Atheists....

[Wintermute]

You also run into the even more 'thorny' question, in my opinion, of what was it doing for infinity? The current estimate for the age of the universe is around 13 billion years as I recall. That's not even a drop in an ocean compared to infinity. Was it just 'sitting' there in a void for infinity, then about 13 billion years ago had the idea to create a universe? It seems like the previous infinity would have been terribly boring.

[metal134]

You also run into the even more 'thorny' question, in my opinion, of what was it doing for infinity? The current estimate for the age of the universe is around 13 billion years as I recall. That's not even a drop in an ocean compared to infinity. Was it just 'sitting' there in a void for infinity, then about 13 billion years ago had the idea to create a universe? It seems like the previous infinity would have been terribly boring.
One theory I've heard about what the Universe wa doing previously was that it's cyclical. By that I mean, the Universe will continue to expand until it collapses on itself into a singular point. After a time, a Big Bang and the process begins anew. However, that still doesn;t answer the question of infinity. God or no God, the whole concept is baffling. You think, there must have been a starting point, but if there was a starting point, what was before the staring point? This, in my opinion applies to both God and the Universe and neither atheists nor the pious have the market on this quandry cornered.

[Stanislaw]

You also run into the even more 'thorny' question, in my opinion, of what was it doing for infinity? The current estimate for the age of the universe is around 13 billion years as I recall. That's not even a drop in an ocean compared to infinity. Was it just 'sitting' there in a void for infinity, then about 13 billion years ago had the idea to create a universe? It seems like the previous infinity would have been terribly boring.

Well Infinity cannot be measured, so once something has ended, it can only be infint untill a definite start point has been determined.


One theory I've heard about what the Universe wa doing previously was that it's cyclical. By that I mean, the Universe will continue to expand until it collapses on itself into a singular point. After a time, a Big Bang and the process begins anew. However, that still doesn;t answer the question of infinity. God or no God, the whole concept is baffling. You think, there must have been a starting point, but if there was a starting point, what was before the staring point? This, in my opinion applies to both God and the Universe and neither atheists nor the pious have the market on this quandry cornered.

kind of budhist for the circular. Have you checked it out.

[Redzeppelin]

Then, of course, you run into the question of, "If something can be infinite and therefore requires no beginning, what's wrong with making the universe infinite?"

Rather thorny, no?

I suppose my (ridiculously simple) answer to this would be that the universe contains matter, and matter (at least in our experience) does not have infinite existence. I mean, the universe is a combination of matter and energy, and we know that both of those decay/entropy as time passes, right?

[Orionsbelt]

I can't resist.

Ok Matter and energy are inter-changable, yes? E=mC2. Time according to Einstein is also variable... dependent on proximity to C.. I can't remember exactly where Berkley came out on this, perception of time.... anyway.. I think .. and have always thought that you are arguing about two different things. Assuming that God is in fact not SUPERnatural but is in fact all that is natural (I am in he and he is in me) then you are in fact arguing about the mechanics of the problem..... does the car work this way or that way etc. To the extent that whatever you would refer to as the initiating or sustaining force is still inherent within the system. (cold and un-poetic scientific reference) If God is SUPERnatural and therefore outside the system then the natural world as we know it is then a system within a system and the complexity of that notion is well.... difficult. So far there is no F(x) in that domain. You choose and be happy! P.S. you will not find this in Genesis. You may however find it in Psalms. P.S.S. if you understood this would you please explain it to me!

[Redzeppelin]

I can't resist.

Ok Matter and energy are inter-changable, yes? E=mC2. Time according to Einstein is also variable... dependent on proximity to C.. I can't remember exactly where Berkley came out on this, perception of time.... anyway.. I think .. and have always thought that you are arguing about two different things. Assuming that God is in fact not SUPERnatural but is in fact all that is natural (I am in he and he is in me) then you are in fact arguing about the mechanics of the problem..... does the car work this way or that way etc. To the extent that whatever you would refer to as the initiating or sustaining force is still inherent within the system. (cold and un-poetic scientific reference) If God is SUPERnatural and therefore outside the system then the natural world as we know it is then a system within a system and the complexity of that notion is well.... difficult. So far there is no F(x) in that domain. You choose and be happy! P.S. you will not find this in Genesis. You may however find it in Psalms. P.S.S. if you understood this would you please explain it to me!


Holy cow - I don't think I could even begin to try.

I think the Bible contradicts pantheism (God is everything). I do agree though that nature is a system-within-a-system - and that miracles are the invasion of our system from the "outside" by God.

[Stanislaw]

Holy cow - I don't think I could even begin to try.

I think the Bible contradicts pantheism (God is everything). I do agree though that nature is a system-within-a-system - and that miracles are the invasion of our system from the "outside" by God.

The one issue with that is that God is not supposed to be distant but omnipresent, yet not pantheistic...its a bit of a contradiction, but that is my understanding.

[Redzeppelin]

The one issue with that is that God is not supposed to be distant but omnipresent, yet not pantheistic...its a bit of a contradiction, but that is my understanding.

Right. But I think "present everywhere" can be discriminated from "present in everything." Creation is flawed; it decays, it dies, it is damaged and imperfect. God is none of these things.

[Tenacious]

Athiests dislike me, we don't get along, they run from our conversations about religion, politics and philosophy and not only because i may be "Tenacious" or an avid christain. When they hear anything remotely close to the truth they shut their eyes and crawl under their bed. They hate anything that deals with creationism but tend to believe science is the answer for all the troubles in the world despite people that believe in science calling people with faith stupid while they blindly fill in science where they can't find the truth. Take the big bang theory for instance, a person can blow up a building an infinate amount of times but its never going to create something, there is too much order in things for there not to be a creator.

For my own peace of mind ive decided to accept Yeshuah and Christianity because ive researched it and found it to be the truth and ive since learned that hot topics like the meaning of hell and denomination debates have their purpose... anyone on here know what the word hell translates to in the hebrew language? It literaly means "seperation from god", that's right, hell isn't the burning lake of fire with countless souls being tortured for eternity, it's a boundary between someone and god, this someone was judged to be w/o faith and repentence.

I know all the questions disbelievers have; Why doesnt god just appear and all evil would end? What makes other religions wrong and christianity correct? How and at which point does ones soul become infused with the body? Why do things i do feel good to me but the bible says there wrong? People like murderers and criminals seem to have their conscience burned away and are unable to distinguish between right and wrong, how can they be held accountable for their crimes? How can a loving god create something like hell? I know there are valid answers to these questions but the simple answer is people need to trust in the character of god and come to realize he knows whats good for us and what isnt, i highly doubt god will judge people unjustly and if people dont truly see his message in the bible those people will be judged by their acts in life.

Athiesm is just a method of contradiction to disprove something that people think is used as a crutch to deal with the worlds and ones own problems. In todays world so many people truly waste their minds because they dont think, they just blindly go along with what the world tells them, they look at politics and religion and say "well i cant do anything about world events and religion so why bother thinking about it?" and they decieve themselves by thinking this, the majority of people that think this way are people living in poverty, they dont vote and they seem not to care so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is a cycle that needs to be broken otherwise society as it is now will not work. I know this sounds like communism and equality, and i know what the nay sayers say, that communism is a good idea but just doesnt work based on their theory that people by default are not equal.

what a mess, i can see why people turn to satanism in a world where hypocrisy is made paramount and paranoia the law, the next 50 years will be interesting, i think it'll be a show down, with the truth or contradiction of religion the prize.

[Matrim Cuathon]

Read a book called:

God
The Failed Hypothesis

it destorys every single on of your arguements. of course every signle person who believes in science cant explain away all your arguements. every single person who believes in science doesnt understand particle physics, or any other kind of physics. they dont have the knowledge to attack your points. but read the book i named to you.

[Scheherazade]

Please remember that the topic of this thread is atheism.

In accordance with the Forum Rules, any off topic posts or posts undermining others' beliefs (however much you disagree with them) will be deleted with or without any further notice.

[JGL57]

Now, I'm NOT an atheist, but I've always wondered what exactly an atheist thinks or believes (now there's a contradiction if you've ever seen one!...athesist and believe might as well see if you have a believer who disbelieves...)

Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist?

I don't know if this is going to a popular thread or not, but I'll give it a try...)

Certainly you can get some good information concerning your questions from atheists who would post here in reply.

However, here's a suggestion IF you really want to get into the head of the average atheist: Read Richard Dawkins's book "The God Delusion".

After reading that book, I would suggest you would have no serious questions left concerning what atheism is or isn't, or what atheists "believe" or don't.

(Please note: I'm not saying Dawkins can speak with certainly for all atheists - what Christian can speak for all Christians? - but I stand by the sentence above - if you read his book, you should have no more serious questions left.)

[Matrim Cuathon]

read:

God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor J. Stenger too. it gives some good refutations of god and religious arguements as to god's existence.

[Chava]

I realised some time ago, why I've always dislicked philosophy. I'm a pragmatic, and don't find the longwinded and inconclusive statements of philosophy worthwhile. In the same pragmatic way i feel about religion. It's great that christianity preaches love and peace, and it's great that the qu'ran argued for female emancipation. that's all very good, but i don't feel that these good features require a religion. Being an athiest i still believe in love and peace and so forth, but i don't belive there should be a punishment on the other side of it, or for not believing in God.
So, from a pragmatist point of view it seems that religion has grown redundant in modern society.

[Redzeppelin]

Certainly you can get some good information concerning your questions from atheists who would post here in reply.

However, here's a suggestion IF you really want to get into the head of the average atheist: Read Richard Dawkins's book "The God Delusion".

After reading that book, I would suggest you would have no serious questions left concerning what atheism is or isn't, or what atheists "believe" or don't.

(Please note: I'm not saying Dawkins can speak with certainly for all atheists - what Christian can speak for all Christians? - but I stand by the sentence above - if you read his book, you should have no more serious questions left.)

I thought this was interesting:http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/17.24.html

[JGL57]

I realised some time ago, why I've always dislicked philosophy. I'm a pragmatic, and don't find the longwinded and inconclusive statements of philosophy worthwhile. In the same pragmatic way i feel about religion. It's great that christianity preaches love and peace, and it's great that the qu'ran argued for female emancipation. that's all very good, but i don't feel that these good features require a religion. Being an athiest i still believe in love and peace and so forth, but i don't belive there should be a punishment on the other side of it, or for not believing in God.
So, from a pragmatist point of view it seems that religion has grown redundant in modern society.

Exactly - one must be pragmatic and go with the theories, explanations and ideas that seem to best fit the evidence - accepting that all is subjective but that, nevertheless, that all ideas are not thereby equal. Indeed, the philosophical splitting of hairs can go on endlessly and serves no real purpose - claims without evidence about imaginary things are imaginary, failing new and exciting proof. Otherwise, get on with a rational life.

From a pragmatist viewpoint religion is indeed redundant in today's world. Too bad, though, there aren't more pragmatists - and fewer "believers".

[Redzeppelin]

From a pragmatist viewpoint religion is indeed redundant in today's world.

As redundant as feet to someone who never intends to get out of bed.


Too bad, though, there aren't more pragmatists - and fewer "believers".

You'd think - since it's apparently so obvious how pathetic religion is -that we'd have abandoned it by now, wouldn't you? And yet - maddeningly - here we are, asking our annoying little questions. Perhaps we'll eventually "evolve" into pragmatists - right? You know: adapt from a lower to a higher life form - do I have that right?

[ennison]

Pragmatists? Ah yes 'Eats first morals later'

[JGL57]

Pragmatists? Ah yes 'Eats first morals later'

Well, you have to be alive in order to eat, obey the ten commandments or do anything else.

And you have to eat first in order to stay alive, along with getting enough water, sleep, protection from the elements, etc. - then you have time to figure out that only three of the ten commandments are of any serious import, all three of which have been stated before equally well by other religious traditions.

Yeah - that's pragmatism for you.

