"Welcome to Reality" updated Feb 20th

[Instag0]

I just published a huge post on my blog, The Opinion of a Sentient Being. It has been my largest and most thought out post yet so far, and I would like some feedback on it from you all. This has been, surprisingly, done in my free time after a generous playing of Mount&Blade .

The most recent version has had the first paragraph split in two and semi-rewritten. A few paragraphs have been moved around to increase flow and the conclusion paragraph has been rewritten. There are several slight additions and grammatical tweaks which all should help to improve the flow from topic to topic.

Well, I hope you enjoy, here it is (for those that haven't yet clicked on the link/ noticed the huge bunch of text quoted below):

Each individual wants the best for his or herself. People try to live happy lives within a set of attitudes towards how life should be lived. However, conflict occurs when beliefs are imposed. Violent imposition of values onto another person or group is a recipe for disaster because it prevents peace. Peace frees the creative and curious from persecution which allows knowledge to be discussed in a progressive manner. It is this free peace that allows us to be live happily. Violence unsettles this peace we strive for.

Violent imposition of values onto another person or group is a recipe for disaster. Generations after generations are created to strengthen these lines of hate between groups. The vicious cycle of revenge continues on for many years because no one generation will cease fighting or even try to reach a compromise. This affects nearly all parts of the world- some areas more subtlety than others, but it is still there: dislike, prejudice, and eventually total contempt for another group. These differences in opinion are to be expected but become counter-productive when peace is disturbed. This hate has a strong backbone that usually rests in a historic group of principals that many people live their lives by. If we want to live our live together in agreement, we must cast aside this absolute contempt of one another in our lives.

There are certain economic philosophies that negatively disrupt the harmony that we are trying to reach. These philosophies mainly involve people fending for themselves in a completely economically free environment- this means little to no regulations that helps to "maximize" profits of completely private organizations and also helps to "minimize" the outside help (through regulating laws) available to the other citizens. Caveat emptor (buyer beware) means that it is fair to completely exploit the customer if s/he is foolish/ stupid enough and that the customer should be the one watching out, not the seller. In our government, it should be the exploitive seller that has to watch his or her own back. We should not be persecuting the victim for being exploited.

Economic natural selection to a certain point is generally a good thing, but the victim should not be persecuted evermore. It is the seller, ultimately, who should feel the complete and utter brunt of punishment for trying to exploit John Doe through scams (subtle or not). That is why it is important for regulations to be imposed upon the general populace (even if they must reduce profits by organizations). They help to protect the buyer from being exploited. Of course, there is a point where the government rules by providing too many regulations in which it takes the place of the exploitive party. We should not overload on economic regulations, nor should we completely diminish them. We need to find a proper middle-ground that provides a fair amount of security and freedom.

The people oversee the government as much as the government oversees the people because the people are the government. Regardless of the many lines that can be drawn to separate humans into different social and economic classes, we are, at the roots, all sentient beings trying to live together in relative harmony. So why can’t we all do this? Why must we continue greedily exploiting one another for a single person’s (or small group’s) gain?

The problem is in our theology- the groups of never-changing principles we hold high above our heads. Packaged with this is a fairy-tale view of the afterlife and a presumed judgment that prevents us from living in harmony in the here and now. Our religious books are all different, and all have conflicting views on how we should live our lives to prepare for the end-all afterlife: heaven, the utopia that we all seek, or hell, the place deep below where few of us truly aspire to. The only thing that we do have that is the same is our reality. We exist, we live, we breath, we have wants and desires and pet peeves- all in the same universe. The universe binds us together, and we bind the universe together- we are the universe. We need to put our stories behind ourselves- we need to accept that every single person on this green earth wants to live happily in relative harmony with the world, but our theological differences cause far too much conflict for a harmonious lifestyle to ever be possible. Once religion as it is today is removed from the equation, we will truly start the second millennium.

