Why do you believe in God?

[Goat Whisperer]

Well remember when canjun was banned

Anyways, I think Mormons are just.... sexist and racist, sorry if that offends you but, in a sad way it is kind of true.....

 

[gillibean]

Well remember when canjun was banned

Anyways, I think Mormons are just.... sexist and racist, sorry if that offends you but, in a sad way it is kind of true.....

Before I respond to this, can you elaborate on why you think this?

 

[pladecalvo]

Okay seriously, stop wasting time on this thread. Obviosly religous people are never going to stop being religous and atheaists are never going to believe in god. It's a fact. Get over it.

There was a poll taken on christianforums.com regarding who had changed their beliefs due to the arguments put forward on that forum.
2 atheists had become Christians.
3 Christians had become atheist.
2 Christians had become agnostic.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Before I respond to this, can you elaborate on why you think this?

Polygamy, African Americans are supposedly cursed, "couples" become gods, but, the men gets the power, plus there is like 20 women married to the man.... etc.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Oh and:

Racism in the Book of Mormon

• 1 Nephi 12:23
  "And I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark and loathsome and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations."​
• 1 Nephi 13:15
  ". . . and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful . . ."​
• 2 Nephi 5:21
  "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."​
• 2 Nephi 30:6
  ". . . a white and delightsome people."​
  This is the reading of Joseph Smith's original 1830 edition. Smith changed the wording "white" to "pure" in the 1840 printing, though until 1982 the word "white" was again in use.
• 3 Nephi 2:14-15
  "And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; and their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites. And their young men and their daughters became exceeding fair.."​
  According to LDS theology, the Lamanites are the ancestors of the American Indians. In the verses above we see the unbelievable LDS teaching that the skin of the Lamanites would turn white upon conversion!
• Jacob 3:8-9
  "O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins "​

These racist verses persist to this day, though, as mentoned, the word "white" has been replaced with "pure".

 

[Minor Axis]

Not true. A lot of Atheists and Agnostics have been born as being apart of some religion, before their beliefs changed. I used to be religious myself. But now I'm an Agnostic.

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of atheists and agnostics were raised in one of the established religions.

 

[Minor Axis]

These racist verses persist to this day, though, as mentoned, the word "white" has been replaced with "pure".

Being pure is a fantasy of whichever group you want to pick. (I'm not defending mormons btw.)

 

[LiberalVichy]

Agnosticism irritates the Hell out of me, it's cowardly fence-sitting on a binary proposition; people do it because they would rather appease irrational people than risk the ire and hostility that non-conformists and individual decisions receive from this tribal society.

 

[gillibean]

Agnosticism irritates the Hell out of me, it's cowardly fence-sitting on a binary proposition; people do it because they would rather appease irrational people than risk the ire and hostility that non-conformists and individual decisions receive from this tribal society.

How is waiting for empirical evidence to prove the case either way to make a decision fence sitting? Historical agnosticism is by far the most reasonable position of all.

 

[Minor Axis]

Agnosticism irritates the Hell out of me, it's cowardly fence-sitting on a binary proposition; people do it because they would rather appease irrational people than risk the ire and hostility that non-conformists and individual decisions receive from this tribal society.

Agnostics are sitting on the fence because they see no compelling reason to move off it. And there is nothing wrong with that regardless of how judgmental you want to be.

I forget, are you Atheist?

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

I just don't think anybody in this thread will change their mind because of what the others are saying.

Ditto. Bunch of hard heads.

....but it makes for interesting reading. :nod:

 

[LiberalVichy]

Agnostics are sitting on the fence because they see no compelling reason to move off it. And there is nothing wrong with that regardless of how judgmental you want to be.

No, there are plenty of compelling arguments they have access to. If you want to understand why people have irrational beliefs in the face of overwhelming and pretty obvious evidence you have to get beyond the logical arguments (which are obviously irrelevant) and look into the core psychology and motivations of people. Some may simply be ignorant, but no one who has put any thought or study into it can possibly make a compelling case for belief in a deity or sanctioning it as any sort of intellectually or morally respectable position. Pretending like people do everything they do because of entirely rational understanding is totally unrealistic, given that anyone who's read a newspaper can readily agree that most people believe complete and utter garbage completely without reason. They're socially bribed and intimidated into these positions and THAT is why they persist.

I forget, are you Atheist?

Hell yes.

