Why I hate religion
Posted on: September 14, 2006 - 11:23am
Offline
Why I hate religion
I posted this on a few sites I am on:
People who see my posts often ask why I hate religion. here is why:
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Religion in the hands of men can be a terrible thing...
But, as far as the first picture goes... It's a bit of hard reality.
Second one, the kind of people that would silence or kill you because you don't believe the way they do are evil....
Third one, I don't think that guy has read that verse... He ought to read John 3:16, and realize that God doesn't hate anyone. Sin itself is what God hates. (a little knowledge can be dangerous...)
Fourth one? Hitler was no Christian by any stretch of the word(many people say he was an atheist, many say he was Christian... Nobody wants him on their team...). In fact, if you read Matthew 7:15-23, it say pretty plainly that people that profess the name of God, yet do evil are not to be trusted or believed. How do you tell who someone is? By what they do, not what they say.
And for the fifth, again I must say, religion in the hands of man can do terrible things. And again, I must stress that you know people by their deeds, and killing was against the rules, if I remember correctly...
Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.
Hitler was a Catholic. He spoke of continuing the work Jesus started when he talked about the persecution of Jews.
And as to the first one, I wouldn't consider acting like a cluster of cells is a person "hard reality." I would call it ridiculous and very irrational.
One can be sincere, but be sincerely wrong...
Hitler was not Catholic, even thought he said he was.
That cluster of cells, if left to develop, becomes a functional human being. If one wants to argue when something becomes a life, one could also argue the validity of an adult's life. Then murder becomes arguable and justifiable.
Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.
With this line of thinking I could say that "you are not a christian even though you say you are."
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
yes, but what authority on the matter would you have? Like I have said before, men are known by their deeds and it's quite obvious that Hitler was nothing like Christ. Jesus never proclaimed racial or religious cleansing.
Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.
Agreed.
I'm sure he'd have some counter verses to prove you wrong.
Unfortunately, the real issue is not Hitler's religious views, but how he was able to call upon the pre-existent hatred of the jews from christians.
Ever hear of Martin Luther?
Luther's Racism
The magazine Christian History, Issue 39, 1993 (published by Christianity Today) devoted a whole issue to Martin Luther's life and legacy. Pages 38-39 quote his work On the Jews and Their Lies which gives us an idea about how moral Luther's views were:
"Set fire to their synagogues and schools. Jewish houses should be razed and destroyed, and Jewish prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, curing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them." Their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb."
This is a man held to be a moral authority?! Luther also urged that "safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews," and that "all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them." What Jews could do was to have "a flail, an ax, a hole, a spade" put into their hands so "young, strong Jews and Jewesses" could "earn their bread in the sweat of their brow." Do you think any Fuhrer you may have heard of might have gleaned an idea or two from that last passage alone? In fact, think of Hitler while reading the next paragraph
Luther proposed seven measures of "sharp mercy" that German princes could take against Jews: (1) burn their schools and synagogues; (2) transfer Jews to community settlements; (3) confiscate all Jewish literature, which was blasphemous; (4) prohibit rabbis to teach, on pain of death; (5) deny Jews safe conduct, so as to prevent the spread of Judaism; (6) appropriate their wealth and use it to support converts and to prevent the Jews' practice of usury; (7) assign Jews to manual labor as a form of penance.
Is there no clearer blueprint for the Final Solution than the works of one of christianity's greatest reformers and moralists?
Worse yet, Luther was no paper philosopher - he advised clergy, their congregations, and all government officials to help carry out these measures. Since most Jews had been expelled from Germany before 1536, Luther's counsel was implemented by few officials. Yet a harsh anti-Jewish measure in 1543 mentioned Luther's 'On the Jews and Their Lies'.
Both Luther's friends and his foes criticized him for proposing these measures. His best friends begged him to stop his anti-Jewish raving, but Luther continued his attacks in other treatises. He repeated as true the worst anti-Semitic charges from medieval literature: that Jews killed Christian babies; they murdered Christ over and over again by stabbing eucharistic hosts; they poised wells. As usual, he did not allow facts to deter him from his emotionally driven lies.
Luther now thought what he had accused Catholics of thinking in 1523: Jews were dogs. "We are at fault for not slaying them!" he fumed shortly before his death.
Whether Hitler accepted jesus as the christ is moot - what matters is that he was calling upon christian hatred of the jews.
Hitler didn't invent the concept of religious hatred and persection of jews.
That was around long before him.