Our religious squabbles are slowing down the developmental possibilities in the near future- stem cell research, for one, is taking the brunt of these conflicts. However, it is clear to see that wiping ourselves off the face of the earth would also be quite a developmental problem. As the saying goes, denial isn’t just a river in Egypt- it’s in the hearts and minds of fellow human beings and this is a problem. The grieving process of losing our god(s) will most likely involve the steps of the conventional grieving process. First denial and shock, then anger, bargaining, guilt, depression, loneliness, and finally acceptance are the steps. Once we have, as a race, accepted that there is no concrete evidence or reason to believe in a god, we can move on with a hopeful future. A god did not create us in his or her image; we created the god in our image. We don’t need to look at a god for solutions; we need only look inside ourselves. An invisible being that shows no evidence of itself should not govern what can be seen.

It is nigh impossible to change a fanatic’s course of action from the view of those that the fanatic especially opposes- the non-believers. It is highly unlikely that any one of us could convince a suicide bomber on the spot (with the afterlife on his or her mind) to suddenly cease attempting to murder a group of “sinners.” However, we can prevent the upbringing of more fanatics. It is clear that the majority rules, and currently the majority is held by religious moderates. The only way to save ourselves from nuclear implosion is to have the moderately religious take the initiative and realize the danger of our increasing (deadly & dangerous) technology. They must do so by putting their static theology aside in this ever changing world to save themselves and the people around them. It is important to note spirituality can be held in private and can be progressive, but it should not overflow as to become a significant danger to the general public. Dynamic reason must replace static ideology for us to peacefully inquire. Furthermore, the danger doesn’t only come to our mere existence as living, breathing creatures but to our developmental future as a sentient race in a vast, mysterious, and intriguing universe.

Humanity has one major hurdle to jump in its future, for it is crucial, especially with the advent of nuclear weaponry. One single person, with enough zeal and fanaticism, can detonate a nuclear device and destroy millions of human beings- and so far, no drunks, or those with mental disorders have done any type of violent (luckily non-nuclear so far) bombings on the scale of certain religious organizations (one need only read Sam Harris’ factual notes in his book, The End of Faith to reach this conclusion.)

Humankind must go through a spring cleaning of our ideals- especially those that violently spread and promote hate, destruction, and ignorance. In history, we’ve seen the intelligent and intellectual bullied and maimed for presenting different ideas which later go on to become mainstream knowledge. Let us learn from the events of the past. If we can do this, and survive the transition from faith to reason, our future is bright.

 

[Johnathan Andrews]

Interesting post, quite decently written, though I could not disagree with you more (except about the economical issue, which I find as a secondary point to your tretise).

So you'll know my perspective (which is differant than about 90% of those on this site), I'm a Christian. I was an Athiest about 5 years ago, before I realized that the vast preponderance of evidence indicates that God does exist, and later realized through much study and prayer that the Bible is true, based on evidence from fulfilled prophecy, archaeology, history, ect.

The problem is in our theology. This fairy-tale view of the afterlife prevents us from living in harmony in the here and now. Our religious books are all different, and all have conflicting views on how we should live our lives to prepare for the end-all afterlife: heaven, the utopia that we all seek, or hell, the place deep below where few of us truly aspire to. The only thing that we do have that is the same is our reality.

The problem is not our theology. The chief reason that keeps us from living in harmony is something called the "sinful nature." I know many of you don't know what I am talking about or completely disagree. The "sinful nature" chiefly means that people have some good in them, but have no redeemable good. People are not basically good from birth until death, but rather possess the sinful nature even from birth, before they are in control of their own actions.

I know many of you don't have children yet. I have two boys, and I can tell you that any parent knows you don't have to teach a kid how to do bad (and I'm not just talking about malum prohibita but malum in se behaviors which are wrong by their very nature). Kids steal, hit, lie, and must be taught to consistantly do good.

...so far, no drunks, or those with mental disorders have done any type of violent (luckily non-nuclear so far) bombings on the scale of certain religious organizations

While this is true, many people use religion (and even try to use Jesus) to further their own agenda. Such people bomb others, go on crusades, torture, and kill in the name of God who they don't know or follow. These are the people who think that God is on their side. God isn't on anyone's side. God has a side, and YOU are either on it or not.

