capital crimes. Which it just as clearly doesn't.

[daddy1gringo]

Really, it all depends on the assumptions with which one starts.
If you begin with the assumption that God does not really exist, then you could well argue that to believe in God is at least dysfunctional, if not extremely harmful, because it is a delusion, and living in a delusion is not healthy, although some might still argue (patronizingly) that it makes some people feel better, causes some to act more ethically than they otherwise would, etc.

Conversely, if you start with the assumption that God does exist, it is non-belief that is the delusion.

Actually, answers here say a lot less about the stated subject than about the world-view of the writer.

[Snorri1234]

Agnosticism means the individual recognizes that THEY CAN'T KNOW the truth. In other words, agnostics (whether they be religious agnostics or non-religious agnostics) are the only ones looking at the situation logically.

Whether an agnostic is religious or non-religious would be the belief portion of their perspective. But both sets will agree that they simply cannot know for sure who is right.

Very different from atheism (which I would agree is also a faith).

Uhm...at what practical point does atheism differ from non-religious agnosticism?

Atheism states that there is no God. Non-religious Agnosticism states that the person doesn't believe there's a God, but they recognize it's POSSIBLE. One is an absolute and the other is not.

Then I have never actually met or heard of an atheist. In fact, defining atheism solely as knowing there is no god pretty much means that noone would ever be an atheist. You simply can't be one in that case unless you're a madman.
Like J.J.C. Smart said: "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.

It makes atheism an untenable position, you would never be able to hold to it. That makes it meaningless.

Also, is there really any way not to believe or disbelieve in God? Because saying "we can't know" doesn't answer the question about what you believe. It answers a fundamentally different question.

Exactly, as I already pointed out...that is precisely why there are two paths of Agnosticism. The two separate paths are the beliefs, where as the "We can't know" is a side-bar to that.

Except that means agnosticism is fundamentally different from both. You're either a theist or an atheist, being agnostic about either one is merely a way of describing the human mind.

If theism is believing in god, atheism is not believing in god. Given that people know about God they are either atheist or theist.

[Aradhus]

Please try to be less retarded, and stop pretending that historically, acts of murder and war in the name of religion were poltical and corruption of religion. Utter bullshit. It is todays religion which is corrupted, extremists are acting in accordance with how their religion was for hundreds, and thousands of years. Religions survived on the preset that if it doesn't worship your god, kill it.

[Aradhus]

Spirituality will never be destroyed, period.

But, if we want to be ridiculously serious about this question, I'd say no because if there's no religion, then people will find other differences to rely upon and use (much like the exploitation of religion). It doesn't matter if there is or isn't religion; there'd be just as much war. There are plenty of differences among everyone, so there's still plenty of reasons to hate and kill one another.

That is such a nonsensical, blindly illogical viewpoint, I find it scary that people, for religion, will bend over backwards so far their head is between their legs.
Statement A - people that killed for religion would have killed anyway
Statement B - Castration doesn't stop rape
Both of those statements could technically be true. But you won't see people running around saying castration doesn't stop rape.
History is not on your side, and neither is logic.

Your two statements (A and B) do not create a workable analogy. As well, you clearly believe that the death penalty prevents capital crimes. Which it just as clearly doesn't.

No I don't. You're a fucking idiot, that isn''t even in the same galaxy of the point I was making. You people are all dishonest imbeciles pretending religion is, and has always been rosy and sweet, only ever tainted by other things, and your idiotic desire to be tolerant, colours your understanding of what religion was.

[Army of GOD]

Spirituality will never be destroyed, period.

But, if we want to be ridiculously serious about this question, I'd say no because if there's no religion, then people will find other differences to rely upon and use (much like the exploitation of religion). It doesn't matter if there is or isn't religion; there'd be just as much war. There are plenty of differences among everyone, so there's still plenty of reasons to hate and kill one another.

