A Question for Religious People

[C-Nub]

I got this from a book.

Oh, and for the atheists out there, I'm one of you, don't post that there is no God. Just sit on your hands and be good for a while.

Please?

Anyways, here's the question. It might be better suited for the philosophy area, but once again, I'm an internet Jedi, and moderators will leave this thread alone.

Would you rather continue more or less as you are, believing in God and telling people that you know he exists and loves you, or would you rather know for a fact that there's a god, that mankind has been in actual, factual contact with him, but he's a giant worm that lives on mars?

Odd question, I know, but I'm curious. Options again are

A) I believe in God, but I'm kind of not sure even though I sometimes pretend I am.

B) I've seen pictures of God! He's a giant Martian Worm that loves me!



Personally, I have to default to B. I don't believe in God, so if I were to be faced with the choice between having faith and having proof, I opt for the proof. Worms never bothered me though.

[Jester]

Odd question, I know, but I'm curious. Options again are

A) I believe in God, but I'm kind of not sure even though I sometimes pretend I am.

B) I've seen pictures of God! He's a giant Martian Worm that loves me!



Personally, I have to default to B. I don't believe in God, so if I were to be faced with the choice between having faith and having proof, I opt for the proof. Worms never bothered me though.

I suppose that one would depend on what you mean by "worm". So long as it doesn't contradict anything that makes me want to seek God, I don't see how it's a problem. On the other hand, if we're just talking about a giant invertebrate that can't think or understand, I wouldn't call that God.

In any case, I (like anyone) would rather have proof. I've seen how having to struggle through to find answers helped me, but I don't tend to enjoy uncertainty at all.

[Staralfur]

I... don't really understand what you are asking here.

First of all, your question is unanswerable. That is simply because it makes no sense. If God was a giant worm who lived on Mars, then God would be made of matter. And (I think you'll agree) matter cannot make itself. Therefore we are lead to the conclusion that God is not made of matter - therefore he cannot be a giant worm who lives on Mars.

Also, your answers aren't exactly fair now, are they? So, I can't believe with out doubt in God without ever knowing that he is in fact a giant worm who lives on Mars? I have to either be doubtful and have to "pretend" that I'm not (who are you trying to convince?) or I have to find out that he is actually this thing that isn't a God at all.

[Sjoerd]

B) I've seen pictures of God! He's a giant Martian Worm that loves me!

LOL!
That reminds me from that "Campus Crusade for Cthulhu" card from the Munchkin card game, showing a religious guy in a T-Shirt:

Cthulhu loves you!
(yum yum)

So, what you are asking is: would you prefer no evidence of God at all over evidence of God that doesn't fit with your concept of God? Right?
Well, since I don't believe in God because of evidence but because of inner faith, I have no trouble with crediting a Martian Worm with things like the Parting of the Seas or the Seven Plagues, but then I wouldn't call the Martian worm God. So I guess it's A for me.

[cnorman18]

I haven't been particularly active on tbr forum lately, and this sort of thing is why.

The question doesn't quite rise to the level of outright ridicule, but it certainly indicates that the very concept of religion is not being taken seriously here.

I do not deign to answer a question this demeaning and this loaded with assumptions that I find both ignorant and offensive, chief among them the idea that a religious person's conception of God is wholly arbitrary and subject to change at whim or convenience.

I understand that no offense was intended; but I will observe that, whereas I, for one, have considered the question of whether God might not exist and wrestled with it for years, whoever wrote this question has never for a moment come within a light-year of understanding what real, intelligent and grown-up religious belief is actually like.

Like it or not, cling to the shallow analogy or not, real religion is more significant and nuanced and structured than belief in fairy tales or Santa Claus. The unexamined and immovable assumption that it is not is one of the reasons I'm getting tired of this place.

[micatala]

I would also have to agree the phrasing of the choice is rather loaded. However, for purposes of the thread (whether that be entertainment or something else ) I will respond that I am perfectly open to proof or disproof, and also open to altering my conception of God based on further information. I even allow the possibility that 'God' is a human construct, although for a number of reasons I do not believe this is really the case.

[C-Nub]

I haven't been particularly active on tbr forum lately, and this sort of thing is why.

Yes. Having a sense of humor in regards to the potential for the existence of God is CERTAINLY a bad thing.