It is highly unlikely that any one of us could convince a suicide bomber on the spot (with the afterlife on his or her mind) to suddenly cease attempting to murder a group of “sinners.” However, we can prevent the upbringing of more fanatics.

Just to be clear, it seems like you are saying that all religions spawn people who become suicide bombers, killing people who don't believe in God. This simply is not true. Without naming any names (and with due respect to those following this faith), there is one predominate religion that suicide bombers predominately belong to during this time. I'll let you decide whether this faith has been hijacked by fanatics, or if the faith calls for such fanaticism. Let each make up his own mind.

Believing in God does not mean you will be a suicide bomber, a fanatic, ect. If you mean to "prevent the upbringing of more fanatics" by stamping out the freedom of religion, you will only spawn more hatred. If you are saying that prevention of the upbringing of more fanatics simply means stop the suicide bombing, I couldn't agree with you more.

They must do so [stop fanaticism] by putting their theology aside in all public affairs to save themselves and the people around them. It is important to note spirituality can be held in private, but it should not overflow as to become a significant danger to the general public.

Again, I completely disagree with you. The problem is that most people with your view claim to believe in the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, such as the freedom of speech, the press, religion, assembly, ect, but want to deny these freedoms to people you disagree with. This is just as bad as what the Catholic Church did in many areas in the dark ages. Please don't repeat this error. (On an aside, it is interesting that these "unalienable rights" are said to have come from our Creator. What happens to our rights when the one who provided them is taken out of the picture?).

You seem to think that "spirituality" is a danger to the world. I can't speak for all religions, since I don't know them all or know much of many. I can speak as a Christian, however. The Bible says that "Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27). This is not a danger to the public, but a blessing.

Furthermore, Jesus Himself summarized the commandments of God by saying "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hand all the Law and the Prophets."

This is God's will for a Christian: to love God and love your neighbors (who are defined as everyone who breathes). This isn't dangerous for society, but rather beneficial for all.

Finally, the Bible exhorts Christians to live at peace with those among you, as much as it is possible with you. We aren't to begin conflict, and should try to make peace with others whenever it is possible (though this is not always possible).

Our religious squabbles are slowing down the developmental possibilities in the near future- stem cell research, for one, is taking the brunt of these conflicts.

Historically speaking, this is wrong. The Church during the dark age (as corrupt as it was), is one of the primary reasons that reason, logic, and learning did not completely disapear. Islam also greatly contributed to the learning and development of humanity during this time period.

Currently, there is much dissent from varying religions concerning a variety of scientific research. However, in many cases, this is ACTUALLY a good thing! Unquestioned scientific research that is simply in the pursuit of knowledge, development, and technology regardless of consequence normally proves to be either devastating or completely useless. If science can be compared to a horse, then morality is its bridal. A horse galloping without control is a danger to everyone around it.

Once we have, as a race, accepted that there is no concrete evidence to believe in a god, we can move on with a hopeful future. A god did not create us in his or her image; we created the god in our image. We don’t need to look at a god for solutions; we need only look inside ourselves.

I disagree with you on this matter in many areas.

First, there is indeed concrete evidence to believe in God. However, the problem is that people want absolute, 100% proof that God exists. The Bible says that "without faith, it is impossible to please God, for those that come to Him must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him." God has revealed Himself and given humanity numerous evidences of His existence, but will always require an element of faith (coupled with evidence) in order to believe.

As to a "hopeful future," future without God is far from hopeful. As has already been established, man is inherently sinful. We are our own worst enemy. Christ had to die on the cross to provide a ransom for our sinful lives, giving all those who believe in Him a hopeful future. Man left to his own devices, separated from the love of God proves to be desperately hopeless.

Joseph Stalin (who hated God), Adolf Hitler (who used religion to further his own agenda), Pol Pot [SIC], and the entire Chinese government since the Communist revolution provide us with a plethora of examples of what life is like when God is left out of the equation.

Man cannot look inside himself for answers, for in ourselves we only find more questions. Questions include:

1) Who am I?
2) What is the meaning of life?
3) What is good and what is evil?