[Redzeppelin]

then you have time to figure out that only three of the ten commandments are of any serious import

Debatable.


all three of which have been stated before equally well by other religious traditions.

Which means that other religions also contain "truths" well worth considering.

[anydazecoo]

Ateists are kind of rebellious in a way

[anydazecoo]

im sort of in the middle i dont really believe in anything i like to go with the flow and thats for after death also whatever happens will be only the dead knows and we never will, but i definently think evolution is bull besides most of science is based on theory

[RobinHood3000]

Eh? What's wrong with being based on theory? What else would science be based on? Pudding?

[anydazecoo]

Eh? What's wrong with being based on theory? What else would science be based on? Pudding?

wtf do u believe in evolution? lol

[kilted exile]

wtf do u believe in evolution? lol

Seeing as it fits the topic of the thread, I'll tell you what this atheist believes in:

1) Doing your best not to be a complete and utter prat
2) Common courtesy
3) Using a reasonable amount of respect
4) Not trying to pick arguments (especially on an internet literature forum)
5) Attempting to make an intelligent point once in a while
6) Not eating my vegetables

[JGL57]

Seeing as it fits the topic of the thread, I'll tell you what this atheist believes in:

1) Doing your best not to be a complete and utter prat
2) Common courtesy
3) Using a reasonable amount of respect
4) Not trying to pick arguments (especially on an internet literature forum)
5) Attempting to make an intelligent point once in a while
6) Not eating my vegetables

I like vegetables so I would replace your #6 with "Use proper grammar and spelling." ;)

[dramasnot6]

Seeing as it fits the topic of the thread, I'll tell you what this atheist believes in:

1) Doing your best not to be a complete and utter prat
2) Common courtesy
3) Using a reasonable amount of respect
4) Not trying to pick arguments (especially on an internet literature forum)
5) Attempting to make an intelligent point once in a while
6) Not eating my vegetables

Ill have to second all of those but 6(i like my veggies :D) and sometimes 4...i lose my self control sometimes and get a bit pedantic :p

I believe in freedom of belief. Enough said?

[Matrim Cuathon]

I thought this was interesting:http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/17.24.html

ive gotten bored with the religion debate. its a waste of time. evnetually religion will fall and we arent speeding it up by arguing about it. give it time. thats what got us from the church threatening to torture Galileo to today.

its actually interesting that if you look at the whole picture, atheists have the higher moral ground.

[Chava]

When I said that I found religion redundant I didn't mean it to be used offensively. I don't mind people having religion, so long as they don't preach it to others, it's the same for atheists.

I think that the core values of christianity are fine, but I don't think you have to be religious to follow them. and contrary to JGL57 I have no nedd to disprove the existance of religion to others. It's enough for me that I don't believe it.
do you see?

[Redzeppelin]

ive gotten bored with the religion debate. its a waste of time. evnetually religion will fall and we arent speeding it up by arguing about it. give it time.

Maybe. Maybe not. Since some form of religion has existed throughout the recorded history of humanity, your prediction (prophecy?) is pretty bold. Perhaps religion does not persist because people are deluded, but because they realize the emptiness that a materialistic/naturalistic life ultimately contains.



its actually interesting that if you look at the whole picture, atheists have the higher moral ground.

I would love to have you explain this statement - since many atheists would have a fit if a Christian claimed the same thing. Care to explain how this statement is true? What exactly is this "whole picture" that reveals this "truth"?

[JGL57]

I’ve gotten bored with the religion debate. its a waste of time. Eventually religion will fall and we aren’t speeding it up by arguing about it. Give it time. That’s what got us from the church threatening to torture Galileo to today.

its actually interesting that if you look at the whole picture, atheists have the higher moral ground.

I agree with you that religious debates tend toward the boring. But progress is made and I think the debates here and on other forums do serve some good purposes. I have debated religion and social issues on line now for about 6 years now and I do see some dogmatic types, both religious and atheists, move toward a more agnostic viewpoint (I consider myself an agnostic atheist).

I think that, despite what you see in the media regarding absolutist/literalist types of religion, e.g., the unholy alliance between the Republican party and super nationalistic fanatical dogmatic (mainly) protestant "christians", I suspect in the fullness of time religion here in the west will move away from the more virulent types to more modern thinking types - more deistic and pantheistic, less theistic, and more toward a religion of love, empathy, mysticism, etc. and away from a religion of fear, hate, selfishness and radical ethnocentric sectarianism. It will take a few more decades to really see this trend. If I'm wrong, then I guess Planet of the Apes will eventually prove to be a documentary. :D

As to atheists having the "higher moral ground" I would say each individual atheist has the best chance at a rational moral perspective, if he or she puts in the effort to study the subject. Certainly, atheists who are, e.g., Marxists or Randians have missed the boat. ;)


...contrary to JGL57 I have no need to disprove the existence of religion to others. It's enough for me that I don't believe it…

I don’t even know what this means, if anything. Religion exists - I don’t think I could prove otherwise, nor have I ever tried, nor would I ever try – may as well try to prove that crab grass doesn’t exist.

[ennison]

'that only three of the ten commandments are of any serious import'
ISD That's two too many. Let's scoff is the only one important as you said.
Reminds me. I'm hungry and a hungry man's a ......

[JGL57]

'that only three of the ten commandments are of any serious import'
ISD That's two too many. Let's scoff is the only one important as you said.
Reminds me. I'm hungry and a hungry man's a ......

I was referring to killing, stealing, and bearing false witness - prohibition of all which, in some form, seems to be a necessary part of societal laws, all the way back to Hammurabi's famous code. Christianity offered nothing startling new or needed re morality.

The other commandments, so-called, are either silly, or just good rule-of-thumb suggestions at best. I mean, not coveting your neighbor's "donkey" - do you, e.g., really need celestial guidance in that particular area?

And you are hungry. And why should anyone care?

[ennison]

I BEG YOUR PARDON ..... My Donkey is highly covetable!! I would be offended if it was not.
But of course my definition of silly wont match yours but I often covet the ability of the truly absurd to be very silly

[quasimodo1]

An atheist does not require any diety. An atheist can be ethical, spiritual and empathetic. Why do believers mostly think that atheists are anarchists or sociopaths? The Buhdists don't require a god; just a desire for enlightenment. RJS

[ennison]

'Christianity offered nothing startling new or needed re morality' Of course not. It's not about morality. Any old fool can be moral - Alexander Selkirk was a goody two-shoes. And if you reduce it all to .... whatever number suits yourself well shoot even I could be moral then even if I'm hungry enough to .....

[Scheherazade]

Final Warning

To All Concerned> As Moderators we have been doing more than our fair share of editing in this thread.

Please remember that as users of this Forum, its your responsibility to familiarise yourselves with its Rules (with which you agreed when you signed up) and further posts ignoring these rules will lead to thread closure.

[JGL57]

'Christianity offered nothing startling new or needed re morality' Of course not. It's not about morality. Any old fool can be moral - Alexander Selkirk was a goody two-shoes. And if you reduce it all to .... whatever number suits yourself well shoot even I could be moral then even if I'm hungry enough to .....

I apologize. Obviously Christianity has nothing to do with morality - one need only look at the overall record.

So, then, since it is indeed not about morality, then what is it's use?

[ennison]

................. to eat a scabby horse
Even if it aint my own. Sure we were just having fun oh mighty one ---- leastways I was but I promise on the pantheistic throbbing soul of the universe to never mention donkeys 'orses or 'unger agin ok?

Use? Ah the pragmatic approach again. Well a carpenter uses a saw - in fact it's indispensible to him. Clerk's don't need it. And there you go - I trust I make myself obscure.
Well let's see hmm the righteous have no need of Christianity.
Still obscure?
Ach I aint got the vocabulary

[JGL57]

................. to eat a scabby horse
Even if it aint my own. Sure we were just having fun oh mighty one ---- leastways I was but I promise on the pantheistic throbbing soul of the universe to never mention donkeys 'orses or 'unger agin ok?


I think I understand - but it would be simplier for you to just say "I have nothing new to add."

[ennison]

Sure I have indeed absolutely nothing new to add .... Thank goodness

[anydazecoo]

Seeing as it fits the topic of the thread, I'll tell you what this atheist believes in:

1) Doing your best not to be a complete and utter prat
2) Common courtesy
3) Using a reasonable amount of respect
4) Not trying to pick arguments (especially on an internet literature forum)
5) Attempting to make an intelligent point once in a while
6) Not eating my vegetables


wow i dont think this is my age group :alien: :lol:

[UltimaHybrid]

*sighs* i'm not a atheist nor i'm in a religioin but i do respectfully know that we cant prove there is a god or not as well as heaven or hell if we did the world would be a different place..no joke

[kilted exile]

wow i dont think this is my age group :alien: :lol:

This works for all age groups, there are members here from 12 to over 70 and everything in between. Congratulations though 3 years and you are the first to find yourself on my ignore list.

[JBI]

Protagoras, the first sophist, and probably the first agnostic, writes that man is the measure of all things, and that because of divinity being unprovable, and impossible to disprove, all logical debate should not include god. He also goes on to write, that through the use of rhetoric, oratory, and vocabulary/grammar, one can make a weaker argument appear to be the stronger.

If we look at religions, we can see by looking at any that, assuming one is correct, the others must be somewhat incorrect. As an Atheist, I personally believe all religions are wrong. Through the use of rational thought, I realize that it is virtually impossible for any religion we know of to be correct (in my opinion), and for any religion we may come to believe in the future to be incorrect too. (science is not a religion. Science is based upon analyzing theories and trying to prove them using facts, whereas religion is based upon belief, and violates all rational thought). Because of this belief, I have come to accept that there is no answer to the great Enigma, and as a people we are so fascinated by the prospect of there being one that we ignorantly believe the doctrines of a false teacher.

Do I consider myself an Atheist? Yes I do. I strongly believe there is no god/divine being(s), and that there is no answer to the problem. Thereby I accept that there is no answer, and only worry about something that really concerns myself.

Like all things, religion is dynamic. As society, technology, science, and time change, religion is also subject to change. What we gather from this is that there never truly was an answer, and people have been looking for it since the begining of thought. By rejecting theism, we eliminate the problem of assuming that one is right, and remove all the regressive and oppressive laws indoctrinated into most religions, one can grow as a person, and can work with the free time, and the freedom created by this change to better society.

So do I consider myself an Atheist? Absolutely. Why? Because I have accepted that there is no answer. Just a question that man has obsessed over, trying to answer and to find meaning in this empty life, instead of working at making the best of what you have in this brief existence.

[quasimodo1]

Did you ever study logic? I think both logic and atheism can be liberating but that they can cloud your emotions. Having been a R/catholic, repression of emotion and repression of re-evaluation were a learned behavior. It is good when one can overcome all that. RJS

[ALLENDALE]

it means peace and harmny i looked it up

[ennison]

'this empty life'
Well there y' go.

[Chava]

both logic and atheism can be liberating but that they can cloud your emotions.

I'm sorry to interupt, but how exactly does atheism cloud your emotions? I understand logic, but...?

[Bookworm4Him]

Atheists have been described as those who believe in no god, but you have to believe in something . That is saying that you don't choose something. You have still chosen, it's just that you have chosen to NoT choose. Truthfully, I think that atheists, since they choose to not believe in a god as a spiaritual being, they make themselves "their god"; they practically "worship" themselves (in a sense). It's not what God can do for them, it's what they can do for themselves. Atheists say that no one can prove God, or miracles, but all you have to do is look around you for proof. Do people actually believe that suddenly everything (when there is nothing) just wammed together, and ~poof~ there was a perfect world just the exact space from the sun so that it did not burn or freeze, and everything else just fell into place, including the human body and mind? Not to mention the fact that the human mind has calculated these chances, and they are so mathmatically and scientifically miniscule they are termed "impossible" by most scientists, yet they are simply to afraid to admit to the world that they cannot know and explain everything with their calculations. The truth is, people are afraid to acknowledge that there may be something greater in the world that they will have to answer to. People want to be in charge. I'm not trying to preachy or anything, I'm just stating the truth. In fact, if you talked to some philosophers and pychcyatrist people, I bet they would tell you that fact, that people want to run their own lives and be in charge. Just look at history to confirm it. Why did everybody try to conquer everything else? To rule the world. As humans, we can't face the fact that someone might rule us. I think that that is why atheists don't believe in a god. They don't want to have to submit. It's jsut human nature.