Hitler didn't invent the idea of pogroms
Hitler didn't even invent the basics of the final solution.
Christians did.
Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates
: Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind, Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use La
Again, I see broad generalizations. That's what most atheists stand on in their arguments...
Ever hear of the fact that Ghandi hated black people? Yeah, it's true. So what?
But does that mean that everyone that likes Ghandi hates black people? Or that they even knew about Ghandi's racist tendencies? No.
I don't support the hating of anyone, because it's wrong. Just because a "Christian" does it does not make it right. Anyone that would force views on someone, or force that person to have to hide their views is evil. Anyone that hates people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation is wrong. I don't care who you are. I don't hate atheists, or Jews, or Muslims, or people from Asia, Africa, Europe...
But then don't generalize that everyone doesn't hate these groups...
I seem to see a blame Christians viewpoint coming from you... And so be it. But people do evil things, they just use religion as an excuse. THAT is the problem, not Christianity.
Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.
Good circular reasoning. I said most. That speaks to my experience, and has not proven otherwise debating with you. Not all argue like that, though. If I said "all," that's a broad generalization. But I didn't.
So, come on. You can do better than that!
Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.
It is not a good thing that the bible condones or advocates or is incoherent about certain things.
The bible should not be Gods book. "God says" will always be unpredictable in whether or not we get good or evil results.
This is because God belief and holy books are irrational. Also people who look to twist or cherry pick the bible for their own evil agenda are trying to prey on peoples ignorance and irrationality to gain support and elimate resistence. If God can not help us ALL in EVERY case understand his God breathed book then the bible should not be used at all on Faith. Churches should never be any kind of authority either so as to avoid manipulation of ignorannce and irrationality. Only through reasoning and evidences should we decide what is good and what is not good. But Christianity is against this as Christians are to LIVE by FAITH. If they have Faith in thier understanding of Gods book, but are wrong, how will they be brought to reason if they have Faith? It gets worse when other "Christians" share the same prejudices held by Faith.
trevorus. Why don't you re-read todangst post and try to understand what he said.
Some of us as theists were offended by God first (bible), before we became atheists. Also, it is reasonable to be offended by a story that millions believe is not only the truth, but a way to live. In this one case Brad Stine has no interest in understanding people or defending theism in an honest fashion. Tu quoque. It is ok that theism is irrational so long as theists try to demonstrate that atheists are irrational too?
BTW:
What advice/help does the bible give to a mother who is beaten by her husband in front of her child? The bible is where "God says"
When the holy book of that religion, the word of the Christian God condones evil things then yes the problem is Christianity. Shall I be forced to once again pull out Rook's laundry list? It's posted elsewhere in this forum, however, because I am such a nice guy and often hate searching myself...here you go.
Each of following are punishable by death by command of the Christian God:
(a) striking your father or mother (Ex.21:15);
(b) kidnapping (Ex. 21:6 RSV);
(c) cursing your father or mother (Ex. 21:17 RSV, Lev. 20:9);
(d) touching a mountain (Ex. 19:12 RSV);
(e) allowing your ox to gore someone (Ex. 21:29);
(f) lying with a beast (Ex. 22:19) RSV, Lev. 20:15-16);
(g) sacrificing to other gods (Ex. 22:20 RSV);
(h) failing to observe the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14-15);
(i) drinking strong drinks while in the tabernacle (Lev. 10:9);
(j) committing adultery (Lev. 20:10 RSV, Deut. 22:22);
(k) lying with your father's wife (Lev. 20:11 RSV);
(l) lying with your daughter-in-law (Lev. 20:12 RSV);
(m) committing homosexual acts (Lev. 20:13 RSV);
(n) being a medium or a wizard (Lev. 20:27 RSV);
(o) being a witch (Ex. 22:18);
(p) being a priest's daughter and becoming a whore (Lev. 21:9 RSV);
(q) Blaspheming the name of the Lord (Lev. 24:16);
cursing (Lev. 24:14 RSV);
(s) coming near the priesthood (Num. 3:10);
(t) being a stranger who comes near the congregation's tabernacle (Num. 3:8);
(u) gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-35);
(v) serving or worshipping other gods (Deut. 17:2-5 RSV);
(w) showing contempt for the Lord's priest or judge (Deut. 17:12 NIV);
(x) failing to obey one's parents (Deut. 21:18-21);
(y) not being a virgin on your wedding day (Deut. 22:20-21 NIV);
(z) being a betrothed virgin who did not cry out when seduced (Deut. 22:23-24);
(aa) having relations with your wife and her mother (Lev. 20:14);
(bb) telling people to seek other gods (Deut. 13:2,5); and
(cc) being a false prophet (Deut. 18:20).