These questions can be answered superficially by material secularism, though secularism never provides fully adequate answers to these questions.

It is doubtful that all of us are to be completely wiped out, but the combined ideologies of all major religious texts demand nearly everyone to die through some sort of terrible armageddon. However, if some terrible series of ill-fated events does occur, the planet will survive along with us. Even if this world-ending event never happens, we still must sail over the hindrance of the religious ocean to the new world. One can only hope for this transition to be as painless and peaceful as possible for the human race, because it far easier to tear down than to construct humanity’s feats.

Again, I disagree. Rather than continue this long letter, I will let Jesus's words respond:

"Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall never pass away."

Amen

PS, I'll have no access to the internet access for the next 2-3 days, so I guess my post is like a punching bag for all those who'd like to throw a blow. Have a good weekend, and God Bless you.

 

[Instag0]

First of all, my suicide bomber comment is merely an example to add some life and expression to the paper.

Secondly, I am all for free expression, just not expresson that can become a significant danger to the general public. By this, I mean anything that can be done to produce hate/ prejudice towards a specific group. I do not hate people with different principals, I merely disagree with them.

I do not think that spirituality is a danger to the world- it is very important and (most likely) essential to our sanity. The problem arises when the spirtuality allows hate (violent or nonviolent) to spread.

I have not studied the historical nature or religion nor do I remember much from previous classes so my memory is rather fuzzy. My writing is based on what I can recall and what logic I can find and use.

In addition, morality can be found without being a member of a religion. It is natural for us to bind together in communities (that is how civilization started.) Compassion and caring for one another came out of the basic need to survive and I believe that this is still what runs the system. Once we have a better understanding of the brain and conciousness, we will have a better understanding of what we are. Regardless, we exist here on this earth and the reason is not crystal clear, so we might as well try to coexist in peace.

I am a man of science thus I want concrete, scientific reasons for the existance of any sort of god. This usually involves being able to properly predict future events, but this is quite hard to do in a religious context. We may have predictions of what happens after death, but the most sound (to me) is that the mind ceases to exist because the machinery that powers it ceases to function and decays. After this, it is my personal opinion that we are not necessarily reborn, but we restart life. As what I don't know, but I do know that I have been born once, and I have not found a convincing enough answer to my question: "If I have been born once, why can't I be born again?" In a reality of (assumingly) infinate space and time, it seems all things are possible and can happen. I am not ruling out the possibility of a god, I am merely expressing my concern for the lack of concrete evidence that one (or two, or fifty) exist(s).

As for the "hopeful future without god is hopeless" statement: take me, for example, and my family. We are all atheist/ agnostic. We are relatively spiritual, but we don't believe in a traditional, omniscient and omnipotent god. We have been known to meditate to find answers within ourselves and we coexist peacefully with the rest of the world. In addition, we are logical and reasonable- we like to be convinced through reason and naturally, we are skeptical. Thus, we will not just let a bogus scientific theory/ idea go through without giving our peaceful statement out against it. It is my personal belief that the world would be better with more peaceful, reasonable people.

Just to throw this out there: I have enough of a problem with the mere existance of the universe (where did it come from?) Throwing a god into the picture further confuses this for me. Assuming temporarily that there is a god and s/he/it constructed the universe, where did this god come from? Regardless, we are living in the here and now, so we should not cause unecessary strife over things that we have little to no understanding over. We must peacefully express ourselves through discussions, such as these, for an answer.

To answer your three questions at the bottom:

I am a living, sentient being.

The meaning of life is whatever one wishes it to be.

There is no absolute good and evil- the universe does not differ between the two. The moral good and evil is opinion.

I find the above answers satisfactory. If I can find satisfactory answers by myself and for myself, then another person can do the same.

I did not grow up knowing a god- in fact, I grew up without ever even thinking of a god. My parents never introduced me to this idea- I discovered it myself through school. These are my thoughts, not the refined thoughts of my parents. I grew up never even thinking of a god- I grew up kindly playing in my sandbox of life with fellow children. I had no other thoughts- I just wanted to play and enjoy life. Things are a bit more complex now, but that is still my basic goal- I want to enjoy my life.