[Wintermute]

Do people actually believe that suddenly everything (when there is nothing) just wammed together, and ~poof~ there was a perfect world just the exact space from the sun so that it did not burn or freeze, and everything else just fell into place, including the human body and mind?

Do people actually believe that suddenly God (when there was nothing) just wammed together, and ~poof~ there was a perfect creator?

Same question, no?

As an agnostic, I'm fairly certain (but not 100%) that something amazing is going on. However I'm equally convinced that whatever it is could give a flying leap if we eat meat on Fridays or not.

Accepting the possibility that a universal creator exists is a far cry from accepting a human-constructed religion that would have it's omnicient God send down a 'son' in human form to get nailed to a cross knowing full well that it was going to do so when it first created the universe--why not just create the universe (and worlds) correctly in the first place?

If the ultimate goal is to get everyone into heaven or hell, and it already knows what those two 'places' will look and be like--why not just start there?

[valiantiris]

Science is a continually adapting and changing Truth. On the contrary, god provides a certainty that people enjoy. Science and scientific truths, as we know today, are quite different than what we knew fifty years ago, or what we will know in a year. The facts are always changing as technology changes and give humans a better understanding of what the universe and world around us has to offer.

However, religion remains pretty much the same. Of course if you focus on the Roman Catholic doctrine, there are certain amendments or affirmations the Vatican makes in regards to our world, and the more contact between different people must allow for Catholic believers to better orient themselves in this changing society, which is more and more intrinsically connected. Yet, the main question of what Roman Catholics believe has remained stable.

Bottom line is that religions provide certain truths that people can follow and be comfortable with. Certainties give people something to hold on to as the world around them shifts. No matter how absurd or how appealing any particular religion feels, it allows its followers to feel comfortable with the unpredictable nature of everything humans have to deal with.

Should people point out strange discrepancies in religions? If we try to make sense of what moral obligations religions give us, there is most always a message contained that will give that certain religion a sway over its members that helps it as time passes. Hinduism does not preach that its followers must convert people, it accepts all people, no matter what religion, as following a particular quest towards an end that Hindus already see. Therefore there is no clause that says that other people must be converted. However, if you look at the message of the New Testament, the bottom line is that people must be converted. In a time that Christianity was still fighting for a position of security, there had to be a means of preserving it. But then Hinduism used its caste system as a means for pushing the fault of poor people on themselves, their behavior in a past life was currently being punished. So when a peasant was unhappy with their lot, they could only behave in the ways suited for them if they wanted to ever have anything better for their soul.

===>It is rare to find a religion that does not have an afterlife. Religions, like governments, give rules to live by, but they promise a reward that governments cannot offer. Governments can only promise negative feedback for those who do not follow their laws. It is that promise of the great reward that makes people want to be part of something that they can feel sure about. If people feel comfortable with the message of a religion, they must be able to make certain mental consolidations, as in not questioning the word of their god. If people literally take the message that they are being offered, they can feel more secure in the reward they are promised. Once the questioning begins, they cannot be sure of the promises that they are seeking.

And does it matter if they are wrong in the story they believe in? If people want to live lives according to the morals offered by Greek myths, is that a bad thing? Can anyone actually tell them that they are wrong? No. No matter how you want to dissuade them from thinking that indeed Hera and Zeus are not real, if they really want it, they are not going to believe what anyone else says. Religions are a matter of opinion, and opinions can never be proved wrong. Which is why comparing religions and science just does not work. You can only consolidate them. But if someone believes the reason that the water in the Atlantic is blue is because it is the prison of the sapphire princess, who will one day rise again, you cannot make them admit they are wrong. If they want it that way, so it will remain in their minds.

[valiantiris]

By rejecting theism, we eliminate the problem of assuming that one is right, and remove all the regressive and oppressive laws indoctrinated into most religions, one can grow as a person, and can work with the free time, and the freedom created by this change to better society.

This just made me remember the two part south park episode with Richard Dawkins. It really illustrated a good point of human nature that there is always something to make human society ridiculously divided, no matter what. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it. :D

[Dante Wodehouse]

If you don't believe in God, then you believe that humans and animals are the same, we are merely more evolved. However, I believe that the fact that we have consciousness and can philosophize seperates us from animals, which proves that we are endowed with something beyond animals, and therefore we must have been endowed by a higher being in a position to endow. We are the only animal that has members of our species who don't want to reproduce, we can question whether we are justified in destroying another for our own gains, and we cannot live in a socialistic society. We have concepts and moralities, we must be higher, which means that something must have decided that we should be higher.

[Wintermute]

. . . which proves that we are endowed with something beyond animals, and therefore we must have been endowed by a higher being in a position to endow. . . .which means that something must have decided that we should be higher.

No it doesn't, and no it doesn't.

That's like an Atheist saying, "God can't make a rock so big that it can't lift it, therefore it is not omnipotent."

"I believe that the fact that we have consciousness. . ."

Are you saying that animals are unconcious? I'll bet my golden retriever Savanna would disagree with you!

". . .and can philosophize. . ."

Have you discovered a way of reading the minds of animals? How do you know these things?

". . . and we cannot live in a socialistic society."

What the heck does this mean? Do I need to call my friends in Norway and tell them to get out now?

Please, I beg you to consider these kinds of questions before making blanket statements of this nature. Your observations on the nature of humans in no way proves the existance of a 'higher being'. Nothing is certain. You may be right, but you may be wrong -- 50/50.

[Wintermute]

And does it matter if they are wrong in the story they believe in?

Hi Val,

Very well thought out and written. Thank you.

It only matters to me if their beliefs have negative impact on others--banning stem cell reasearch being an example that comes to mind--the world trade center attacks would be another. When beliefs turn to zealotry, certainty, and intolerance that's when problems arise. Another tenant of most religions is the golden rule. But alas, many seem to have swept this under the rug when it comes to folks that disagree with their stories/beliefs.

[valiantiris]

Indeed. As long as beliefs or actions are not to the detriment of others, they are ok by me. :)

[quasimodo1]

Allow me to digress and explain how one person arrived at atheism as a point of view. Like most people, religion was an integral part of upbringing, family life etc. You remember, back when fathers were around and mothers, well, before Gloria kind of lifestyle. If you believed, it was logical to go the distance. A roman catholic seminary in my case. After three years of that, atheism became a substitute for cynacism; you have to get way inside a religion to debunc it with any knowledge. Don't mean to offend or bait anybody. Just another road that doesn't get traveled that much. If jihadists, and christians are praying to the same deity, I guess that entity really has a conundrum on his/her/it's hands. Where is my spellcheck? whatever. RJS

[Matrim Cuathon]

Atheists have been described as those who believe in no god, but you have to believe in something . That is saying that you don't choose something. You have still chosen, it's just that you have chosen to NoT choose. Truthfully, I think that atheists, since they choose to not believe in a god as a spiaritual being, they make themselves "their god"; they practically "worship" themselves (in a sense). It's not what God can do for them, it's what they can do for themselves. Atheists say that no one can prove God, or miracles, but all you have to do is look around you for proof. Do people actually believe that suddenly everything (when there is nothing) just wammed together, and ~poof~ there was a perfect world just the exact space from the sun so that it did not burn or freeze, and everything else just fell into place, including the human body and mind? Not to mention the fact that the human mind has calculated these chances, and they are so mathmatically and scientifically miniscule they are termed "impossible" by most scientists, yet they are simply to afraid to admit to the world that they cannot know and explain everything with their calculations. The truth is, people are afraid to acknowledge that there may be something greater in the world that they will have to answer to. People want to be in charge. I'm not trying to preachy or anything, I'm just stating the truth. In fact, if you talked to some philosophers and pychcyatrist people, I bet they would tell you that fact, that people want to run their own lives and be in charge. Just look at history to confirm it. Why did everybody try to conquer everything else? To rule the world. As humans, we can't face the fact that someone might rule us. I think that that is why atheists don't believe in a god. They don't want to have to submit. It's jsut human nature.


read the chapter in
God
The Failed Hypothesis
to see a theory that is equally if not more reasonbable than god that explains a way the universe was created.

[Dante Wodehouse]

[QUOTE=Wintermute;340677]

That's like an Atheist saying, "God can't make a rock so big that it can't lift it, therefore it is not omnipotent."

"I believe that the fact that we have consciousness. . ."

Are you saying that animals are unconcious? I'll bet my golden retriever Savanna would disagree with you!
Animals have attempted no forms of self-expression or for that matter existence outside of instinct. I am not talking about sleep-smelling salt type unconsciousness, but more of Awakening. I have a golden retriever too, and he has never tried to express anything more than barking and threat of bodily function in undesirable place.

". . .and can philosophize. . ."

Have you discovered a way of reading the minds of animals? How do you know these things?
Has an animal ever questioned whether it has the right to harm others for it's own benefit? Also, survival of the fittest applies to animals, while it doesn't to humans. From how things seem, the ugliest and poorest tend to have more children than the beautiful and wealthy.

". . . and we cannot live in a socialistic society."

What the heck does this mean? Do I need to call my friends in Norway and tell them to get out now?
I made a mistake in my phrasing. I meant Communist society. Norway, while having some socialistic policies in economics, still has elections and mostly free markets.

[Bookworm4Him]

Do people actually believe that suddenly God (when there was nothing) just wammed together, and ~poof~ there was a perfect creator?

Same question, no?

As an agnostic, I'm fairly certain (but not 100%) that something amazing is going on. However I'm equally convinced that whatever it is could give a flying leap if we eat meat on Fridays or not.

Accepting the possibility that a universal creator exists is a far cry from accepting a human-constructed religion that would have it's omnicient God send down a 'son' in human form to get nailed to a cross knowing full well that it was going to do so when it first created the universe--why not just create the universe (and worlds) correctly in the first place?

If the ultimate goal is to get everyone into heaven or hell, and it already knows what those two 'places' will look and be like--why not just start there?

You say you are fairly certain that something amazing is going on, but you think that God just wamming into place isn't possible, but tell me, which is stranger, an all powerful being that has been since the beginning of time, (for only an all powerful being could be from the beginning of time), or a "god" that isn't in control? Let's define our terms for a second. Forget everything else that you have heard and believe about the "God of the Christians", or the "God of the Muslims", or whatever, and let's say that- as you believe that something amazing, not molecules wamming together, happened, there must be a being, or even just a divine force, that is controlling it. It would therefore make sense that this "being" would be there from the beginning of the world, the universe, the beginning of time! and there would be no beginning for it, as it created the beginning. That long of a time space is to incomprehensible for our brains to understand. But if it wasn't there from the beginning, then there must be something that was there, or else there wouldn't be a there. And since there must be something that was, then it would now be our being, divine force. That would be what most people term "God" in our culture.
In other words, could a "creator" poof together and be created? If it had, then it wouldn't be the "creator", the thing that created it would be. It shows that there had to be something, and that something had to have been there since forever. And you could spend your whole life trying to comprehend it, and never be able to, because it's beyond our comprehension.
I'm not saying that he cares if we don't eat meat on certain days of the year, by far. (the whole point of that was to show a sacrifice, as Jesus did for us, but now it has become a corrupted holiday in which people don't even think of the reason they celebrate it.)
As to your second point, Accepting the possibility that a universal creator exists is a far cry from accepting a human-constructed religion that would have it's omnicient God send down a 'son' in human form to get nailed to a cross knowing full well that it was going to do so when it first created the universe--why not just create the universe (and worlds) correctly in the first place? As a divine being, our now termed "God" has to have had some purpose to make the world and its inhabitants in the first place. He created the animals, and the plants, but most importantly man, and made man have some of the same attributes as Himself- especially, in this circumstance- a Choice. The choice to pick btw. right and wrong. But man chose wrong, and as God did not want his creation to be without hope, sent his Son, to give us a way out, but again, with a choice, not forced.