Look; This isn't offensive. It isn't even something you can pretend is offensive. It's an example, an analogy that tackles, in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek fashion, the idea that people are much more comfortable with their 'idea' (be it deep, meaningful and something they've struggled with or not) of God than with other people's concepts. I could have used G'Neesh or Ra the Sun God or Zeus or whatever else, it would still be the same question. Would you rather believe in your God or KNOW for sure that God is real but something very, very different from what you've imagined.

The question doesn't quite rise to the level of outright ridicule, but it certainly indicates that the very concept of religion is not being taken seriously here.

And what is it about religion that requires that I, or anyone else, always treat it seriously? I have, and will continue, to treat you with respect as an individual, Mr. Norman, and this isn't in any way a deviation from that. But I am not addressing any individual faith here, and am not of the opinion or belief that I need to handle vague religious concepts as if they are fragile or sacred.

I do not deign to answer a question this demeaning and this loaded with assumptions that I find both ignorant and offensive, chief among them the idea that a religious person's conception of God is wholly arbitrary and subject to change at whim or convenience.

And yet here you are, somehow blaming the question for the fact that you read it and don't like it. As for concepts of God, they are wholly arbitrary, and have been all through history. Thousands of Gods have fallen by the wayside as mankind has determined that newer gods rendered them obsolete. Every person who believes in God, without meaning to be even more offensive and ignorant, has their own entirely made up and completely unsupported or substantiated version of him. Even Christians have different Gods, some who support abortion and some who support killing people who perform abortions. How is it anything OTHER than purely arbitrary?

I understand that no offense was intended; but I will observe that, whereas I, for one, have considered the question of whether God might not exist and wrestled with it for years, whoever wrote this question has never for a moment come within a light-year of understanding what real, intelligent and grown-up religious belief is actually like.

Honestly, I am offended now. I don't see you or anyone else as having any business lecturing me or anyone else for our interpretation of God, in this case as 'false' and addressing it accordingly. If you want me to approach the whole concept with respect, then you have to respect just as equally that I don't believe in God, and as such, will approach and address the subject accordingly.

Like it or not, cling to the shallow analogy or not, real religion is more significant and nuanced and structured than belief in fairy tales or Santa Claus. The unexamined and immovable assumption that it is not is one of the reasons I'm getting tired of this place.

You can see it like that. You can also see it as a highly ritualized series of fairy tales, all of which are rejected by different, opposing religions and viewed in different parts of the world as invalidated and foolish depending on whom you ask. Jews are something of an exception in this regard, but honestly their lack of religious animosity really isn't offsetting the general world tone.


You know what, Dude, if you're that tired of this place, that upset with the fact that some of us don't and simply won't treat religion with the kid gloves because people some how think it deserves and is due some form of reverence, then bail. I like you, I enjoy your posts and contributions, but I don't think I or anyone else is going to change what I consider to be a pretty reasonably respectful approach because it doesn't have the level of awe and appreciation for faith and the difficulties those who attempt to have it suffer. I had a crisis of faith too, and when I was done, I was faithless and better off for it.


Let me make it abundantly clear; I think religion, personal faith, a relationship with God, contemplation of Jesus, or any sense of spiritualism at all is a bad thing, bad for individuals, bad for society, bad for the human race and its future prospects. Out of respect for the rules of this forum, I generally do not address these believes as bluntly as this, but don't expect me to feign or pretend any sort of reverence or appreciation for the God-Concept, it would be dishonest of me. In the future, you can save your chastisements and address your complaints either to the mods, me personally, or, and this isn't the first time I've suggested it, don't read the stuff that offends you. Participate in the conversations that appeal to you and ignore the rest, the fact that I'm talking about this or thinking about this makes absolutely no difference to you or your life, and I certainly don't need the scorn.

[cnorman18]

I haven't been particularly active on tbr forum lately, and this sort of thing is why.

Yes. Having a sense of humor in regards to the potential for the existence of God is CERTAINLY a bad thing.

Don't be silly. No group is more famous for laughing at themselves, and at God, than Jews. My former signature was proof enough of that:

"Now let me get this straight; the Arabs get all the oil, and we have to cut off our what?" (attributed to Moses)

Look; This isn't offensive. It isn't even something you can pretend is offensive. It's an example, an analogy that tackles, in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek fashion, the idea that people are much more comfortable with their 'idea' (be it deep, meaningful and something they've struggled with or not) of God than with other people's concepts. I could have used G'Neesh or Ra the Sun God or Zeus or whatever else, it would still be the same question. Would you rather believe in your God or KNOW for sure that God is real but something very, very different from what you've imagined.