Enjoying my life involves participating in things that makes me happy. However, I want everyone else around me to be happy and able to sucessfully cope with life as well. This does not make me selfish: wanting for oneself is not selfish, only wanting for oneself is. In effect, I want happiness for myself as much as I want happiness for the others surrounding me.

 

[sheek]

Wow.

Looks like Taleworlds Forum has moved up one notch in the intellectual scale.

 

[Maelstorm]

I do agree that there is no good or evil. But religions (or certain idea-systems) try to show people a set of ethics to make one have peace inself, and in "public".

Thus, actions like stealing or murdering are forbidden. But one should realize that we do not need a prophet or god to explain us about this. At least theoratically, we don't. That may sound like I am an atheist, but no, I'm a Muslim (it doesn't matter much anyway, all religions have the same purpose at the core, but different ways). And it is just fair that this is true. What about the people who has no chance of hearing bout God's religions? They are people whom God just left to rot and die? I don't think so.

The religions are just ways to have people under a certain "banner". It's probably meant to have all religions in a banner, but sadly, the three "god's" religions (i always forget that word, excuse my memory) seem to be in a meaningless conflict.

Anyway. I wasn't thinking about these. let me get back to "we don't need explanation" part. What I mean is.. Why don't you steal? Why don't you murder?

Do you not murder becouse your religion, your belief tells you that it's a sin? or becouse you think you do not have the right to be the judge and executioner of an other man's life?

If it's the first one, you should reconsider your belief. If you just live by memorizing rules and adepting to them without a real understanding, i doubt if that kind of belief is worthy. Plus, whenever you encounter something that's not mentioned literally, you'll fail. I know the religion "explains" about these. But even after those explanations if you don't just becouse it's a sin, it's even worse.

But if your answer is the second, then you have come to an understanding. Even if you haven't heard of the religion, you'd do the same.


That is why, good and evil isn't simple like being a sinner or not. In my opinion, it's the intentions, not the actions that counts.
You can help someone becouse you want to help him, to be helpful, but people may think you have some benefits, or vice versa. Then you look like an evil, wherein you are actually "good". Or maybe you think of both.

So things get complicated really easily. Even in the dumbest example possible "help someone", we have some alternatives.

And even if there is a good and evil, no human can come to a judgement. I mean, we can; but none of us would have the "right" judgement. Even if we had, we wouldn't know. What is the quality to make such judgement?
No, i dont think things are simple as good and evil, believer and blasphemous. Everyone takes alot of actions and the intentions count.


That is why I don't believe that people are born-sinners. A kid may steal. But why does he steal? Does he steal becouse he wants to take something that doesn't belong to him?

No, no kid thinks of this unless an adult poisons his mind.

A kid steals, becouse he is so pure, that he can't think of something called possessions. Something called selfishnes.

The set of rules on this world were put by men. In one land, a murder is a sin. In one land, it may be normal. So, who's the good and evil?
And how can a kid know about the rules of the world if he's not told? can we call him a sinner becouse we didn't tell about the rules we set?

I don't think it's fair.

 

[Ryuta]

I do agree with 'there's no good or evil' part. It's just natural to me.

My opinion of God(s) is 'God is a machine'. He/She/It/They works just like other law or rules. Don't be harmful to others because God/Law forbits it. If you don't obey, you'll be punished by God/Government. And Be generous to people because God/Law/Rule encourage it. If you do, you'll be rewarded by God/Government.

I don't mind whether God(s) exists or not, but he/she/they/it is effective to give authority/power to the law/commandament so that people follow.

And see what people do/did by using the name of God. Those so called 'clerics' behave as if they are God himself (which I think the worst of all sins)! It's good examples of how God(s) are used as a machine.

I think the best solution of thing was 'Karama Sutra' in Bhuddist sutra. I don't quote all but it just says 'Don't agree with anything without considering whether it is beneficial to people'.