If the ultimate goal is to get everyone into heaven or hell, and it already knows what those two 'places' will look and be like--why not just start there? If that was the whole point in the first place, then he wouldn't have made us in the first place. If you were going to make something, but knew that it was going to be messed up, and throw away by someone, and there was no purpose in making it, then would you make it?? The point is, that wasn't the point in the first place. The point was, He made us for his own glory. But enough for now.

[Bookworm4Him]

As to the "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?", our class talked about it in Logic class, and realized that the presuposition is false, assuming that making a rock heavier or bigger, is going to make it harder to lift. If your presuposition is false, than the whole arguement is no longer a rock on which Atheists are supported, but is broken apart into little grains of sand. :crash: :crash: :crash:

[Wintermute]

The point was, He made us for his own glory.

Then I shall have no part of that God. If I ever find my God, the phrase 'his own glory' will not be present.

So it was just sitting in a vacuum for infinity (a really, really long time), then a mere 14 billion years ago decided, "Hey, I think I'll create a universe for my own glory! Then I'll have some lesser beings to worship me and my glory!"

No thanks, you can keep your God. My grandma told me we were created to keep God company--to provide fellowship to it. That makes more sense than creation just to glorify itsself.

Then again, being agnostic, I could be wrong (and you could be right).

[Wintermute]

As to the "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?", our class talked about it in Logic class, and realized that the presuposition is false, assuming that making a rock heavier or bigger, is going to make it harder to lift. If your presuposition is false, than the whole arguement is no longer a rock on which Atheists are supported, but is broken apart into little grains of sand. :crash: :crash: :crash:


Indeed. I think you should read my post a little more carefully.:)

I was comparing this (il)logic to the logic presented by the person I was responding to. Their contention was essentially that: because the universe (appears to) exists, a creator must exist. Which, I don't think your logic teacher would agree with. I mean sheesh, didn't y'all see The Matrix?

My only argument is against absolute certainty. You could be right. But if you are 100% certain that you have found the correct path and the rest of us are wrong, then we have no further need of discussion, no?

Anything is possible, nothing is certain. Imo.

[Wintermute]

[QUOTE=Wintermute;340677]

That's like an Atheist saying, "God can't make a rock so big that it can't lift it, therefore it is not omnipotent."

"I believe that the fact that we have consciousness. . ."

Are you saying that animals are unconcious? I'll bet my golden retriever Savanna would disagree with you!
Animals have attempted no forms of self-expression or for that matter existence outside of instinct. I am not talking about sleep-smelling salt type unconsciousness, but more of Awakening. I have a golden retriever too, and he has never tried to express anything more than barking and threat of bodily function in undesirable place.

". . .and can philosophize. . ."

Have you discovered a way of reading the minds of animals? How do you know these things?
Has an animal ever questioned whether it has the right to harm others for it's own benefit? Also, survival of the fittest applies to animals, while it doesn't to humans. From how things seem, the ugliest and poorest tend to have more children than the beautiful and wealthy.

". . . and we cannot live in a socialistic society."

What the heck does this mean? Do I need to call my friends in Norway and tell them to get out now?
I made a mistake in my phrasing. I meant Communist society. Norway, while having some socialistic policies in economics, still has elections and mostly free markets.


Take a look here (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animalmind/), PBS did a show on this subject that my change your mind.

[ennison]

'That makes more sense than creation just to glorify itsself.' I'm sure your granny was right too but we here are looking through the wrong end of the telescope and are looking at the wrong things. God can create just for its own glory because a spirit infinite, eternal, unchangeable does not behave according to the rules that we understand. Rejecting God's existence is a human prerogative. It doesn't matter to God. It does matter to us as the resulting gap has to be filled with something - consciously or unconsciously.

[Bookworm4Him]

Then I shall have no part of that God. If I ever find my God, the phrase 'his own glory' will not be present.

So it was just sitting in a vacuum for infinity (a really, really long time), then a mere 14 billion years ago decided, "Hey, I think I'll create a universe for my own glory! Then I'll have some lesser beings to worship me and my glory!"

No thanks, you can keep your God. My grandma told me we were created to keep God company--to provide fellowship to it. That makes more sense than creation just to glorify itsself.

Then again, being agnostic, I could be wrong (and you could be right).

Why did you join this site? Why do we make millions of types of special food? Why do authors create fictional places with characters? Why do little kids make objects out of Plato? Why do we make things in the first place? For our personal enjoyment! Do you think that if all the things we created had minds, they would be against worshiping us, their creator? One difference btw. things we make and us being made by God, is that we were made in His image, as I stated before. Notice the fact that we like when things worship us. We inherited it from Him. And in a way, your grandma was right. We do provide fellowship to Him. It's not like a "bow and worship the Almighty powerful Creator, or I will shoot lightning bolts at you." Providing fellowship to Him does worship Him.
But He can do what he wants. Who are we to question Him?

[Bookworm4Him]

Indeed. I think you should read my post a little more carefully.:)

I was comparing this (il)logic to the logic presented by the person I was responding to. Their contention was essentially that: because the universe (appears to) exists, a creator must exist. Which, I don't think your logic teacher would agree with. I mean sheesh, didn't y'all see The Matrix?

My only argument is against absolute certainty. You could be right. But if you are 100% certain that you have found the correct path and the rest of us are wrong, then we have no further need of discussion, no?

Anything is possible, nothing is certain. Imo.

No, I haven't seen the Matrix, I'm not allowed, but I heard it was really weird, like people programming talents into people's heads, and doing stunts that are only possible with wires and special effects. Is that the one? :) And yeah, my logic teacher would agree with me.

My only argument is against absolute certainty. You could be right. But if you are 100% certain that you have found the correct path and the rest of us are wrong, then we have no further need of discussion, no?
I am absolutely sure. But even if I'm wrong, and your right, then there is no reason for me to worry. Christians seem to do good deeds, my life would have had some purpose, and I would die content. But if you're wrong, and I'm right, then I'm still safe. You, on the other hand, would be in danger of the fire of Hell, as would every other Atheist, Anagnostic-person, and anyone else who doesn't believe in the gospel. Which route seems safer to you? I'm arguing this because I care, not just to win the debate. Can't you all see the truth in this?

Anything is possible, nothing is certain. Is being certain possible?

[kilted exile]

As to the "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?", our class talked about it in Logic class, and realized that the presuposition is false, assuming that making a rock heavier or bigger, is going to make it harder to lift.


What? Not understanding this (nothing new really). Are you suggesting here that a bigger heavier rock is no harder to lift than a smaller rock. Next time you're out try picking up a pebble and then a small rock, try and work your way up to a boulder. If size and mass makes no difference to the difficulty you should be able to do it. If you can not the presupposition is in fact correct. The presupposition being "bigger heavier rocks are harder to lift than smaller, lighter rocks"

[Matrim Cuathon]

Book, thats because you dont understand the point...
but if you need more simplification,
can god do something that he cant undo?
omnipotence is impossible.
or can god kill himself?
if he cant he isnt all powerful and if he can he can die and isnt all powerful. you are looking at the literal thing instead of the point.

[Dante Wodehouse]

Wintermute said
Take a look here, PBS did a show on this subject that my change your mind.

As I went there and I would have had to buy the video to get the substance, could you say what the results of the research were? I really don't feel like coughing up the money.

[Matrim Cuathon]

No, I haven't seen the Matrix, I'm not allowed, but I heard it was really weird, like people programming talents into people's heads, and doing stunts that are only possible with wires and special effects. Is that the one? :) And yeah, my logic teacher would agree with me.

My only argument is against absolute certainty. You could be right. But if you are 100% certain that you have found the correct path and the rest of us are wrong, then we have no further need of discussion, no?
I am absolutely sure. But even if I'm wrong, and your right, then there is no reason for me to worry. Christians seem to do good deeds, my life would have had some purpose, and I would die content. But if you're wrong, and I'm right, then I'm still safe. You, on the other hand, would be in danger of the fire of Hell, as would every other Atheist, Anagnostic-person, and anyone else who doesn't believe in the gospel. Which route seems safer to you? I'm arguing this because I care, not just to win the debate. Can't you all see the truth in this?

Anything is possible, nothing is certain. Is being certain possible?

christians have been found in large numbers of studies to commit more crimes than atheists and agnostics, plus we have things like the crusades. so yeah, christians do lots of good deeds.

[mtpspur]

I believe the point of the crimes commited by the 'c'hristians is that we have a place to come to in the putting away of those crimes and still satisfy 'justice'. I personally have commited many 'crimes' that as forthcoming as I am in my blog I would be ashamed to admit even to this august group of looker oners. And I hasten to assure you any 'good' deeds of mine are not worth a penny to remember in the long run. Deeds are a byproduct of our faith not the primary cause.

[Bookworm4Him]

What? Not understanding this (nothing new really). Are you suggesting here that a bigger heavier rock is no harder to lift than a smaller rock. Next time you're out try picking up a pebble and then a small rock, try and work your way up to a boulder. If size and mass makes no difference to the difficulty you should be able to do it. If you can not the presupposition is in fact correct. The presupposition being "bigger heavier rocks are harder to lift than smaller, lighter rocks"

No, the presuposition isn't that bigger heavier rocks are harder to lift than smaller, lighter rocks, it's that it is harder for God to lift a bigger rock than a smaller one. Size doesn't matter with Him. That was the point I was making. :D

[kilted exile]

Ok, gonna have to disagree here. The presupposition of any problem is the most basic attainable part. That being "rocks that are bigger, heavier are harder to lift"

Once you change it to harder for God, you have already made a number of other assumptions on top of the root:

1) That there is a Supreme Being (he/she/it/they/whatever)
2) That we know what powers this being has, and are aware of levels of difficulty for tasks performed by "it"

[Bookworm4Him]

I in no way was trying to say that it was works that got us in to Heaven, 'cause then no one could, so please don't take that wrongly. I was trying to say that, by non-Christians view, Christian do good things. Sorry for that confusion.
Also, you say that studies have shown "Christians" to commit more crimes than others, but it depends on who you are calling Christians. I know many who claim to be Christians, but in no way talk, or act like it in anyway. And though works aren't what make people Christians, they certainly show whether they truly mean it or not. If the Ben Fiesel killers claim to be Christians, would you believe it? Def. not!!!! Although there are many criminals who may become Christians, but they change their ways. If you took a survey of true Christians, I don't think they would be the majority of criminals. Visit our church sometime and judge for yourself.

[Matrim Cuathon]

err, crusades? threatened torture of galileo? pogroms against jews becuase they supposedly drank christian childrens blood? youre right, you guys have no history of bad deeds. :) and what about those killers who say: "god told me to do it"?

[Bookworm4Him]

err, crusades? threatened torture of galileo? pogroms against jews becuase they supposedly drank christian childrens blood? youre right, you guys have no history of bad deeds. :) and what about those killers who say: "god told me to do it"?

did you in any way read my last post? At all? Ok, well maybe you should. That would clarify a few things. And as for the people who claim "god told me to do it" didn't you just say they were killers? I've no doubt they are liars too. Ever heard of a truthful murderer? Didn't think so. They're just looking for some sort of justification.

[Bookworm4Him]

Ok, gonna have to disagree here. The presupposition of any problem is the most basic attainable part. That being "rocks that are bigger, heavier are harder to lift"

Once you change it to harder for God, you have already made a number of other assumptions on top of the root:

1) That there is a Supreme Being (he/she/it/they/whatever)
2) That we know what powers this being has, and are aware of levels of difficulty for tasks performed by "it"

We already discussed the Supreme Being part. It's on page 37 (I think) Go back and read that first. And I'm not assuming that we know the limits of God, I am in fact asserting the opposites. I am saying that men, with this presumption, assume that God follows the same limits as men. That is why the whole arguement is false, b/c people base the limits of God, by their own limits.

