As I've said - most belief systems are corruptible. Religions are not unique in this.About as much as other belief systems.As Duh mentioned earlier: atheism was something the Soviet Union apparently followed and they have one of the largest famines and one of the largest systematic killings of all time to their name. It isn't exactly fair to associate the actions of people following a belief system to the belief system when such actions run counter to the principles of the belief system.And poor scientists can do the same with observations, though they are generally easier to prove wrong. A good example would be the set of studies which supposedly showed an increased incidence of autism in people that went under vaccination. Or the studies which frame the correlation of crime and ethnicity (generally due to disadvantage) as an actual causal relationship. Or the huge swathe of other things in the same vein which, in modern times, generally do much more harm than any self-interested interpretation of a holy text does.It's a good thing we have authenticated original texts for basically all of the bible. Translation is always an issue though.There is none. The problem is that you say that belief is the problem with religion and what makes not following it a scientific choice.One of the principles of Christianity is that you have a greater responsibility in terms of doing right than non-Christians, and that you are never, ever going to be able to fill that responsibility, meaning you have to shift that burden onto Jesus instead. Essentially, the principle is that you are basically flawed person, not that you're a good person.Firstly, these are generalisations as well as exaggerations used to make the point of view appear ridiculous. These are both generally considered fairly hurtful.
Secondly, you have the religious people making the same sounds as a stereotypical person with a learning disability, which I would consider to be in fairly bad taste.Just by the by, the traditional idea of hell is non-biblical.Well yes, the arbitrary set of electrical impulses that form your conscience cease to work their way about your brain. The best analogue that you'd be able to see is having something running on your computer before pulling the plug out and trying to empathise with what was running.I feel like high-fiving you.Having to go to church every week isn't biblical either.Well if you view it as following on, then I'd probably say that religion isn't really something you should be entering into. If you don't believe in your religion on faith, then don't believe in your religion. If you don't believe in the reason you're following a set of principles, then evaluate the principles based on your experience rather than what you're told and decide on your own set of principles.

And your comments sum up why I get annoyed at 'traditional' evangelical practices.
Unless the person comes to believe in the religion out of faith, it should probably be considered a failure. Faith isn't something you can cause by convincing someone with argument or fear or peer pressure, and using those just makes the rest of your religion look bad, most of the time. It especially annoys me when people try to scientifically prove their religion.

I never said that belief is the problem with religion. My problem, instead, is the affect it has on far too many people. Neither did I say that not following it was a scientific choice. I said it was a logical choice (god has not shown himself for 2000 years, therefore he does not exist). I understand the points that have been made against this, and agree with most of them.



You have a point. Yet belief systems have an influence on many people. When A person utilizes these people to committ actions that run counter to the principles of the belief system, the person is undoubtedly to blame for instigating the problem. But the belief system still gave that person the opportunity to do so. Therein lies my dislike of major religions. Was not atheism in the soviet union another tool the government used to subjugate the people?

I would appreciate it if you explained these authenticated original texts to me. I know i'm a clueless lazy derpface, but I am trying to become more informed, and that bit on the bible is of interest to me.

O, also, If you hadn't noticed, I am a rasta. Not just because I believe in Jah but because of the bit about one love. Acceptance of all others. That kind of stuff. I still feel pretty much the same as you people, but this religion is completely in line with my personal philosophy. I am "pseudo" religious, but as I have watched the world go by, with this philosophy in mind, I see more and more connections.

On death: If there is no heaven, then I believe that our body eventually turns into energy, because life recycles everything. I wonder if energy feels?

Going by logical extension, any belief system a person corrupts to their own purpose is somehow at fault? I find that rather stupid.
That's the same as: B took advantage of A, thus A is at fault for letting B take advantage of it.

EDIT: Also, this argument here,is not logical. A does not follow B. I have not seen an apple in ten minutes, thus apples do not exist. Non Sequitur fallacy.