AntiFaith responded very nicely to this, however, I wish to throw my two cents regarding your signature. I'll keep it short.
We are not offended by God, we are offended by the people who blindly worship a being that does not exist. Hell, even this is not completely true. I am not offended by the typical theist, I only wish to help them. I am offended by the people who use their belief in an invisible man in the clouds to justify their hate and evil actions towards other human beings.
So, let me say this to Brad Stine: Fuck you.
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen
"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins
i do not particularly appreciate the sentiment that all who worship any god do so blindly. i appreciate your willingness to help, but i would have to ask if religion were to entirely dissapear, would a despot be unable to achieve the same ends through other means?
there are some of us out here who have really put a lot of thought and consideration into this and still believe in god. i am not stupid, i am not irrational, and i am not unreasonable. but, i am a 'theist'. i do believe that god is a notable construct in universal truth. i do believe in god. i would not necessarily disagree with the statement that god 'does not exist', per se, but i dont particularly see that being a problem. this is, i am aware an 'irrational thought' or 'without scientific proof' or something. i could not possibly care less.
ive said it before: science and logic cannot see everything. categorization, empirical testing, logic: go human attempt at objective perspective. we have some great tools, and more and more amazing discoveries are made alll the time. this should continue unhindered. (should be unhindered. whatever. except nasa. fuck nasa. id rather keep billions of dollars on the earth, thankyouverymuch.)
but, on an experiential level, given some of the more amazing things to have been found about our world (space-time, extra dimensions, uniform background radiation) when compared to my actual physical experience...im just not satisfied with science's reasoning. much like i see newtonian physics compared against relativity theory. i feel this is a particularly apt analogy, since even relativity does not sit so well under the planck constant.
i would also not disagree with a strong sentiment against the institutions which would usurp such a construct to their own ends, however it may happen such a scenario takes place. god knows its happened enough times and ways already.
for the record, i am a christian, tho i do not follow an established denomination beyond the one i made up (the preeventuexisterminists). god is not the least bit upset with me for this.
i do believe in the bible as a philosophical document: ironies inconsistencies and all the rest. life is full of these things. its a strange document, to be sure, and not one to be simply understood on its writings or its employ through history (tho these are certainly to be considered for any hope of understanding). i am not asking that you believe it, or read it, or not continue to point out the inconsistencies, or whatever. you should do what you think is right to do and quite obviously you know this. i am only trying to impress my thought that the bible is too much a caricature of nature and things to quip at and understand. not to claim i understand it. it confuses the heck out of me.
i appreciate science, i just havent reached exactly the same conclusions you have about god in light of personal experience and my understanding of philosophy.
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
Again, I must state...
People that hate anyone based on religion, race, sexual orientation... whatever. It's not the Christianity I know and practice. Again, you all are making generalizations that Christianity condones such things... The one thing that stands out most in the Bible is the verse that says: above all else, the greatest commandment is love. Love God, and your fellow man. Because when you love your fellow man, you don't want to see him fall, or be hurt. It's the malice in this world for people who are different that fuel ALL of this.
BTW, the little laws and such that you pointed out from the OT were meant for the Jews back in that time. It's a much different time now. I take that as a history lesson, more than anything else.
To respond to GodStoleMyFriends... About my sig, I stand firm on it. Apparently he got to you. That is the point. mission accomplished.
I am offended by people that blindy follow a doctrine manufactured by men who think that they speak for God when the only man who truly ever knew the will of God was Jesus. Even Jesus himself said, (I paraphrase) Read it, study it, find the truth. Because when you do, I'll be there. If that's not what you found, and you're satisfied with what you've found, then that is your path. I'm not making you take any other. What I am trying to do is tell you that the hate you accuse of supposed "Christians" is the same you shout against others (apparently in an attempt to help them realize how you hold absolute truth).
I'll agree with you that I am offended by those who say they represent God and Christianity, yet spout hate on people who see things differently. I grew up in a fundamental church that said I was backslidden for having an earring. So, I KNOW ALL ABOUT IT!
Listen, I know I cannot convince you that God exists, cares about you, or anything like that. But just quit with the hate rhetoric. You sound the same as a jihadist who wants to kill someone who doesn't believe. Except you want to destroy the foundation of someone's life, just because you don't agree with it. I've not seen ANY atheist provide evidence that God does not exist. It's a belief, just as I believe in God.
Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.
First of all, you believe in a being that not evidence supports the existence of. Let's look at the definition of belief. I take this from dictionary.com:
be‧lief /bɪˈlif/ –noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
You are accepting that your God exists without truth. You believe that he exists no matter what evidence is presented against the existence of your God. Therefore, you have a blind belief in your God.
Let's take the 4th definition of blind from dictionary.com
blind [blahynd]-adj.
4.not having or based on reason or intelligence; absolute and unquestioning: She had blind faith in his fidelity.
There are too many definitions to post them all here when I needed only one to prove my point, you can find the rest here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=blind&x=0&y=0
As for your second question, of course a tyrant can find other means of murdering his people. That is not the point Matt was trying to make. He is saying that because so many of done evil in the name of religion he hates it. I can name a few horrible examples:
-the Crusades
-the Inquisition
-Salem Witch Trials
-the persecution of the Jews throughout history, including Hitler's concentration camps
-the 9/11 attacks
Now, anything that condones such horrible acts is not good. I don't want to hear "Well, those people weren't really religious...they just didn't horrible things in the name of religion." Tell them that. The terrorist attacked the WTC and killed thousands because they believed they would rewarded by Allah for killing the infidels. They did it because of their religion. They did it because they believe in their god just as much as you believe in yours. And just as blindly.
If you believe in something without proof, you are irrational. As I stated above, there is no evidence supporting the existence of God, but there is evidence supporting his non-existence. You can think about your belief all you want, if you still believe it without any proof, you are a blind believer.
Give examples of what science and logic cannot see.
As for NASA, I think NASA is very important to understanding the Universe we live and I wish for them to continue getting those billions of dollars to do so. Get rid of religion and use the millions it takes to build those damn mega churches to help feed those who are starving or are in dire need of money.
I assume these are the examples I asked for above. However, science and logic can "see" all of these. So, I'm still waiting for a few examples of something natural that science and logic cannot "see".
I'm somewhat confused at what you are trying to say here. I understand that you are against institutions that does things to satisfy their own means. Hey! You are against religion.
How do you know God is not upset? Give me proof that you have not angered God and I will believe in him and accept this statement.
I have not read the entire bible, though I plan to soon. However, I do know that it is meant to be the literal word of God and your entire religion is based upon it. If there is something wrong in the bible, a contradiction or an immoral command, your relgion crumbles. The bible is full of such things and therefore your religion is nothing but a lie that persists because of a lie.
What personal experineces and philosophical understandings brought you to blindly believe in God? From what I gathered in this post you are barely holding onto your beliefs whether you know it yourself or not. However, if I am wrong and you are holding on to them as strongly as ever, then I must say you are lying to yourself.
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen
"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins
Christianity does condone such things whether you like it or not. It's in your Bible, which is supposedly the literal word of God whether you like it or not. Your entire religion is based on what the Bible says and it tells you to stone those to death who break insignificant commands from a cruel and jealous deity.
Yes, it does preach love as well. However, it also preaches hate. Anything that preaches hate, no matter how much love it also teaches...is evil.
The KKK teaches it's memebers to love their fellow whiteman, but to hate those of another race.
I'm sorry, but this statement falls apart because in your religion God is all knowing. If he knew those who worship him would use the Bible in the future to do evil things when these laws were only meant for the Jews of that time...then why put them in the book in which his religion is founded upon? This is his literal word. His word is meant as a guide on how to worship him correctly. And even if what you say is true. Why worship a God who condones such evil. To stone a child to death simply because they disobey their parents?
Don't be so sure. It did not get to me at all, I responded to it because it's a lie and I do not appreciate lies. So no, mission not accomplished. I'm sorry to wipe the smirk off your face, buddy.
First of all, big strawman here. We here at the RRS do not try to convince others that we hold absolute truth. Most of us here are agnostic atheists. This means that we have a lack of belief in a god or gods because we have no evidence supporting that a God exists. However, this also means that we are open to the possibility of a god or gods and are willing to accept their existence once we have empirical evidence supporting those claims.
Our mission is to help other realize that belief in a god or gods in which no evidence supports the existence of (furthermore, evidence such as the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, is proof of non-existence)is irrational.
Secondly, as I stated above, the Bible is meant to be the literal word of God given to man by God himself. This book is what your religion is founded upon, if you believe that it was written by men who only thought they spoke for God, then your religion crumbles.