That is such a nonsensical, blindly illogical viewpoint, I find it scary that people, for religion, will bend over backwards so far their head is between their legs.
Statement A - people that killed for religion would have killed anyway
Statement B - Castration doesn't stop rape
Both of those statements could technically be true. But you won't see people running around saying castration doesn't stop rape.
History is not on your side, and neither is logic.

Your two statements (A and B) do not create a workable analogy. As well, you clearly believe that the death penalty prevents capital crimes. Which it just as clearly doesn't.

No I don't. You're a fucking idiot, that isn''t even in the same galaxy of the point I was making. You people are all dishonest imbeciles pretending religion is, and has always been rosy and sweet, only ever tainted by other things, and your idiotic desire to be tolerant, colours your understanding of what religion was.

Your argument is so convincing. At least the people that are "pretending religion is, and has always been rosy and sweet" aren't calling you "fucking idiot", "imbecile" and "idiotic". If you're going to try to argue that religion is bad, maybe you should act good.

[BigBallinStalin]

Please try to be less retarded, and stop pretending that historically, acts of murder and war in the name of religion were poltical and corruption of religion. Utter bullshit. It is todays religion which is corrupted, extremists are acting in accordance with how their religion was for hundreds, and thousands of years. Religions survived on the preset that if it doesn't worship your god, kill it.

You're completely right that "acts of murder and war [are done] in the name of religion," and I in no way deny that, but you have yet to really properly explain yourself on your previous post.

As for:

extremists are acting in accordance with how their religion was for hundreds, and thousands of years. Religions survived on the preset that if it doesn't worship your god, kill it.

What this tells me is that you don't know much about religions--especially pacifist ones. But what I can tell you about religion and war is that if there was no religion, people would still pick another stand to unite on, like nationalism or other common similarities like race and so on and so forth. Religion can be exploited to suit one's desires, but the absence of religion would be much worse than having religion.

Regardless of the belief in God or not, or in many Gods, or in spirits, or what have you, religion provides many with stability and comfort, and it can also facilitate the common goal of humanitarianism, or in spreading the idea of helping others. Without religion, you'd have to assume that since no one cares for religion, then what would have to follow is that many would have to not care what many religions are all about: which is helping others, which is being a good person (whether or not you're rewarded in the end depends on the religion, but either way helps in motivating others to be better people).
Honestly, I don't know too many happy atheists, or even humanatarian ones. Much of them seem to be very selfish which is why I stated my previous statement.

Without religion, the world would be a pretty crappy place, a place full of bitter people who take for granted the many benefits of something which they fail to grasp on a daily basis. Religion doesn't have to be only about God or about Organized Religions (which many of you mistaken religion to be); it's much more complex than many of you atheists want to perceive it as.

[BigBallinStalin]

Spirituality will never be destroyed, period.

But, if we want to be ridiculously serious about this question, I'd say no because if there's no religion, then people will find other differences to rely upon and use (much like the exploitation of religion). It doesn't matter if there is or isn't religion; there'd be just as much war. There are plenty of differences among everyone, so there's still plenty of reasons to hate and kill one another.

That is such a nonsensical, blindly illogical viewpoint, I find it scary that people, for religion, will bend over backwards so far their head is between their legs.
Statement A - people that killed for religion would have killed anyway
Statement B - Castration doesn't stop rape
Both of those statements could technically be true. But you won't see people running around saying castration doesn't stop rape.
History is not on your side, and neither is logic.

Your two statements (A and B) do not create a workable analogy. As well, you clearly believe that the death penalty prevents capital crimes. Which it just as clearly doesn't.

No I don't. You're a fucking idiot, that isn''t even in the same galaxy of the point I was making. You people are all dishonest imbeciles pretending religion is, and has always been rosy and sweet, only ever tainted by other things, and your idiotic desire to be tolerant, colours your understanding of what religion was.

Religion isn't and hasn't always been "rosy and sweet," and no one has taken that stand because the answer to that is overwhelming obvious. If you really think this, then you probably can't read well, or your anger is just preventing you from clearly stating what you want to say.

How bout this. You tell us what religion is.