 

[gillibean]

No, there are plenty of compelling arguments they have access to. If you want to understand why people have irrational beliefs in the face of overwhelming and pretty obvious evidence you have to get beyond the logical arguments (which are obviously irrelevant) and look into the core psychology and motivations of people. Some may simply be ignorant, but no one who has put any thought or study into it can possibly make a compelling case for belief in a deity or sanctioning it as any sort of intellectually or morally respectable position. Pretending like people do everything they do because of entirely rational understanding is totally unrealistic, given that anyone who's read a newspaper can readily agree that most people believe complete and utter garbage completely without reason. They're socially bribed and intimidated into these positions and THAT is why they persist.


Hell yes.

Compelling arguments perhaps but there is no proof and therefore no judgement.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Agnostics are sitting on the fence because they see no compelling reason to move off it. And there is nothing wrong with that regardless of how judgmental you want to be.

I forget, are you Atheist?

Some people just couldn't give a flying fish considering all the arguments and gray areas both pro and con.

 

[Obdurate]

Agnosticism irritates the Hell out of me, it's cowardly fence-sitting on a binary proposition; people do it because they would rather appease irrational people than risk the ire and hostility that non-conformists and individual decisions receive from this tribal society.

Why do you make so many blanket statements? I see you throwing so many insults at everyone that it's ridiculous. If you believe [whatever] you're naive, people who are agnostic are cowards, anarcho-capitalism is anarchy all the same, among all the other comments you've made.

I don't see how someone who claims to be an anarchist can take such a clear cut side on everything.
So a question, that doesn't actually relate to this thread, but:

Do we fight to close down Wal-Mart?

 

[LiberalVichy]

To make it more clear, I am not making these statements about people who simply HAPPEN to be 'agnostics' or 'christians' because that's what wound up impressed upon their brain, but rather the people who make these concerted arguments and defenses of positions that are so clearly indefensible. I'm not saying they're evil, and I'm not saying it's entirely their fault, but this sort of nonsense is unequivically absurd and anyone who purports to have positive knowledge on them in support of theism or agnosticism essentially lacks integrity because they're either supporting a false idea out of emotional and social pressure or they're pretending to understand something they really don't have a fucking clue about.
People who say "I don't know" aren't the same as people who say, "I know you can't know" and despite the accusations often hurled at atheists and anyone with a degree of certainty, people in this wishy-washy non-conceptual fog like agnostics, political 'centrists' and many buddhists are some of the most pretentious and condescending people I've ever encountered, substituting indecision and noncommitment because it's perceived to give them a sort of intellectual credibility. The truth suffers more harm from this sort of obfuscation than it ever has from lies.

 

[Peter Parka]

I'm agnostic because I've seen arguments either way and I dont see any clear cut evidence for either side. I couldn't give a shit if someone thinks its cowardly or not, it seems the most sensible option to me, better than believing fully in something with blind faith.

 

[Minor Axis]

Pretending like people do everything they do because of entirely rational understanding is totally unrealistic, given that anyone who's read a newspaper can readily agree that most people believe complete and utter garbage completely without reason. They're socially bribed and intimidated into these positions and THAT is why they persist.

I can only speak for myself- My beliefs are based on a lack of credible information regarding a probable existence after physical death. I know of no Atheists or Agnostics who are intimidated into their beliefs. If anyone, intimidation is for those who feel like they must conform to traditional religious views.

 

[LiberalVichy]

Atheists are not because you can't control people with atheism. But if you've talked to agnostics, intellectual bullying is a hallmark of many of them, largely because they resent any attack on the intellectual credibility of their own position since false-projections of their own worth are staked upon this faux-intellectualism. They want to appear 'free thinking' without doing the difficult task of adopting an opinion and the hostility towards atheists especially is completely inexplicable without an understanding of why they are agnostics, which has little to do with reason and a lot to do with appearance and compromise.

 

[Minor Axis]

Atheists are not because you can't control people with atheism. But if you've talked to agnostics, intellectual bullying is a hallmark of many of them, largely because they resent any attack on the intellectual credibility of their own position since false-projections of their own worth are staked upon this faux-intellectualism. They want to appear 'free thinking' without doing the difficult task of adopting an opinion and the hostility towards atheists especially is completely inexplicable without an understanding of why they are agnostics, which has little to do with reason and a lot to do with appearance and compromise.

In this case nothing is accomplished by adopting a stand based on incomplete information. It's just making a bet.