[Dante Wodehouse]

christians have been found in large numbers of studies to commit more crimes than atheists and agnostics, plus we have things like the crusades. so yeah, christians do lots of good deeds.-Said by Matrim Cuathon
Of course Christians have commited more crimes that Atheists and Agnostics; there are more of them. The thing about most Christianity (there is always the occasional loony who says their Jesus and then is caught embezzling money) is that they accept that they are not perfect and want to repent in order to get to heaven. You can't count the crusades; that was a war that was essentially to unite Europe and protect the Byzantines that was given Paupal blessing to get more soldiers. It also happened almost a millenia ago, when there were no agnostics or atheists around, not publicly anyway.

[Dante Wodehouse]

On the whole 'God making a rock issue', of course God can make a rock that he can't lift, but then he wouldn't be omnipotent anymore, so why would he?

[Bookworm4Him]

Of course Christians have commited more crimes that Atheists and Agnostics; there are more of them. The thing about most Christianity (there is always the occasional loony who says their Jesus and then is caught embezzling money) is that they accept that they are not perfect and want to repent in order to get to heaven. You can't count the crusades; that was a war that was essentially to unite Europe and protect the Byzantines that was given Paupal blessing to get more soldiers. It also happened almost a millenia ago, when there were no agnostics or atheists around, not publicly anyway.

Thank you! And also, just to address it a little more, most of people living during the Crusades called themselves Christians because they weren't Jews. Those were pretty much the only choices. It wasn't their spiritual beliefs, it was more of a...political party, like Republican and Democrat. The "Christians" in the Crusades weren't Christians fighting for the glory of God, they were simply men who wanted to fight, and also, as Dante Wodehouse said, trying to unite Europe. They aint "Christians"

[Bookworm4Him]

On the whole 'God making a rock issue', of course God can make a rock that he can't lift, but then he wouldn't be omnipotent anymore, so why would he?

Ok...this is just getting a little bothersome...let me explain it one more time.
In an arguement, or a debate, there are always things called "presupositions". For example, if you were arguing that your dog is the cutest in the world, then some of the presupositions are one, and the most obvious, that you have a dog, and then there are more, but they are usually already accepted as facts, for example, that something can be cute, that the world really does exsist, and others. If the presuposition is false, then the arguement is invalid. Got it? ok :thumbs_up let's move on
In the arguement "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" one of the persupositions is "A heavier rock is harder for God to lift than a lighter one. But that is false, as things aren't more difficult than others for God. Therefore, the arguement is invalid. ~IMPORTANT~ Remember that the presuposition is based on God's abilities, not man's.
Ok. I hope it is clearer now.

[Redzeppelin]

err, crusades? threatened torture of galileo? pogroms against jews becuase they supposedly drank christian childrens blood? youre right, you guys have no history of bad deeds. :) and what about those killers who say: "god told me to do it"?


I am so tired of this particular tactic: do you notice that the storgest card often played against Christianity is from the 10-13th centuries? That there are Christians who have done stupid, hurtful things invalidates Christianity as a positive force in the world in the same way that a few bad cops, bad Catholic priests, bad teachers, bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad whatever invalidates all the good that police, priests, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc have done in the world. That some loons claim "God told me to do it" doesn't mean that they actually heard from God (the odds are overwhelming that they didn't). All religions contain misguided people - all non-religious groups contain wackos. Quite judging all of Christianity by the "exceptions." Look around at some of the good things - humanitarian relief, social change (Christians instigated the abolitonist movement in the US in the 19th century). Come up with an original attack that doesn't simply prove that Christians are human too and prone to bad choices, character weaknesses and shortcomings just like everybody else.

[Wintermute]

Wintermute said
Take a look here, PBS did a show on this subject that my change your mind.

As I went there and I would have had to buy the video to get the substance, could you say what the results of the research were? I really don't feel like coughing up the money.

Hehe, good exchuse for not spending more than a few seconds glancing at the site, lol. Yes, you can purchase the broadcast video if you want, but the site has a ton of material. If you really want to know the state of animal behavior science, I suggest you spend some time investigating. You can find all the information you could want without spending a dime--just a lil' time. I'm as agnostic as they come--uncertain of practically everything--but in this instance, in my opinion, you are very wrong. Anyway, I ain't gonna change your mind on this, and I know how I feel, so if it's ok with you, let's drop it.

[Matrim Cuathon]

I am so tired of this particular tactic: do you notice that the storgest card often played against Christianity is from the 10-13th centuries? That there are Christians who have done stupid, hurtful things invalidates Christianity as a positive force in the world in the same way that a few bad cops, bad Catholic priests, bad teachers, bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad whatever invalidates all the good that police, priests, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc have done in the world. That some loons claim "God told me to do it" doesn't mean that they actually heard from God (the odds are overwhelming that they didn't). All religions contain misguided people - all non-religious groups contain wackos. Quite judging all of Christianity by the "exceptions." Look around at some of the good things - humanitarian relief, social change (Christians instigated the abolitonist movement in the US in the 19th century). Come up with an original attack that doesn't simply prove that Christians are human too and prone to bad choices, character weaknesses and shortcomings just like everybody else.


thats wasnt the arguement though. he said: "christians seem to do good deeds." and i was pointing out that people do good deeds regardless of demographics. and that chrisitians commit crimes as much as anyone else, and in fact, commit more large scale crimes than atheists.

as for your complaint about those centuries, thats when christians were in power. they cant do that **** anymore because they are checked by others. they can no longer raise an army by promising freedom to criminals who fight in wars. and world leaders are no longer so totally guided by the church.

[manolia]

..all the good that police, priests, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc have done in the world


"Good" and "lawyers" don't usually go in the same phrase.:lol: :lol:
Nothing good done by lawyers :lol:


I am so tired of this particular tactic: do you notice that the storgest card often played against Christianity is from the 10-13th centuries? That there are Christians who have done stupid, hurtful things invalidates Christianity as a positive force in the world in the same way that a few bad cops, bad Catholic priests, bad teachers, bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad whatever invalidates all the good that police, priests, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc have done in the world. That some loons claim "God told me to do it" doesn't mean that they actually heard from God (the odds are overwhelming that they didn't). All religions contain misguided people - all non-religious groups contain wackos. Quite judging all of Christianity by the "exceptions." Look around at some of the good things - humanitarian relief, social change (Christians instigated the abolitonist movement in the US in the 19th century). Come up with an original attack that doesn't simply prove that Christians are human too and prone to bad choices, character weaknesses and shortcomings just like everybody else.


As much as i don't like to defend Christianity, you have a point there. People usually tend to confuse the wrong and crimes done by people who usued (and use) the name of God to drive the ignorant masses and achieve their purposes with the true essence of Christianity which is it's theory of course. My opinion is that Christianity is a real noble and benevolent "idea" (quotation marks means that it is more than an idea) and people who REALLY AND TRULLY AND FAITHFULLY exercise it are kind hearted and good. But of course i think most Christians are like every other person (potentially bad, meaning again that a lot of Christians like me are only Christians by name, know little about what their religion dictates simply because they don't care and have no faith. And saying a lot, i do not of course claim any particular statistic if there is any, but i am simply reffering to my circle of acquaintances which i consider a good sample.)

Then again all the bad things said here about Christianity are easilly applied to every religion, since every religion on earth has power on its subjects (that is the dangerous thing with religions in general) and if used by bad people (or simply people thirsty for power, money etc) the outcome can be really nusty (crussades). But if people are properly educated and have all the means needed to live happily (which unfortunatelly is not the case and never will be) there is no fear of that.

Cheers.

[Bookworm4Him]

As much as i don't like to defend Christianity, you have a point there. People usually tend to confuse the wrong and crimes done by people who usued (and use) the name of God to drive the ignorant masses and achieve their purposes with the true essence of Christianity which is it's theory of course. My opinion is that Christianity is a real noble and benevolent "idea" (quotation marks means that it is more than an idea) and people who REALLY AND TRULY AND FAITHFULLY exercise it are kind hearted and good. But of course i think most Christians are like every other person (potentially bad, meaning again that a lot of Christians like me are only Christians by name, know little about what their religion dictates simply because they don't care and have no faith. And saying a lot, i do not of course claim any particular statistic if there is any, but i am simply reffering to my circle of acquaintances which i consider a good sample.)

Then again all the bad things said here about Christianity are easilly applied to every religion, since every religion on earth has power on its subjects (that is the dangerous thing with religions in general) and if used by bad people (or simply people thirsty for power, money etc) the outcome can be really nusty (crussades). But if people are properly educated and have all the means needed to live happily (which unfortunatelly is not the case and never will be) there is no fear of that.

Cheers.

My main point in the first place was that people who really are true Christians, and act like it, not just claim it, seem to do good deeds, according to men's idea of good. Though everyone has faults, including Christians, TRUE Christians aren't going to go around becoming mass murderers and the world's most wanted. I said that by men's standards, if a Christian died (one who lived it, not just claimed it) then by men's standards, they lived a pretty good life.
That was for the arguement which choice is wiser If I died and was right, I'd go to heaven, but if I was wrong, then I would have lived a good life. If you die, and were right, then great for you, but if your wrong, you'd go to hell. That was the whole point. I was in no way trying to assert that those who claim to be Christians are perfect, and the rest of the world are mass murderers. Bye-bye!

[Matrim Cuathon]

yeah, because of course if we remove everyone who commits a crime from the ranks of true christians, then we will only have people who dont commit crimes.
genius.

[Wintermute]

That was for the arguement which choice is wiser If I died and was right, I'd go to heaven, but if I was wrong, then I would have lived a good life. If you die, and were right, then great for you, but if your wrong, you'd go to hell. That was the whole point. I was in no way trying to assert that those who claim to be Christians are perfect, and the rest of the world are mass murderers. Bye-bye!

Suppose you're wrong and someone else is right--I hate to tell you, but you could still end up in another's hell. I mean suppose the nuts that flew the planes into the world trade center are right? Well then, they're going to heaven with the virgins and all that, but I've got a feeling your 'TRUE Christians' ain't gonna make it to their paradise.

Anything is possible, nothing is certain. Naturally, I could be wrong :)

[Matrim Cuathon]

yeah, you nubs forgot that their are loads of religions and afterlife punishments for non-believers. your chance is barely better than mine.

[Dante Wodehouse]

Suppose you're wrong and someone else is right--I hate to tell you, but you could still end up in another's hell. I mean suppose the nuts that flew the planes into the world trade center are right? Well then, they're going to heaven with the virgins and all that, but I've got a feeling your 'TRUE Christians' ain't gonna make it to their paradise.

If that is your point of view, think about this. If a religion truely advocates suicide bombers etc. then it has done the world no good. I choose to believe that Islam is not a cruel religion and the suicide bombers are merely like the "Christians" who say God told them to kill, i.e. they are schizophrenics, just crazy, brainwashed, or looking for validity. Why would the creator of a world give people to ability to choose other religions, and then instruct the followers of his (I believe Muslims call Allah a man) religion to kill them. Why not personally kill infidels like myself? Therefore, Islam is either incorrect or the suicide bombers won't be in any better place than myself.

[Dante Wodehouse]

yeah, because of course if we remove everyone who commits a crime from the ranks of true christians, then we will only have people who dont commit crimes.
genius.

Christians, again, don't (or rather on principal shouldn't) consider themselves superior (except in odds on positive afterlives) to others in morals, but they have the hope of redemption and forgiveness for their sins.

[Redzeppelin]

and that chrisitians commit crimes as much as anyone else, and in fact, commit more large scale crimes than atheists.