As far as archaeology goes, texts are really, really important and, as far as I remember, archaeologists have found basically all of the bible's texts from close enough to the original point of writing to be considered reliable.I don't know terribly much about rastafarianism, so I'd be interested in some description about this.Fair enough.
Duh has covered anything else I would comment on.

Just curiosity here, what does proving the bible hasn't been changed over the millenniums mean?

Not terribly much.
Though it lets a bunch of people insist that what is clearly medical advice for the times before antibiotics and surgery is a set of rigid moral boundaries.
I guess you could say it means the church hasn't altered it to their liking, but they don't have to when people take what they say as biblical without actually checking the bible.

Well Rastafari is the belief in Jah (supposedly taken from some part of the bible where god is named Jehovah). The christian bible is it's holy text, but Rasta's believe that the bible has been corrupted towards white purposes throughout the ages - thats why I was wondering about authentication. It was started in the 1930s, in Jamaica, and is pretty much a religion for "black power" (whatever that means). If you ignore the zeal some members hold, rastafari is very nice.

It's core values emphasize the pursuit of wisdom, and the need for constant self review to make yourself a better person. An important term is I-an-I, which (in my understanding) means that jah is a part of all of us and loves us all equally - this means that every person is your brother/sister. Also are zion (heaven) and babylon, which is sort of like hell, except it means the modern world which we all live in. The modern world is wrong because we can only truly understand Jah by being a part of all of his creation - nature. There are no traditions you must follow. Basically, rastafari is a religion of universal love.

A stereotypical rasta is a person with the red, green, and yellow strips on his clothing, with dreadlocks, and smoking a joint. Marijuana is smoked to give you creativity, assist in meditation, or just for the general peace it brings. Bob Marley was possibly the most famous rasta. I recommend his music.

It is slightly difficult to find a reliable guide of it's principles, so here is a link which includes many of the core principles: http://www.rastaspeaks.com/Rasta/home.html

The problem, of course, is that most other religions share the same type of core beliefs. The only defence I have is that in rastafari there is no core ideology (2 years and I STILL haven't found a rasta bible), no priesthood, no central control. You can interpret it how you may, but you stay true to the idea of universal love.

Fair enough. I'd say its methods of organisation (or rather, lack of it) are quite a bit superior. Christian churches, biblically, are meant to basically be communes, with all of the property centralised and used to help the disadvantaged in nearby areas. Of course, if you tried that nowadays you'd get the exact same problems as trying to convert a nation to communism.

In theory, Christianity, communism, they equalize things. Except some charismatic or strong person decides to take the power to his head and starts oppressing people.

I now know the answer.



My point can be rephrased in an analogy. You take an axe and stick it in your neighbors head, killing him. You are responsible for the death of your neighbor. But If there was no axe, it would have been much more difficult to open a large gap in your neighbors head. Then again, you could just strangle him, or drop a rock on his head, or something....

2000 years is a long time to wait to eat an apple.

Mmm, yeah, it facilitates it.
I'm thinking if this thread stagnates for more than a few days we ought to bring in another subject by poll or some such.

So you then see the fault in your own argument? The tool does not make the action. If the human was not there to perform the action, it wouldn't matter if it was an axe or a golden staff in the shape of King Tut. The tool is morally neutral. This is the same with a belief system. Just because a man twists a morally good belief system into something bad, does not make the belief system bad. Merely used as a tool in that man's machinations.That is still not logical. To be logical, an argument must have a clear and logically sound progression. It does not logically follow that something does not exist because you have not sensed it. I have never seen a Dodo bird, nor has anyone I know, but that does not give me any grounds to believe it has never existed.

I suppose you are right Duh, about both things. Damn your logical logic.

The tool/belief system is morally neutral. I have already stated my points (that the belief system gave the person the opportunity).

As for the apple: why should I believe in god when he persists in not showing himself, even though he supposedly has the power to part seas?

Allstone: that is what shall be done. Posts that suggest a topic are welcome.

You can still believe those points if you like, but you can't call your belief logical. That's all I'm arguing.

Think of it this way: there's more proof of the existance of aliens than proof that there's a god.