My opinion on child is more negative then Maelstrom and very close to Jonathan Andrews'. They are no 'pure'. I can remember my childhood (2-3 years onward) and I clearly know what is good and what is bad. They have very clear concept of possession. They problem is, they are not good at resisting the desire. They know they're doing a bad thing and they'll be punished if they did, but they often succumb to their desire. What important thing that divide the thing is, whether they think they could get away with it or not.

 

[Maelstorm]

I think I've made a bad choice of words.
Pure is.. exaggrated. I didnt mean to say that kids are pure as dumb, or pure as an angel.

What I meant is, a child is _taught_ what is good or evil. Becouse something good or something bad is determined by the society. We can't be natural "sinners" becouse there is no sin in nature. The rules we set, are not natural.

lets say you come to a new country with a totally new rules.

You walk on the street then you look at the sky.
What you don't know is, it's forbidden in this country.
People can say "oh bad person. these strangers are always like this. they are all evil." But in fact, you didn't mean any harm. So you can't actually be blamed. (they could, but its again their rules)

After you learn about this rule, and you still do it, well its a bad choice you make. Or maybe to you, doing this will help them someway. Maybe you still have good intentions.

Think of a child who wants to touch the hot pan. His parent doesn't let him. To the child, the parent is evil. He doesn't let him do as he wills. But the parens means to protect.

You could agree with the parent, or you may not. But this is a point of personal view. None can judge the parent as a good or bad one.

That's what I mean. We judge ourselves by the rules we set according to our actions and culture. But these aren't rules of nature. That is why it won't be right to say that people are natural sinners. Of course it won't be right to say that they are angels too. But usually we tend to corrupt and abuse everything, so an untouched innocent mind of a child may look more "good".

 

[Instag0]

Maelstrom, you hit the nail on the head. The judgement that our theology brings us onto other people to state that they are "good" or "evil" is a problem. I don't think religion is good or evil, it just becomes a problem when it steps in the way of our attempts to enjoy a peaceful, productive life. By doing so, it effectively slows our future development. When spirituality becomes counter-productive, there is a problem.

Of course, on the flipside, one could ask why should we even be productive to begin with? In my humble opinion, there is a lot to explore out in the world, and it helps if we're not killing eachother in the streets or spreading unneeded contempt for groups of other sentient beings.

In addition, it is important to note that my views are constantly evolving and changing- they are dynamic. If one day, the world received (what I view to be) definate, concrete evidence of something that I've never believed in (or never had thought of), then I'd give that belief a thorough run down.

Maelstrom, I also agree with you that children learn principals and rules. I doubt that any child naturally "knows" what is the absolute "good" and "evil" (and there is no absolute good or evil.)

 

[Maelstorm]

Oh oh. There is a great point there.
Why should we be productive anyway? Why should we explore, learn, evolve?

Currently, we are driven by the conditions. But how is it started? Well, it has started with the first "man". (I do believe in evolution, but i do believe that human is more than just an animal evolved) Then this should be an instict.

This is one of those times that makes you feel God's presence for me. But there is no way to know if this feeling is real, or is it becouse i want it to be. Just like the very existence of God, this cannot be proven or disproven.

 

[Archonsod]

I know many of you don't have children yet. I have two boys, and I can tell you that any parent knows you don't have to teach a kid how to do bad (and I'm not just talking about malum prohibita but malum in se behaviors which are wrong by their very nature). Kids steal, hit, lie, and must be taught to consistantly do good.

I suppose it depends upon the behaviour. A lot of behaviour will be corrected through society as the child is brought up, for example a child who is constantly fighting will soon learn to be less aggressive when placed in an environment where he can be outfought. You could say we are as much moulded by our society as we are part of it.
The tricky part comes when the behaviour is not such a natural thing. If you subscribe to any belief system which includes an ethical code, such as Christianity, then certain standards of behaviour must be taught, since they are not widely enforced by either nature or society.

While this is true, many people use religion (and even try to use Jesus) to further their own agenda. Such people bomb others, go on crusades, torture, and kill in the name of God who they don't know or follow.