That is simply speculation. There is no logical reason to assume that people who generally claim a belief in Christianty and its moral requirements would be more liable to commit crime than those who have no logical basis for moral behavior. An absurd conclusion.


as for your complaint about those centuries, thats when christians were in power. they cant do that **** anymore because they are checked by others. they can no longer raise an army by promising freedom to criminals who fight in wars. and world leaders are no longer so totally guided by the church.

These statements are equally absurd because they imply that Christianity has not changed in any significant way in 600+ years since the Crusades and that it is a rampaging horde barely being held "in check" by whoever (did you specify who's doing the heroic job of holding us back?). And, in terms of the terrible Crusades, I think it's pretty safe to say that radical Islam has returned the favor - don't you think? Shall we call it "even" - or should we suffer some more so that people like you will quit trying to "roast" Christianity for such inappropriate behavior?

[Whifflingpin]

"And, in terms of the terrible Crusades, I think it's pretty safe to say that radical Islam has returned the favor - don't you think?"

Given that the Crusades were attempts to restore to Christendom lands that had been conquered by Muslims, I don't see how Muslims could claim any moral high ground in respect of them at all. Not that, as far as I have noticed, Moslems do make any such claim.

The particularly evil aspect of the Crusades was that Christian west took the opportunity to ravage the Christian east - so maybe the Greek Orthodox christians have a valid complaint still to make against the rest.

But, as you, Red, pointed out or implied, it is ridiculous to use the behaviour of mediaeval armies as any kind of argument against current christianity.

[Redzeppelin]

But, as you, Red, pointed out or implied, it is ridiculous to use the behaviour of mediaeval armies as any kind of argument against current christianity.

All you said about the crusades is correct. The only point I was trying to make was the one you just acknowledged. Thanks :)

[hyperborean]

I really don't want to take part of the "Christianity ruined western civilization" thing again, so I'll bud out of this one.

[Redzeppelin]

I really don't want to take part of the "Christianity ruined western civilization" thing again, so I'll bud out of this one.

There is no solid basis for such a supposition. That is simply a tactic to smear Christianity in a way that is so blatantly unfair and unprovable as to be absurd in its very conception.

[manolia]

yeah, because of course if we remove everyone who commits a crime from the ranks of true christians, then we will only have people who dont commit crimes.
genius.


When someone posts an opinion and you intend to comment on it please read it carefully and do not extract the meaning you like out of it.
The point i wanted to make was in the last few lines and it is to that effect:

If people on earth have education and do not live miserably as they do in certain parts of the earth, if countries stop invading other countries and stop meddling in their internal affairs, then religions won't be a weapon for leaders to use in order to achieve their goal. In fact i believe that there won't be any use of religions anymore. And even if there is (for many people have the need to believe in a benevolent force and can't simply cope with the idea that their pressence on earth is limited) we live in free countries so let them have it. I personally respect the choice of others to believe. And you know, it is nice since it seems that the act of believing gives strength to an individual.

[Wintermute]

Why would the creator of a world give people to ability to choose other religions, and then instruct the followers of his (I believe Muslims call Allah a man) religion to kill them. Why not personally kill infidels like myself?

Howdy :) , now you're seeing my point--why would the creator of a world [universe] not just do it right in the first place? Go straight to the end game?

It knows what the final outcome of the universe will be, no? Who will make it to the show, and who won't, correct? So why not just make it so? Why make it so convoluted--"worship me and my glory for 75 years or so, then, if you accept that I sent my son to get nailed to a cross you'll live for infinity in some nebulous...something...If you don't, well, I'm gonna fry you for infinity. Oh, and by the way, for those 75 years...make sure you give 10% of everything you own to the church so they can enhance my glory even more."

Seems just a little contrived and convenient to me. But as always, I could be wrong.

[Matrim Cuathon]

When someone posts an opinion and you intend to comment on it please read it carefully and do not extract the meaning you like out of it.
The point i wanted to make was in the last few lines and it is to that effect:

If people on earth have education and do not live miserably as they do in certain parts of the earth, if countries stop invading other countries and stop meddling in their internal affairs, then religions won't be a weapon for leaders to use in order to achieve their goal. In fact i believe that there won't be any use of religions anymore. And even if there is (for many people have the need to believe in a benevolent force and can't simply cope with the idea that their pressence on earth is limited) we live in free countries so let them have it. I personally respect the choice of others to believe. And you know, it is nice since it seems that the act of believing gives strength to an individual.

you know i wasnt responding to yuo right? with that comment?

[manolia]

Ok sorry then..it sounded like that

[hyperborean]

There is no solid basis for such a supposition. That is simply a tactic to smear Christianity in a way that is so blatantly unfair and unprovable as to be absurd in its very conception.

Organized religion in general is the corruption of the world. happy now?

[Redzeppelin]

Organized religion in general is the corruption of the world. happy now?

I will be once you provide some basis for this claim. Otherwise, it is simply your opinion and carries as much weight as unsupported opinion does.

[hyperborean]

Wars that have been occurring since ancient times wouldn't be considered proof?

[Redzeppelin]

Wars that have been occurring since ancient times wouldn't be considered proof?

Please be as so kind to identify the particular wars and how Christianity played an instigating role is said conflicts. Otherwise I'm going to be tempted to say that your statement is little more than one of the over-used stereotypes launched at Christians. Remember: the Crusades have already been dealt with, so they are no longer a valid choice. Something post-Renaissance would be nice.

[watkinsguy]

Please be as so kind to identify the particular wars and how Christianity played an instigating role is said conflicts. Otherwise I'm going to be tempted to say that your statement is little more than one of the over-used stereotypes launched at Christians. Remember: the Crusades have already been dealt with, so they are no longer a valid choice. Something post-Renaissance would be nice.

lol I think what he is getting at Red, is that organized religion in general has contributed to wars in the past. This is true, but not a very valid point when considering how easy wars are started. Consider this:

The Football War in 1969 between Honduras and El Salvador was sparked by a World Cup soccer match between the two countries.

Does this mean that soccer is corrupt since it has started a war? In my honest opinion, no it doesn't. To say that something besides sinful pride is the reason for all wars, is not only ridiculous, but also very ignorant.

[Dante Wodehouse]

Howdy , now you're seeing my point--why would the creator of a world [universe] not just do it right in the first place? Go straight to the end game?

It knows what the final outcome of the universe will be, no? Who will make it to the show, and who won't, correct? So why not just make it so? Why make it so convoluted--"worship me and my glory for 75 years or so, then, if you accept that I sent my son to get nailed to a cross you'll live for infinity in some nebulous...something...If you don't, well, I'm gonna fry you for infinity. Oh, and by the way, for those 75 years...make sure you give 10% of everything you own to the church so they can enhance my glory even more."

Seems just a little contrived and convenient to me. But as always, I could be wrong

I prefer to take the C.S. Lewis (or perhaps I have just come up with this theory while reading the Screwtape Letters and therefore attribute it to him) philosophy, that is, that God was tired of creating things that in their fiber couldn't disobey him without knowingly ending up in Lucifer's new colony. He wanted something that chose his path as oppose to having no other paths to choose. I trust that he came up with the universe pattern that grants a majority of people heaven, but I can't really know. As regards tithing, that is just to keep the church running. Without it, new churches couldn't have been built, nor pastors given a livable salary. It has been overdone by the church, but it is necessary to keep things running.

[Redzeppelin]

lol I think what he is getting at Red, is that organized religion in general has contributed to wars in the past.

Agreed. But since the contention behind the "wars" argument is that Christianity has "corrupted" the world implies to me that Christianity has had a more than passing influence in the wars of this world. Highly debatable. Nice example you gave, by the way.

[watkinsguy]

Howdy , now you're seeing my point--why would the creator of a world [universe] not just do it right in the first place? Go straight to the end game?

It knows what the final outcome of the universe will be, no? Who will make it to the show, and who won't, correct? So why not just make it so? Why make it so convoluted--"worship me and my glory for 75 years or so, then, if you accept that I sent my son to get nailed to a cross you'll live for infinity in some nebulous...something...If you don't, well, I'm gonna fry you for infinity. Oh, and by the way, for those 75 years...make sure you give 10% of everything you own to the church so they can enhance my glory even more."

Seems just a little contrived and convenient to me. But as always, I could be wrong

I prefer to take the C.S. Lewis (or perhaps I have just come up with this theory while reading the Screwtape Letters and therefore attribute it to him) philosophy, that is, that God was tired of creating things that in their fiber couldn't disobey him without knowingly ending up in Lucifer's new colony. He wanted something that chose his path as oppose to having no other paths to choose. I trust that he came up with the universe pattern that grants a majority of people heaven, but I can't really know. As regards tithing, that is just to keep the church running. Without it, new churches couldn't have been built, nor pastors given a livable salary. It has been overdone by the church, but it is necessary to keep things running.

That is a very blunt perception of Christianity I will give you that :) To answer the statement of why doesn't he just fast forward to the end of time since He knows who is going to choose what and where they are going to go, I ask you this: where is the fun in that? lol but really, I do believe that God likes too see us glorifying Him, as we are sentinent human beings that are making CHOICES to do His will, not being forced to like angels. Wouldn't you love your spouse more if they CHOSE to obey you rather than be FORCED to? just a thought :)

[Redzeppelin]

Howdy , now you're seeing my point--why would the creator of a world [universe] not just do it right in the first place? Go straight to the end game?

It knows what the final outcome of the universe will be, no? Who will make it to the show, and who won't, correct? So why not just make it so? Why make it so convoluted--"worship me and my glory for 75 years or so, then, if you accept that I sent my son to get nailed to a cross you'll live for infinity in some nebulous...something...If you don't, well, I'm gonna fry you for infinity. Oh, and by the way, for those 75 years...make sure you give 10% of everything you own to the church so they can enhance my glory even more."

Seems just a little contrived and convenient to me. But as always, I could be wrong

I prefer to take the C.S. Lewis (or perhaps I have just come up with this theory while reading the Screwtape Letters and therefore attribute it to him) philosophy, that is, that God was tired of creating things that in their fiber couldn't disobey him without knowingly ending up in Lucifer's new colony. He wanted something that chose his path as oppose to having no other paths to choose. I trust that he came up with the universe pattern that grants a majority of people heaven, but I can't really know. As regards tithing, that is just to keep the church running. Without it, new churches couldn't have been built, nor pastors given a livable salary. It has been overdone by the church, but it is necessary to keep things running.

Whoa - what's all this and where did it come from? Did you actually want a response to this post? I'm not even sure what it's trying to say.

[hyperborean]

Agreed. But since the contention behind the "wars" argument is that Christianity has "corrupted" the world implies to me that Christianity has had a more than passing influence in the wars of this world. Highly debatable. Nice example you gave, by the way.

I can't respond to your post because then my post would be deleted (political influence would be the only way to analyze the situation). And by the way...a political debate against me is going to be much harder to win than a philosophical debate (this time it's not about opinion, but instead historical fact).

My argument would deal with Christianity and conservative politics in modern times. This would be your requested "modern example", and I shall hold me tongue (I already got demerits on this forum).

[Bandiceet]

Please be as so kind to identify the particular wars and how Christianity played an instigating role is said conflicts. Otherwise I'm going to be tempted to say that your statement is little more than one of the over-used stereotypes launched at Christians. Remember: the Crusades have already been dealt with, so they are no longer a valid choice. Something post-Renaissance would be nice.

One thing people tend to either don't know or deliberatly forget, is that Adolf Hitler was quite a devout Christian. One of the many theories that abound about why he did what he did to the Jews is because of a mis-construed interpritation of the Christian bible. Taking this view, WW2 was as relgious as it was anything else. Is that post-Renaissance enough for you?

Now, this is my first post here on these boards, and this is the first thread I have read, and went out of my way to join up so I can comment on it. Mind you, I have not read every single 600 odd replies.

I am in the bundle of people are classified as athiest. I find that Athiest is a name used for these people because the names like "Christian" or "Hindu" Or "Jew" or what ever don't convieniantly fit. Alot of Athiests have Faith, it is that they do not have Religion.