If you'd phrased it in that manner, I would not have had a problem with it. It seems to me that if you had wanted the question taken seriously, you'd have done just that.

The question doesn't quite rise to the level of outright ridicule, but it certainly indicates that the very concept of religion is not being taken seriously here.

And what is it about religion that requires that I, or anyone else, always treat it seriously?

Nothing. But the question pretends to and doesn't.

I have, and will continue, to treat you with respect as an individual, Mr. Norman, and this isn't in any way a deviation from that. But I am not addressing any individual faith here, and am not of the opinion or belief that I need to handle vague religious concepts as if they are fragile or sacred.

I said nothing to indicate that you should. I am merely saying that it's evident that your conception of religion is a shallow one, and you are continuing to demonstrate that here.
Is there some reason why I must regard your own attitude as sacred or fragile? Baiting is baiting, and I have a right to call you on it. If you don't like it, you can bail yourself.

I do not deign to answer a question this demeaning and this loaded with assumptions that I find both ignorant and offensive, chief among them the idea that a religious person's conception of God is wholly arbitrary and subject to change at whim or convenience.

And yet here you are, somehow blaming the question for the fact that you read it and don't like it.

What should I blame?

As for concepts of God, they are wholly arbitrary, and have been all through history. Thousands of Gods have fallen by the wayside as mankind has determined that newer gods rendered them obsolete.

That is precisely the shallow stereotype to which I refer. It is, in fact, a logical fallacy; the fact that some, even most, examples of a given class of thing share a single characteristic does not mean that they all do.

Every person who believes in God, without meaning to be even more offensive and ignorant, has their own entirely made up and completely unsupported or substantiated version of him.

Will you agree that that is itself a matter of unsupported opinion and not of fact? Or are you a "fundamentalist atheist"?

Same logical fallacy as that noted above.

Even Christians have different Gods, some who support abortion and some who support killing people who perform abortions. How is it anything OTHER than purely arbitrary?

Assuming that God supports moral behavior is not arbitrary. Deciding what specific morality He supports usually depends on what one's own is. That's not arbitrary either, though it may of course be mistaken.

I understand that no offense was intended; but I will observe that, whereas I, for one, have considered the question of whether God might not exist and wrestled with it for years, whoever wrote this question has never for a moment come within a light-year of understanding what real, intelligent and grown-up religious belief is actually like.

Honestly, I am offended now. I don't see you or anyone else as having any business lecturing me or anyone else for our interpretation of God, in this case as 'false' and addressing it accordingly.

I'm not. You may interpret God as you choose. My argument is against your assumptions about the interpretations of others as being "false"--in short, precisely what you are accusing me of doing here--and on the quite reasonable ground that you clearly know very little about actual religions other than some superficial observations that mostly apply to Christian fundamentalism.

If you want me to approach the whole concept with respect, then you have to respect just as equally that I don't believe in God, and as such, will approach and address the subject accordingly.

I am on the record many, many times as respecting atheism as a valid and eminently defensible intellectual position and a rational choice; and, in fact, that I find it more responsible and admirable than mindless, unreflective lockstep religious belief of any variety.

I am not really talking about respect here; I am talking about silly stereotype vs. reality. I will happily concede that many, maybe even most, religions fit the stereotypes pretty completely; but not all do, and not even all versions of Christianity. The assumption that they do is more a matter of prejudice or ignorance than of disrespect.

Like it or not, cling to the shallow analogy or not, real religion is more significant and nuanced and structured than belief in fairy tales or Santa Claus. The unexamined and immovable assumption that it is not is one of the reasons I'm getting tired of this place.

You can see it like that. You can also see it as a highly ritualized series of fairy tales, all of which are rejected by different, opposing religions and viewed in different parts of the world as invalidated and foolish depending on whom you ask. Jews are something of an exception in this regard, but honestly their lack of religious animosity really isn't offsetting the general world tone.

Not our job. The rest of you guys are on your own. (That, to spell C-A-T, is a joke.)

In any case, one (1) valid counterexample disproves the premise, does it not?

You know what, Dude, if you're that tired of this place, that upset with the fact that some of us don't and simply won't treat religion with the kid gloves because people some how think it deserves and is due some form of reverence, then bail.