While it is probably true that more wars have been fought over religion than anything else, it is also true that for many conflicts religion is more of an 'acceptable excuse' rather than the actual reason. The Jews are possibly the best example - throughout history they have been persecuted 'officially' because of their religion, although in all likelihood it was for economic reasons.

]It is highly unlikely that any one of us could convince a suicide bomber on the spot (with the afterlife on his or her mind) to suddenly cease attempting to murder a group of “sinners.” However, we can prevent the upbringing of more fanatics.

Just to be clear, it seems like you are saying that all religions spawn people who become suicide bombers, killing people who don't believe in God. This simply is not true. Without naming any names (and with due respect to those following this faith), there is one predominate religion that suicide bombers predominately belong to during this time.

Does anyone really believe removing religion will get rid of the problem? Quite often these people will sieze upon any justification for their actions, not just religion - race, nationality, politics. Remove religion and all that will be accomplished would be to change their justification.

They must do so [stop fanaticism] by putting their theology aside in all public affairs to save themselves and the people around them. It is important to note spirituality can be held in private, but it should not overflow as to become a significant danger to the general public.

The problem is that most people with your view claim to believe in the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, such as the freedom of speech, the press, religion, assembly, ect, but want to deny these freedoms to people you disagree with.

Without singling you out personally, I would say this is hippocritical. Most religious organisations will actively promote and attempt to convert others to their cause. Where is my right to be free to believe in what I want, if those who have strong beliefs are allowed to (try to) impose them on others? What about my right to walk down the street without being questioned on my religious views?

Finally, the Bible exhorts Christians to live at peace with those among you, as much as it is possible with you. We aren't to begin conflict, and should try to make peace with others whenever it is possible (though this is not always possible).

That depends entirely on your interpretation of the bible. There are passages which could be taken to encourage or even demand the persecution of non-believers. Christianity isn't alone in this - most (if not all) religious texts have similar passages.

Historically speaking, this is wrong. The Church during the dark age (as corrupt as it was), is one of the primary reasons that reason, logic, and learning did not completely disapear. Islam also greatly contributed to the learning and development of humanity during this time period.

Historically speaking, religion was in part to blame for the loss in the first place. They did help to keep and spread certain knowledge, as long as that knowledge was acceptable to the belief system in question.

Currently, there is much dissent from varying religions concerning a variety of scientific research. However, in many cases, this is ACTUALLY a good thing!

Not necessarily. Objection on the grounds of (sorry about this, but its as basic as I can get) "God says no" is hardly a good reason, especially in a society where not everyone believes in God. Unquestioned research should be avoided (in actuallity, one could say it is impossible to perform while still being scientific), however objection on the grounds of morality only works where those morals are universally held within the society.

First, there is indeed concrete evidence to believe in God. However, the problem is that people want absolute, 100% proof that God exists. The Bible says that "without faith, it is impossible to please God, for those that come to Him must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him." God has revealed Himself and given humanity numerous evidences of His existence, but will always require an element of faith (coupled with evidence) in order to believe.

If faith is required then it is not evidence, let alone concrete. Inspiration perhaps, but not evidence. One can't for example condemn a man as a murderer simply because you believe this to be true.

As to a "hopeful future," future without God is far from hopeful. As has already been established, man is inherently sinful. We are our own worst enemy. Christ had to die on the cross to provide a ransom for our sinful lives, giving all those who believe in Him a hopeful future. Man left to his own devices, separated from the love of God proves to be desperately hopeless.

Hopeless? We had several millenia without God, and managed to build civilisation. Ironically enough, we seem closer to losing it now we have 'discovered' God.
Something else to think about (I'll avoid the direct quote as my memory is a little fuzzy) does God not divide humans by language in the story of the tower of Babel because, as he says, if we are united, then there is nothing we cannot achieve?

Joseph Stalin (who hated God), Adolf Hitler (who used religion to further his own agenda), Pol Pot [SIC], and the entire Chinese government since the Communist revolution provide us with a plethora of examples of what life is like when God is left out of the equation.