Beleif and Faith are very powerful things. Since it is very rare for a person to follow more than one religion at a time, this can make an interesting condry. Relgion "A" beleive that followers of Religion "B" will go to hell for not following Relgion "A". The opposite is also can be said. Since followers of both religions truely beleive the others will go to hell, then everyone will, because of that beleif.

If you think that is a load of Rubbish, that logic more opr less follows all the arguements I have ever been given that God exists.

When your god starts hating the same people you do, you know your god is made up.

[hyperborean]

Welcome to the forums Bandiceet!

[Bandiceet]

Thank you, Hyperborean.

[kilted exile]

I think using WW2 as a "religious war" is tenuous at best. Even if you do subscribe to the opinion that Hitler was christian (albeit misguided) it ignores the other major factors behind the war (desire to create German supremacy in europe, hatred for the effects/consequences of the Verseille treaty, feeling of betrayal by German leaders from previous years)

I think possibly the best example of a post rennaissance religiously inspired conflict would be the conquest of Britain/Ireland by William of Orange

[Stanislaw]

One thing people tend to either don't know or deliberatly forget, is that Adolf Hitler was quite a devout Christian. One of the many theories that abound about why he did what he did to the Jews is because of a mis-construed interpritation of the Christian bible. Taking this view, WW2 was as relgious as it was anything else. Is that post-Renaissance enough for you?

Now, this is my first post here on these boards, and this is the first thread I have read, and went out of my way to join up so I can comment on it. Mind you, I have not read every single 600 odd replies.

I am in the bundle of people are classified as athiest. I find that Athiest is a name used for these people because the names like "Christian" or "Hindu" Or "Jew" or what ever don't convieniantly fit. Alot of Athiests have Faith, it is that they do not have Religion.

Beleif and Faith are very powerful things. Since it is very rare for a person to follow more than one religion at a time, this can make an interesting condry. Relgion "A" beleive that followers of Religion "B" will go to hell for not following Relgion "A". The opposite is also can be said. Since followers of both religions truely beleive the others will go to hell, then everyone will, because of that beleif.

If you think that is a load of Rubbish, that logic more opr less follows all the arguements I have ever been given that God exists.

When your god starts hating the same people you do, you know your god is made up.

Adolf was not a devout christian, and most of his antisemitism came from his childhood, rejection, and popular anti semetic feelings in europe at the time. WWII was not driven by relegion, it was a secular war around economics, and power.

Athiest is described as an individual who does not believe in a god or gods...not as a follower of non-mainstream religion. If you believe in an almighty being...higher than humans...you are not athiest.

As for going to hell...well, theres some faulty logic in there... just because it is stated doesn't make it true, ie I say the sky is pink, and those who say its blue are dumb...and you say the sky is blue and those who say it is pink are dumb...whos right...or are we both dumb?

well, God exists, as I have seen it to date.. he exists because it can't be proven he doesn't just as he doesn't because it can't be proven he does...
I guess you just have to have faith that he does or doesn't exist.

"When your god starts hating the same people you do, you know your god is made up"... well possibly, or that aspect is made up, if the debunking of God is because of a contradiction put forward by one guy...then, theres some issue in proofs there.

Now to clarify, I use the name God, as a describer for supreme deity, call it what you will...don't hate the player, hate the play.

[Matrim Cuathon]

no, more faith is required for religion. believing in nothing till it is proven to exist is the opposite of believing in everything till it is proven not to exist, not believing in one thing till its proven not to exist. there is only one science, there are thousands of religions. it is as likely that a higher being exists as it is that one doesnt. it as not as likely that a specific one exists.

[watkinsguy]

WW2 was a religious war? Cmon, wars are about one thing and one thing only, and that is power. You honestly think Hitler did what he did to Jews because of his "Christian" beliefs? I think it is more along the lines of his failure earlier in life which he perceived to be caused by Jews. You should look Hitler up, that would give you a much better perception of Hitler, or read his book Mein Kampf

[Stanislaw]

no, more faith is required for religion. believing in nothing till it is proven to exist is the opposite of believing in everything till it is proven not to exist, not believing in one thing till its proven not to exist. there is only one science, there are thousands of religions. it is as likely that a higher being exists as it is that one doesnt. it as not as likely that a specific one exists.


It seems to me a half empty half full argument, one side is pessimistic the other is optimistic. really, they require the same effort.

[Redzeppelin]

I can't respond to your post because then my post would be deleted (political influence would be the only way to analyze the situation). And by the way...a political debate against me is going to be much harder to win than a philosophical debate (this time it's not about opinion, but instead historical fact).

My argument would deal with Christianity and conservative politics in modern times. This would be your requested "modern example", and I shall hold me tongue (I already got demerits on this forum).

Sorry - I'm not buying it. Wars started by governments influenced by Christian principles (or simply Christian-dominant cultures) do not qualify in my book as "wars caused by Christianity." Politics mitigates this particular argument. I want wars specifically started and maintained (like the Crusades) based on religion - on who God is and what we're supposed to be doing as His servants. You will have - I believe - great difficulty in doing so.

"Win?" Was anybody winning our discussion? Here's an FYI: history is the record of what happened by other human beings - as such, it is prone to interpretation, distortion and a certain degree of subjectivity. Not all facts are irrefutably what you say they are; they may point in a number of directions at once. Maddening, this inability to nail reality down, huh?

[Matrim Cuathon]

just like the bible eh?

[Stanislaw]

as like science?

[watkinsguy]

lol this is funny to read

[Redzeppelin]

just like the bible eh?

Easily said; much more difficultly defended.

[Wintermute]

lol this is funny to read

I find it interesting, a little sad, and in some instances scary. But not funny.

The folks that are slamming creationists can not really come up with an alternate theory of what started it all.

And the science bashers have almost certainly never had the opportunity to investigate what science really is all about. My sister is a professor of neurobiology and I take great offence at the notion that she is somehow a liberal na'er-do-well who's primary goal is to debunk someone's religion. She goes into the lab before dawn, and usually doesn't return home until after 9pm. She works very hard to understand the human brain an how in functions in order to better our lot--for very little monetary compensation. You folks that summarily dismiss scientists as mean-spirited, close minded, ignorant, whatevers...need to examine a mirror. No scientist that I know of has ever claimed to know with certainty what is going on in the universe. They theorize, examine, then re-theorize.

[watkinsguy]

But isnt that what life is all about? :)

[hyperborean]

Sorry - I'm not buying it. Wars started by governments influenced by Christian principles (or simply Christian-dominant cultures) do not qualify in my book as "wars caused by Christianity." Politics mitigates this particular argument. I want wars specifically started and maintained (like the Crusades) based on religion - on who God is and what we're supposed to be doing as His servants. You will have - I believe - great difficulty in doing so.

"Win?" Was anybody winning our discussion? Here's an FYI: history is the record of what happened by other human beings - as such, it is prone to interpretation, distortion and a certain degree of subjectivity. Not all facts are irrefutably what you say they are; they may point in a number of directions at once. Maddening, this inability to nail reality down, huh?

Government documents have perfect enough interpretation for me. My knowledge doesn't come from a propaganda filled history textbook. Let's just say I have family that have worked for the government and have seen things you couldn't possibly imagine.

Anyways, It's not Christianity that's the problem; it's using Christianity to control the populace. The Nazis wore both the cross and the swastika on their uniform.

[Bookworm4Him]

That is a very blunt perception of Christianity I will give you that :) To answer the statement of why doesn't he just fast forward to the end of time since He knows who is going to choose what and where they are going to go, I ask you this: where is the fun in that? lol but really, I do believe that God likes too see us glorifying Him, as we are sentinent human beings that are making CHOICES to do His will, not being forced to like angels. Wouldn't you love your spouse more if they CHOSE to obey you rather than be FORCED to? just a thought :)

Thank you! lol How 'bout another example for our doubting companions here? ;) hmmm...!!!! I know! Everybody loves American Idol, right? If not that, then there must be some sort of show like that that you watch. So would the many viewers want to just skip right to the end and see the winner?
Ok, how 'bout the NCAA coming up? (For those of it that watch it) Now that they have arranged the brackets, let's just let the number one seeds battle it out. You know what, we all know that Florida will win, so let's just name them the champs and go about our normal buisness without having to listen to the news page constantly.
(Just one more example, I really can't help it.) How many of ya'll have children? Are they little, just a few years old? Ok, let's just grow them up here and now. Forget their first steps, their first days of school, their little field trips, first day of high school, first car, school prom, graduation, choosing colleges, getting married, their first kid, and the list goes on. Why not just rush thru time and see where the're going to be buried. Forget their life, or that they were even born. In fact, let's just kill them in the womb. they aren't really Alive, are they?!? Is that what you want? No need your little girl who, looking up at you thru her big blue eyes and putting her little hand in your palm, plant a kiss on your cheek and give you a simple "I love you." If you are willing to give that up, then :flare: shame on you!
So you want to know why God doesn't just fast forward time and put us where we'll end up? As His children, He enjoys watching us, as we do our children.
Now, I'm sure ya'll are going to pick apart my arguement, so I'll just sit here til you do. :p

[Wandering_Child]

I was simply browsing and a specific post caught my eye.


those who live like animals..

JUST eat....drink.....play....

eat....drink.....play....


and sin for ever ...ignoring Hell..!

If you really mean that seriously I...I am at a loss for words.

This is why some people are atheists. They question their beliefs for a while and extremists end up shoving the Bible down their throats and telling them that they will go to Hell if they do not believe in God.

Now, I'm not an atheist. I am a practicing LDS member, but I do have respect enough for those who believe differently. It doesn't mean that Christians, Muslims, or whatever you are should shun them simply because they don't believe in a higher being. God told us to love everyone. And it should end right there.

[Dante Wodehouse]

Whoa - what's all this and where did it come from? Did you actually want a response to this post? I'm not even sure what it's trying to say.

I don't know how to do the quote boxes (please be so kind as to tell me). I was responding to a previous post by Wintermute.

[Logos]

Dante hit the http://www.online-literature.com/forums/images/buttons/quote.gif icon which appears near the bottom right corner of the person's post that you want to quote. The text shows automatically in your reply. (or you can delete the lines out that you aren't addressing, just make sure the [quote] boxes are still at the beginning and end of it) Using the quote function makes it *much* easier and clearer for everyone to know who you're posting to :)

[Redzeppelin]

This is why some people are atheists. They question their beliefs for a while and extremists end up shoving the Bible down their throats and telling them that they will go to Hell if they do not believe in God.

Well, if hell's for real, and as bad as its described, do you blame people for getting a bit insistent that you really might want to avoid it? That aside, yes: some believers cross the line - but all "beliefs" have zealots (including atheists).


God told us to love everyone. And it should end right there.

What should end right where?

[Dante Wodehouse]

Dante hit the http://www.online-literature.com/forums/images/buttons/quote.gif icon which appears near the bottom right corner of the person's post that you want to quote. The text shows automatically in your reply. (or you can delete the lines out that you aren't addressing, just make sure the quote boxes are still at the beginning and end of it) Using the quote function makes it *much* easier and clearer for everyone to know who you're posting to :)

Thank you.

[Bookworm4Him]

One thing people tend to either don't know or deliberatly forget, is that Adolf Hitler was quite a devout Christian. One of the many theories that abound about why he did what he did to the Jews is because of a mis-construed interpritation of the Christian bible. Taking this view, WW2 was as relgious as it was anything else. Is that post-Renaissance enough for you?

Now, this is my first post here on these boards, and this is the first thread I have read, and went out of my way to join up so I can comment on it. Mind you, I have not read every single 600 odd replies.

I am in the bundle of people are classified as athiest. I find that Athiest is a name used for these people because the names like "Christian" or "Hindu" Or "Jew" or what ever don't convieniantly fit. Alot of Athiests have Faith, it is that they do not have Religion.