As if that were what I am saying here?

I have been plenty irreverent and even disrespectful of many varieties of religion myself, most notably doctrinaire Christian fundamentalism and radical fundamentalist Islam; I have even characterized some Orthodox Jewish sects as "Jewish fundamentalists."

So that must not be what I'm talking about. Therefore, the rest of what you say here is entirely beside the point.

To be a bit blunt myself; you weren't paying attention.

I like you, I enjoy your posts and contributions, but I don't think I or anyone else is going to change what I consider to be a pretty reasonably respectful approach because it doesn't have the level of awe and appreciation for faith and the difficulties those who attempt to have it suffer. I had a crisis of faith too, and when I was done, I was faithless and better off for it.

What did I say that indicated that any of this was my concern?

I'll try to make myself clear below.

Let me make it abundantly clear; I think religion, personal faith, a relationship with God, contemplation of Jesus, or any sense of spiritualism at all is a bad thing, bad for individuals, bad for society, bad for the human race and its future prospects.

A position that I do not hold, but that I think is self-consistent and rational (Unlike some--I do not say you--I do not regard any position I disagree with as ipso facto irrational).

That has nothing whatever to do with my objections.

Out of respect for the rules of this forum, I generally do not address these believes as bluntly as this, but don't expect me.to feign or pretend any sort of reverence or appreciation for the God-Concept, it would be dishonest of me.

Beside the point, as I said.

In the future, you can save your chastisements and address your complaints either to the mods, me personally, or, and this isn't the first time I've suggested it, don't read the stuff that offends you. Participate in the conversations that appeal to you and ignore the rest, the fact that I'm talking about this or thinking about this makes absolutely no difference to you or your life, and I certainly don't need the scorn.

What scorn? You have expressed more scorn for the religious point of view here, by a factor of ten, than I have for any point of view at all.

Is it the case, then, that you feel free to express your disdain for the points of view of others, but bristle when anyone has a problem with your own?

My objection is this, and it is not only to this one post, and not only to your posts, and I have said it many more times than a dozen: All religions are not analogous to fundamentalism, e.g., simplistic, supernaturalistic, simple-minded, doctrinaire, moralistic, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, dismissive of rationality and logic, repressive of critical thought, conformist, emotionally based, etc., etc., etc.

Assuming that they are is, simply put, wrong.

How many people, including yourself, are familiar with the work of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, et. al., but have never heard of Rudolf Bultmann, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Mordecai Kaplan, Arthur Green, or Michael Lerner, to name three dead Christians and three living Jews?

I don't find the blanket condemnation of things about which one knows nothing to be disrespectful, exactly. If you don't like "Ignorant" you can pick your own adjective, but in any case, you're not the only one who gets to express opinions about other people's attitudes.

As the guy in the middle around here. I observe many things that both sides have in common; and one of them is a tendency to make assumptions about complaints. Christians tend to dismiss complaints as being based on spiritual blindness or sin; atheists tend to dismiss complaints as whining about not being properly deferential to religion. The former is invariably BS. The latter sometimes is. It is this time.

I don't say that anyone has to be deferential or even respectful of religion. I do think it would be nice if people, when criticizing religion, either (1) specify that they are speaking of fundamentalism, or (2) have some idea of what they are talking about.

Anyone who is not familiar with the work of the six men I named above--and that of many others--has neither the moral nor the intellectual right to condemn all religion in the terms I mentioned above. Period, full stop.

[JoeyKnothead]

I think the OP does present a bit of disrespect. It points to a complete lack of understanding of how some hold their faith. If option B were included with others that actually represented what many to believe their God to be, then it could be funny, comic relief, get its point across, and I don't think there'd be too much issue with it.

If atheists continue to present this type of argument, I'm afraid we could be seen as just as bad as those who call us fools for our disbelief.

[Sjoerd]

If option B were included with others that actually represented what many to believe their God to be, then it could be funny, comic relief, get its point across, and I don't think there'd be too much issue with it.

I see this OP as comic relief and nothing else. Perhaps we in the Netherlands are too much in favor of that, our theology teacher (the reverend of the closest church and a devout and mild and wise man) used to show Life of Brian in classroom so that we could all have a good laugh at religion.
If I have offended anyone with my frivolous post, I apologize. Cnorman in particular I would regret to see going, he has more wisdom than ten other debaters, including myself.