[Woodruff]

I understood that agnostics did not state there was or wasn't a god.....complete indifference....damn fence sitters

From a psychological perspective, it would be very difficult to truly hold that position, to be honest. A belief in this regard is almost (not entirely, but almost) unavoidable.

[Woodruff]

Agnosticism means the individual recognizes that THEY CAN'T KNOW the truth. In other words, agnostics (whether they be religious agnostics or non-religious agnostics) are the only ones looking at the situation logically.

Whether an agnostic is religious or non-religious would be the belief portion of their perspective. But both sets will agree that they simply cannot know for sure who is right.

Very different from atheism (which I would agree is also a faith).

Uhm...at what practical point does atheism differ from non-religious agnosticism?

Atheism states that there is no God. Non-religious Agnosticism states that the person doesn't believe there's a God, but they recognize it's POSSIBLE. One is an absolute and the other is not.

Then I have never actually met or heard of an atheist.

You've NEVER heard ANYONE state that there is no such thing as God? I would definitely have expected you to be more well-read than that. Hell, just in these fora, I'll bet we've had that statement a time or two.

In fact, defining atheism solely as knowing there is no god pretty much means that noone would ever be an atheist. You simply can't be one in that case unless you're a madman.

No, one simply must be utterly convinced. Again, atheism is as much a belief as religion is. No more and no less. It is the other side of the belief coin from religion.

Also, is there really any way not to believe or disbelieve in God? Because saying "we can't know" doesn't answer the question about what you believe. It answers a fundamentally different question.

Exactly, as I already pointed out...that is precisely why there are two paths of Agnosticism. The two separate paths are the beliefs, where as the "We can't know" is a side-bar to that.

Except that means agnosticism is fundamentally different from both. You're either a theist or an atheist, being agnostic about either one is merely a way of describing the human mind.
If theism is believing in god, atheism is not believing in god. Given that people know about God they are either atheist or theist.

Almost all agnostics are either atheistic or theistic, as I've already mentioned a couple of times. It is a rarity when someone is "true neutral agnostic" meaning the question is immaterial to them.

[Woodruff]

Please try to be less retarded, and stop pretending that historically, acts of murder and war in the name of religion were poltical and corruption of religion. Utter bullshit. It is todays religion which is corrupted, extremists are acting in accordance with how their religion was for hundreds, and thousands of years. Religions survived on the preset that if it doesn't worship your god, kill it.

Inflammatory statements such as the one you begin this statement with show that you don't have much confidence in your own argument. The fact is that religion is simply a tool. As with any tool, it can and will be misused. You are blaming the tool, rather than the user, which is a thoroughly illogical viewpoint. So do you want to discuss the issue like an adult, or are you going to continue with your temper tantrum?

[john9blue]

john9blue's religious position identifier

Complete the following statement: "I _____ that God ______ exist."

I know that God does exist = gnostic theist (or just "theist")

I know that God does not exist = gnostic atheist (or just "atheist")

I think that God does exist = agnostic theist

I think that God does not exist = agnostic atheist

I think that God might exist = agnostic

</thread>

[Baron Von PWN]

john9blue's religious position identifier

Complete the following statement: "I _____ that God ______ exist."

I know that God does exist = gnostic theist (or just "theist")

I know that God does not exist = gnostic atheist (or just "atheist")

I think that God does exist = agnostic theist

I think that God does not exist = agnostic atheist

I think that God might exist = agnostic

</thread>

pretty good sumation. though speaking personaly, I think that god doese not exist but i identify myself as a solid Atheist since I feel the chances of there being a god are so small as to not be worth considering.

[Timminz]

john9blue's religious position identifier

Complete the following statement: "I _____ that God ______ exist."

I know that God does exist = gnostic theist (or just "theist")

I know that God does not exist = gnostic atheist (or just "atheist")

I think that God does exist = agnostic theist

I think that God does not exist = agnostic atheist

I think that God might exist = agnostic

</thread>

You missed a few options. For example...

I highly doubt that God, in the manner that all major religions suggest, exists.