Also, I am not saying the statement you gave that was supposedly made by Jesus does not exist, however, please give the exact location of him saying this in the Bible.
Good. Then how can you continue to blindly worship a God who condones such hate? You are one of the Christians who does not believe in taking the Bible literally, correct? However, the Bible is the supposed Word of God, to cherry pick what you like out of it is to cherrypick the word of your God. This is also just a method used to try and whitewash a religion with a very brutal and evil history.
You are not offended by the evil the Bible condones nor it's use as a means to justify hate and evil because you are Christian. You are offended because you are a moral, good human being. Something I am also and I am an atheist. Morality exists without Christianity and it always has. In Christianity morality is a means of ass kissing , one is good only so that they may win eternal salvation. The morality in the Bible, the word of God, is warped.
What? Are you saying that I sound like I want to kill people who are not atheist? I take offense at that. You've also set up a big strawman here.
Listen, I do not wish to "destroy the foundation in which someones life is built upon." I do not wish to destory anything. I wish to show people that it is irrational to believe in a god or gods in which no evidence exists. I wish to show people that their Holy Bible, the word of their god contradicts itself. I want people to realize that the God of the old testemant is a cruel, petty, and jeaous deity who is, in the words of Richard Dawkins, "proud of it."
Which brings me to this: In saying that I want to "destroy the foundation of one's life", you are saying that it is impossible for them to live any other way. I live without a god in my life and I am perfectly happy. I am able to deal with the problems in life I am presented with without the need of a religious crutch.
The burden of proof is not on us, my friend, it is on you and every single theist in this world. As the late and great Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen
"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins
Sorry, I forgot to respond to your last statement. It was a rough night, lol.
You don't understand atheism. To be an atheist means this, to have a lack of belief in a god or gods. I do not "believe" a god does not exists, I and other atheists have a "lack of belief."
Also, most atheists here are agnostic atheists. We do not claim,"There is absolutely no God." Agnostic atheists are open to the possibility of a god or gods, but will not accept their existence until empirical evidence is made available to support such claims.
Finally, every member of every other religion in the world believes in their respective god or gods just as much as you believe in yours, however, you have a lack in belief regarding their god or gods. You are an atheist regarding the existence Zeus, however, in the past people were as sure of his existence as you are of your God now.
What makes these people wrong and you right? You say you have faith, well...so do they. You say you know your God is the one true God, well...so do they.
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen
"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins
im just going to quote myself from the original
god is pure concept. he exists insofar as he must to be god just by us having this conversation. 'whats the difference between god and the easter bunny?' has been the typical, and very clever, next question. 'the easter bunny has to carry a basket.' has been and continues to be my very obvious answer.
well, then provide a case that god is not and i will be more than happy to listen. note that i do not mean 'provide a case that shows you cannot prove god exists', as i am already aware that this is true. i take your statement to say that you can show me that there is no god. please do. i would love to see it.
and because so many have done evil in the name of government i hate it. but then i take a step back and realize it is the institutions not the concept that i hate, and then i actually have something to work toward (and against), rather than arbitrarily fighting a concept that wont ever go away.
substitute 'see' for 'understand' or 'grok'. i personally like 'grok', because it implies a deeper understanding. science is not philosophy, and it will never take the place. but, if you would like a short list of things science doesnt know:
the velocity and location of an elementary particle, how exactly water turns to ice, explanation of the mind/body duality, and who i had a crush on in the fourth grade.
more importantly, science doesnt know objective reality. science assumes objective reality and then makes measurement alongside it. it is an arbitrary but thankful mapping, not absolute truth.
the actions of a religious institutions is not 'religion'. this is a horriblle oversimplification and misuse of terms. i am against manditory standardized knowledged. i am against the usurping of individual consciousness and belief for the purpose of an overarching body. this is not 'religion' that i have described. it is institution, and the grievances i have noted can be (and often are) satisfied by government and education (not to mention science) as much as religion. none of these things should go away. all of them should be understood in personal terms and not set in the middle of mass society.
i asked him and he told me. i meditated, prayed about it, thought about what i was doing, considered why i was doing it, placed my intentions within my belief of his will and moved forward. its totally arbitrary, of course, but, in my opinion, a useful construct against which to base myself when dealing with experience
i am not interested in proving anything to you. i am not concerned what you think about what i believe, and neither am i concerned with what you do take as truth. what does concern me is your belief that you are obviously infallibly correct. im sorry for questioning the True Wise Body of Science. im sure that it is complete, fully correct, and the measure by which every individual should view subjective reality. in every facet. always. but no...no. that was all sarcasm. see, actually, every individual should view subjective reality as they view it, and every other should leave them the hell alone about it. maybe then we could stop fighting, admit that no one actually knows, and just move on.