Bad examples, with the exception of Stalin. Pol Pot believed in removing the 'foreign' religions from Cambodia. China has never had an official state religion, but only Confucianism was banned (Taoism and Buddhism were both encouraged). Hitler is an example of the opposite - he was a fundamentalist Catholic (as the true Aryan religion) - one reason for the persecution of the Jews he gave was that they crucified Jesus. Similar examples include the Spanish Inquisition, England (several times) Afghanistan etc. Conversely, a number of states have quite happily existed as official atheists (The Netherlands spring to mind) for many years, or at least till their religious neighbours decided to annexe them (often using religion as an excuse). A godless man can do good, but it takes a god to make a good man do evil (can't remember who said that, though it is true).

Man cannot look inside himself for answers, for in ourselves we only find more questions. Questions include:
1) Who am I?
2) What is the meaning of life?
3) What is good and what is evil?

Philosophers regularly answer these questions. They simply have different answers. For my part I would say they were the wrong questions - why we're here is unimportant, its what we're going to do now that we are here we need to worry about.

Again, I disagree. Rather than continue this long letter, I will let Jesus's words respond:

"Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall never pass away."

Amen

I'll end with a quote from Nietszche - " A walk through any mental asylum will quickly show that faith proves nothing"

 

[Rabid Potatoe]

1) Who am I?
2) What is the meaning of life?
3) What is good and what is evil?

1) Nathan Woodward
2) Be Born. Have **** Happen To You. Die.
3. Good: Stuff that benefits people. Bad: Stuff that doesn't.

There you go, I've answered em.

And think about this: All religions belive/d there is/was concrete proof of their dieties. This includes the Ancent Greeks, The Romans, The Muslims, The Christians, The Jews and the Norse. Who is right? If you ask me none of them. It's all manipulative, superstitious bull****.

 

[okiN]

And think about this: All religions belive/d there is/was concrete proof of their dieties. This includes the Ancent Greeks, The Romans, The Muslims, The Christians, The Jews and the Norse. Who is right? If you ask me none of them. It's all manipulative, superstitious bull****.

That's actually not true. The Norsemen totally nailed it.

 

[Janus]

I think, therefore I am. At least I think so... therefore... wait, what?

Just felt like contributing.

 

[Archonsod]

And think about this: All religions belive/d there is/was concrete proof of their dieties. This includes the Ancent Greeks, The Romans, The Muslims, The Christians, The Jews and the Norse. Who is right? If you ask me none of them. It's all manipulative, superstitious bull****.

Some prove harder to kill than others. Linky

 

[Worbah]

Most philosophers come close to the true distinction between good and evil. I'm unsure as to the names of the different "schools" of philosophy, but I'm pretty sure you'll get my point. And it's been a while since I read of these, so there probably are many mistakes here.

The virtue ethics: If a deed is done with good intentions, it is a good deed. If a man falls over, and you help him up out of generosity, you have done a good deed. even if you accidentally break his arm or something.

The consequence ethics: the outcome defines whether a deed is good or not. If you decide to tackle some random guy on the street, and a gun flies out of his jacket (when the police show up they tell you that he was going to kill his wife). You've done a good deed.

The categorive imperative (you know, what Kant was preaching): If you can make a commandment of your actions that anyone can follow, you are allowed to do it. If some guy comes to your door, saying that he wants to kill your friend, and that he stopped by to ask you to direct him to the friend. If you can make a commandment (that can be followed by anyone in any situation) to justify your actions, then do it. In this case, you'd probably want to lie, because it's the easiest way to save your friends life. But you can't make "lie" a commandment, so you have to point him to the direction of your friend.

Hedonism: If it feels good, do it.

Altruism: If it helps others, do it.

Utilitarism: If it helps the community, do it.

There were a few others, I can't remember them ATM though.

 

[Rabid Potatoe]

Some prove harder to kill than others. Linky

Some people need brain transplants...

That's actually not true. The Norsemen totally nailed it.

I never claimed to be an expert, I was just making a point.

 

[Instag0]

The original version of the essay pissed me off, so it has been reformed.

Why are you even looking at this? The important stuff is on the first page!