[Snorri1234]

You've NEVER heard ANYONE state that there is no such thing as God? I would definitely have expected you to be more well-read than that. Hell, just in these fora, I'll bet we've had that statement a time or two.

Oh I've heard it being stated. I've just never heard anyone who didn't allow for the small possibility that they were wrong. Because as I said there is always the general philosophical skepticism that means you can't be certain to know anything (except math and formal logic). No serious philosopher deals in absolutes like that.

I don't believe there is a god. Pretty convinced about it too, but I'm not going to say I'm dead-certain there isn't because anyone who knows a little about philosophy knows that's a ridiculous statement.

No, one simply must be utterly convinced. Again, atheism is as much a belief as religion is. No more and no less. It is the other side of the belief coin from religion.

I think atheism is simply a lack of belief. To me faith and belief are active. It's believing in something, not nothing. Saying atheism is a belief is like saying someone who doesn't believe there are invisible unicorns all around us and someone who does are being equal and that the only logical people are the ones who say we can't know either way.

[Snorri1234]

john9blue's religious position identifier

Complete the following statement: "I _____ that God ______ exist."

I know that God does exist = gnostic theist (or just "theist")

I know that God does not exist = gnostic atheist (or just "atheist")

I think that God does exist = agnostic theist

I think that God does not exist = agnostic atheist

I think that God might exist = agnostic

</thread>

You missed a few options. For example...

I highly doubt that God, in the manner that all major religions suggest, exists.

..based on all currently available evidence and the logical validness of any unproveable and unneccesary addition to a concept (in this case, reality).

[thegreekdog]

Please try to be less retarded, and stop pretending that historically, acts of murder and war in the name of religion were poltical and corruption of religion. Utter bullshit. It is todays religion which is corrupted, extremists are acting in accordance with how their religion was for hundreds, and thousands of years. Religions survived on the preset that if it doesn't worship your god, kill it.

Inflammatory statements such as the one you begin this statement with show that you don't have much confidence in your own argument. The fact is that religion is simply a tool. As with any tool, it can and will be misused. You are blaming the tool, rather than the user, which is a thoroughly illogical viewpoint. So do you want to discuss the issue like an adult, or are you going to continue with your temper tantrum?

Aradhus is simply not arguing about the same thing as most of the rest of us are. I don't want to speak for everyone, but my point is that wars, genocides, and the like that are performed "because of religion" are not actually engaged in because of religion. Rather, religion is the tool used to justify committing these acts. Nationalism is another tool that has been used. In any case, the causes of most, if not all, wars is not religious in nature.

Aradhus, name two wars in the last 500 years that were started because of religion.

[john9blue]

You may believe all the evidence in the world justifies atheism, but it is still a belief.

[Timminz]

You may believe all the evidence in the world justifies atheism, but it is still a belief.

You seem to be confusing an opinion with a belief. Basing an opinion on facts and evidence, is NOT THE SAME as basing one on faith and fables.

[Aradhus]

Please try to be less retarded, and stop pretending that historically, acts of murder and war in the name of religion were poltical and corruption of religion. Utter bullshit. It is todays religion which is corrupted, extremists are acting in accordance with how their religion was for hundreds, and thousands of years. Religions survived on the preset that if it doesn't worship your god, kill it.

Inflammatory statements such as the one you begin this statement with show that you don't have much confidence in your own argument. The fact is that religion is simply a tool. As with any tool, it can and will be misused. You are blaming the tool, rather than the user, which is a thoroughly illogical viewpoint. So do you want to discuss the issue like an adult, or are you going to continue with your temper tantrum?

Aradhus is simply not arguing about the same thing as most of the rest of us are. I don't want to speak for everyone, but my point is that wars, genocides, and the like that are performed "because of religion" are not actually engaged in because of religion. Rather, religion is the tool used to justify committing these acts. Nationalism is another tool that has been used. In any case, the causes of most, if not all, wars is not religious in nature.

Aradhus, name two wars in the last 500 years that were started because of religion.