well, obviously you know what youre talking about way more than i do, so i probably shouldnt question it, but is it possible that what you said just isnt true? like, let me give you a for instance:
just false. i mean, totally false. it has tons of contradictions, and it has not crumbled yet. and what is the lie, exactly? maybe you are referring to a speculation about something you cannot prove one way or the other. which is pretty much what evangelical christians do. ill admit its a little cuter when you do it.
ok, i will accept your statement about my believing in god blindly if you will grant me that my (fake, but blind) aunt has absolutely no problem getting around her house. you seem to imply that if you close your eyes youll never end up anywhere worthwhile. i both disagree with this sentiment and the thought that i closed my eyes to arrive at my conclusions. i do not blindly believe in god, and you could pull out webster if youd like, some arbitrary definition of the word 'belief' is not going to make me agree with your inapropriate use of the word 'blind'.
my experiences around individuals of faith, the arbitrary way in which mathematics loosely maps to reality, the time arrow, the hbar, spacetime, and schizophrenics all lead to my belief of the being of god, though again i would like to point out that im not particularly concerned about his literal existence. it is immaterial. take that statement however you like.
as to philosophy: my opinions on eventualism (pre and otherwise) when juxtaposed with basic existence and the seemingly obvious truths of determinism which just break down on the more basic levels of reality (and consciousness) lead me to believe in universal direction (hence preeventuexisterminism). esp when viewed against the historical and natural historical progression of 'truth' and the constant sentiment that 'I so totally know what I am talking about because I have [religion, science, government, the masses, etc] on my side'. and then the funniest part is that no one does have a clue, but that doesnt stop everyone from insisting that I AM RIGHT!! its annoying, and getting old.
i believe in my beliefs as strongly as i believe in existence, which varies day by day, but has stayed above zero so far. i am not lying to myself. i might be 'wrong', but so might you, so i see no reason to go getting all personal about it. you dont know any more than i do. god does not need to be apparent in absolutely any way to satisfy my conception. by this conversation alone we have affirmed the existence of god as far as i have defined it, as god is concept, however inaccurate our imaginations may be.
a lot of things that get said around here seem to imply to me that y'all have a pretty tight strangle on objective reality. you know where to find truth? show me. please. id love to see it.
i believe that god is a useful construct in light of the human experience. i think that it is true insofar as we are here, whether or not it is universally true is impossible to determine.
now, you state that
here we have a question of "who's is it" on our hands.
nasa (who also doesnt deserve to be capitalized) is owned by the public. churches are privately owned, though get public aid. there are aspecs of what is given from public funds to churches that should be corrected, and all of it should be questioned, but i believe that the implications of that would be essentially one of 'holy war' in the eyes of the 'true believers'if you didn't run the reasoning all the way across the board (and, lets face it, probably even if you do). that is to say, that an organization does believe in god should not discredit him from public funds any more than it entitles. private matters are exactly that, and society should have very little to say about them.
furthermore, while i too am annoyed at so-called 'mega churches', they have every right to be built. i know that the church i grew up in raised the money to do it themselves, without public funding. it would be quite fascist indeed to state that these people could not do that. not to imply that you are that or were saying that, only that such a thing would be a horrendous mistake, setting a precident with unimaginable consequences.
as to the poor and needy, i know not what to say. unfortunate, but not unexpected given the political and social climate of the present. there are probably much better targets than religion for public funding, i think (im thinking of a 5 sided building. it is also, unless i am mistaken, the heading of nasa). though i agree that a secular society is much better than non. this is to state that believing or not believing should not be of any affect to any other individual, rather than continually asserting that one particular way is the One True Way that all should think.
so give me a case against faith. show me objective truth. i would like explanations for the existence of the universe, being sure to explain the resting states at the beginning and end (or the workings of aperpetual motion universe), as well as uniform background radiation and the workings and requirements for generating such values for gravity andother physical constructs (weak and strong forces, etc) that our universe even holds. i would also like an explanation for the advent of the first single cell life, increasing complexity of life in light of entropy, and a detailed discussion on the experience of conscioussness, the origins of language, and if you could offer resolution to the mind/body duality problem, i have been curious for a while.
http://leiwenwu.tripod.com/primordials.htm
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989