Iraq, Afghanistan. Religion isn't a tool for the large majority of the religious. The 'flock' are tools of their religion, controlled by those with a telephone directly to god.

When I talk about religion I am clearly talking about organised religion, Christianity, Islam etc.

My post wihich mentioned castration was a response to the claim that without religion there would've still been all the wars we've had, etc. (which is the actual topic). Its a completely illogical claim, the hatred and violence in parts of the middle east alone are testament to that. To think such a thing shows a fundamental lack of understanding of history and society.

BBS, per earlier in the thread, show me one religion that is pure undiluted truth, something that doesn't have some form or another of fiction, exaggeration attached to it.

[jay_a2j]

Who is more likely to commit murder (rape, theft etc.) an atheist or a Christian? A world full of atheists would be hell on Earth.

[Snorri1234]

Who is more likely to commit murder (rape, theft etc.) an atheist or a Christian? A world full of atheists would be hell on Earth.

[thegreekdog]

Please try to be less retarded, and stop pretending that historically, acts of murder and war in the name of religion were poltical and corruption of religion. Utter bullshit. It is todays religion which is corrupted, extremists are acting in accordance with how their religion was for hundreds, and thousands of years. Religions survived on the preset that if it doesn't worship your god, kill it.

Inflammatory statements such as the one you begin this statement with show that you don't have much confidence in your own argument. The fact is that religion is simply a tool. As with any tool, it can and will be misused. You are blaming the tool, rather than the user, which is a thoroughly illogical viewpoint. So do you want to discuss the issue like an adult, or are you going to continue with your temper tantrum?

Aradhus is simply not arguing about the same thing as most of the rest of us are. I don't want to speak for everyone, but my point is that wars, genocides, and the like that are performed "because of religion" are not actually engaged in because of religion. Rather, religion is the tool used to justify committing these acts. Nationalism is another tool that has been used. In any case, the causes of most, if not all, wars is not religious in nature.

Aradhus, name two wars in the last 500 years that were started because of religion.

Iraq, Afghanistan. Religion isn't a tool for the large majority of the religious. The 'flock' are tools of their religion, controlled by those with a telephone directly to god.

When I talk about religion I am clearly talking about organised religion, Christianity, Islam etc.

My post wihich mentioned castration was a response to the claim that without religion there would've still been all the wars we've had, etc. (which is the actual topic). Its a completely illogical claim, the hatred and violence in parts of the middle east alone are testament to that. To think such a thing shows a fundamental lack of understanding of history and society.

BBS, per earlier in the thread, show me one religion that is pure undiluted truth, something that doesn't have some form or another of fiction, exaggeration attached to it.

Do you think the United States would be involved in wars with Iraq and Afgahnistan if there were not security issues vis-a-vis oil in that region? I guess I take a more cynical view on this stuff. In terms of Al Qaeda attacking the United States (and others) in the first place, I suppose that has everything to do with religion, but I'm virtually certain that there are issues with power and control (and probably culture) in addition to religion. In other words, I don't think Al Qaeda attacks us because of religion; rather, I think Al Qaeda attacks us because of culture and the want to control the people in the countries where Al Qaeda recruits and is active.

[BigBallinStalin]

When I talk about religion I am clearly talking about organised religion, Christianity, Islam etc.

Ah, thank you for the clarity.

BBS, per earlier in the thread, show me one religion that is pure undiluted truth, something that doesn't have some form or another of fiction, exaggeration attached to it.

something, something, something. You didn't use "and" or "or," so I'll assume "or."

pure undiluted truth? There's no such thing. Not even atheism has pure undiluted truth.

Forms of fiction? Well, what exactly do you mean by that? Something based upon the imagination? Well, that's pretty much all religions (except Zen) and also atheism. Those are all largely based on imagination and then taken as truth. None of them are absolutely correct, and none of them have enough evidence that disproves the others.

[Captain_Scarlet]

Who is more likely to commit murder (rape, theft etc.) an atheist or a Christian? A world full of atheists would be hell on Earth.

on what do you base this assumption?