Beleif and Faith are very powerful things. Since it is very rare for a person to follow more than one religion at a time, this can make an interesting condry. Relgion "A" beleive that followers of Religion "B" will go to hell for not following Relgion "A". The opposite is also can be said. Since followers of both religions truely beleive the others will go to hell, then everyone will, because of that beleif.

If you think that is a load of Rubbish, that logic more opr less follows all the arguements I have ever been given that God exists.

When your god starts hating the same people you do, you know your god is made up.

Congrats on joining the forum! I look forward to sparring minds with you. I also just joined to comment on this subject, and am now going to comment on your post. Here goes...
First off, I don't believe for one second that Adolf Hitler was a Christian, or at least a true Christian, one who means it, not just claims it. (We talked about this subject a few pages ago. You might want to read it to understand our terms.) During the time of Shakespeare, everyone in the culture was termed a "Christian", as in not a Jew or a muslim, not as in followers of Christ. Also at the time, Jews were picked on, beaten, stolen from, tortured, and anything else imaginable, and no one was punished for it. In Rome, Nero hunted down and killed the Christians, b/c he needed some to accuse of burning Rome.
Someone is always picking on someone else. The Jews were chosen as the lesser party for Hitler's mad rage. No way he was even near a Christian, more like demon possessed.
2) You want an arguement on whether God exists, go to pg 36 and 37 (I think) and read that. Then we'll talk. And as to God hating everyone, do you think that if God really did hate everyone, anyone would be alive? think about that. I'm sure you will respond. :)

[Wandering_Child]

Well, if hell's for real, and as bad as its described, do you blame people for getting a bit insistent that you really might want to avoid it? That aside, yes: some believers cross the line - but all "beliefs" have zealots (including atheists).



What should end right where?

There are always going to be some people who will never listen to what you have to say. I find it extremely irritating when some people insist on something that I don't agree with - even after I have told them thousands of times and they are still persistant. It annoys me greatly. I can't speak for everyone, but I would think that most people would agree with me.

Also, I don't want to turn this into a Christian thread, but I do not believe Hell is a real place. We believe it is a state of being. That said, I am almost finished.

About the second part: Forgive me. I did not expand - I do know some Christians who think it horrific that some people do not believe in a higher being. They shun them as if they had some dangerous disease. It is quite sickening and quite sad, seeing as these people profess themselves to be disciples of Christ, whose great commandment was to love everyone.

[Redzeppelin]

There are always going to be some people who will never listen to what you have to say. I find it extremely irritating when some people insist on something that I don't agree with - even after I have told them thousands of times and they are still persistant. It annoys me greatly. I can't speak for everyone, but I would think that most people would agree with me.

Also, I don't want to turn this into a Christian thread, but I do not believe Hell is a real place. We believe it is a state of being. That said, I am almost finished..

As if that makes it any less of a torment.


About the second part: Forgive me. I did not expand - I do know some Christians who think it horrific that some people do not believe in a higher being. They shun them as if they had some dangerous disease. It is quite sickening and quite sad, seeing as these people profess themselves to be disciples of Christ, whose great commandment was to love everyone.

OK - so you've had some bad experiences with believers. I'm sorry that happened. Being an idiot is not confined to non-believers: Christians are quite capable of the same.

As well, I'm not totally sure how your posting was supposed to contribute to the discussion at hand?

[Bookworm4Him]

I find it interesting, a little sad, and in some instances scary. But not funny.

The folks that are slamming creationists can not really come up with an alternate theory of what started it all.

And the science bashers have almost certainly never had the opportunity to investigate what science really is all about. My sister is a professor of neurobiology and I take great offence at the notion that she is somehow a liberal na'er-do-well who's primary goal is to debunk someone's religion. She goes into the lab before dawn, and usually doesn't return home until after 9pm. She works very hard to understand the human brain an how in functions in order to better our lot--for very little monetary compensation. You folks that summarily dismiss scientists as mean-spirited, close minded, ignorant, whatevers...need to examine a mirror. No scientist that I know of has ever claimed to know with certainty what is going on in the universe. They theorize, examine, then re-theorize.

I not trying to slam you or your sister, I'm taking what I have learned about the universe, examining the evidence, and proving what I have found to be true. Congratulations to your sister. She is trying to protect people's lives, I'm trying to protect their eternity. Science is not mean-spirited, close-minded, and ignorant, it is very useful in today's world. It has its place. But when people make it their god, and try to prove that life came from atoms that were never there, that wammed into each other, and made a perfect world full of monkeys that over a gagillion of years turned into people...maybe some are a little close-minded.

[Wandering_Child]

As well, I'm not totally sure how your posting was supposed to contribute to the discussion at hand?

Ah, and that's why I debated whether I should post here or not...I really thought I could have a small say in something without being bombarded and/or criticized. *shrugs* Religion is a picky, aggressive topic on any site you go to.

Anyways, I take my leave. Know that I hold you all in the highest esteem - Christian and Atheist alike.

*bows respectfully out of thread*

[Bandiceet]

Thank you all for your welcome. I am sorry I have not had the chance to respond to those replying to my post. Since I posted that, I have gone to work and had a good nights sleep. (Yay for time zones!)

I have plenty else to ponderize over, but I am not sure a thread about Athiesim is the correct one to say it all, though it relevant to the generalised topic of what we are discussing. (I.E. Beleif systems and Religions.)

I find it difficult to put myself in any real pigeon hole on this due to the simple fact that neither side has offered me enough proof one way or the other. Basically every one can take what ever they want and put a small spin on the matter and claim that it is the proof that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

It also comes down to what you take out of something. You may find that many atheists follow the same principles as christianity, beleive that Jesus was a son of a carpenter and enjoyed a spot of fishing occasionally, but what they have difficulty with is taking that leap of faith that is required to beleive the water-into-wine, son-of-god, walking-on-water part of it all.

"Scientists have proof with out certainty, while Christians have certainty with out proof" - For the life of me I can not remember who said that, but it sums alot up quite neatly.

[hyperborean]

"Scientists have proof with out certainty, while Christians have certainty with out proof" - For the life of me I can not remember who said that, but it sums alot up quite neatly.

Indeed it does.

[SFG75]

This has been a very worthwhile topic and the ensuing discussion says a lot about the quality members that we have here at the forum. While I don't post much, I do enjoy reading the thoughts of others.


Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist?

Richard Dawkins has stated that atheists are like cats, they are finnicky and don't like to follow orders, which is why they aren't as *organized* in the way that a lot of groups are. While there are atheist/humanist groups out there, their numbers are paltry compared to the actual number of atheists/humanists that are out there. They follow their own will and chafe at being subservient to others, or whatever form of anti-hierarchy thinking they have. In other words, they are a rather contrarian lot. I can only speak in regards to my own experience and I'll say this-to me, an atheist *believes* in rationalism, that is, approaching every situation in life with considerable thought and serious attention. This does not mean that an atheist is perfect. This carries a big responsibility as I've changed more than a few beliefs(political and otherwise) as I've examined things I didn't want to admit, but had to after considerable deliberation. An atheist is rational and always willing to examine the evidence. They know that living by a set of ethical principles is the right thing to do and that the greatest measure of one's life, is to dedicate one's life to something beyond the self. I will live forever through my children, through my life's work in the public sector, as well as through my desire to make this life around me better through civic participation.

[Redzeppelin]

they are finnicky and don't like to follow orders... They follow their own will and chafe at being subservient to others, or whatever form of anti-hierarchy thinking they have. In other words, they are a rather contrarian lot...rational and always willing to examine the evidence. They know that living by a set of ethical principles is the right thing to do and that the greatest measure of one's life, is to dedicate one's life to something beyond the self.

Well stated. I'm curious: do you think this list of qualities is unique to atheists only, or can Christians claim the same qualities? I ask this because many atheists seem to be under the (mistaken) impression that Christians are not critical thinkers, that we "blindly" follow "what we've been taught" and that we need to "think for ourselves." Frankly, I think that's tired, stereotyping of Christians; it's almost as if many atheists want to brand rejection of established institutions, or "nonconformity" or whatever as their badge - but can't Christians claim the same qualites in different ways?

[hyperborean]

There are many Christian intellectuals and thinkers like you zeppelin, but many are "Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow" -Tool (opiate)

[Redzeppelin]

There are many Christian intellectuals and thinkers like you zeppelin, but many are "Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow" -Tool (opiate)

OK - I won't deny that: there are plenty of ignorant Christians out there, and I have annoyed a few of them myself.

(Thank you for the compliment - I'll take it as such even if it wasn't meant that way :) )

[Stanislaw]

I find it interesting, a little sad, and in some instances scary. But not funny.

The folks that are slamming creationists can not really come up with an alternate theory of what started it all.

And the science bashers have almost certainly never had the opportunity to investigate what science really is all about. My sister is a professor of neurobiology and I take great offence at the notion that she is somehow a liberal na'er-do-well who's primary goal is to debunk someone's religion. She goes into the lab before dawn, and usually doesn't return home until after 9pm. She works very hard to understand the human brain an how in functions in order to better our lot--for very little monetary compensation. You folks that summarily dismiss scientists as mean-spirited, close minded, ignorant, whatevers...need to examine a mirror. No scientist that I know of has ever claimed to know with certainty what is going on in the universe. They theorize, examine, then re-theorize.

well, the same could be said of the relgion bashers...they've never checked it out... some of us are scientists, some of us believe that an open mind is best. I don't have all of the answers, neither do you, I'm just saying, keep an open mind.

[watkinsguy]

well, the same could be said of the relgion bashers...they've never checked it out... some of us are scientists, some of us believe that an open mind is best. I don't have all of the answers, neither do you, I'm just saying, keep an open mind.

well, to quote some random black guy, true dat. lol anway To restate the gist of what Redzepplin has been saying, whether you like it or not, there are many Christians who know why they believe what they do and can easily defend it. To say that scientists have proof without certainty and Christians without proof shows that whomever quoted that phrase has never studied Christianity outside of TBN. In order to have a rational discussion we must all be on the same page, scientists that know about Christianity, and CHristians that know about science. I think this thread would be infinitly more interesting if we could do that...

[Wintermute]

But when people make it their god, and try to prove that life came from atoms that were never there, that wammed into each other, and made a perfect world full of monkeys that over a gagillion of years turned into people...maybe some are a little close-minded.

So, you are saying that science should just throw up their hands and stop trying to understand what is going on in the universe? Just accept without question that one partiuclar religion is right?? I'm sorry, but to me that is the definition of closed minded.

Note: I have presented this question before in several posts and it seems to be unanswerable, but what the heck, perhaps somone has a theory?

What was god doing before it created the universe 14 billion years ago? What was it doing for infinity (much more than a 'gagillion') years? I mean many of you seem to find is so impossible for humans to have evolved from other primates. But the notion that some supreme being has just been existing for infinity and suddenly decided to create a universe a little while ago to be a perfectly rational idea!

Again, what do you think God was doing for eternity before it (he) decided to create the universe?

[Stanislaw]

So, you are saying that science should just throw up their hands and stop trying to understand what is going on in the universe? Just accept without question that one partiuclar religion is right?? I'm sorry, but to me that is the definition of closed minded.

Note: I have presented this question before in several posts and it seems to be unanswerable, but what the heck, perhaps somone has a theory?

What was god doing before it created the universe 14 billion years ago? What was it doing for infinity (much more than a 'gagillion') years? I mean many of you seem to find is so impossible for humans to have evolved from other primates. But the notion that some supreme being has just been existing for infinity and suddenly decided to create a universe a little while ago to be a perfectly rational idea!

Again, what do you think God was doing for eternity before it (he) decided to create the universe?

I don't think thats what he was saying, I can't be certain though, I think generally, openmindedness on both sides should occur, both groups should acknowledge that the other side may have a point...innoccent untill guilty...

as for the question:

philisophically speeking, god is theoretically beyond our understanding, and thus perchance may not need to do anything in the snense of doing as we understand it. (thats platonic). or... we are not able to understand, based on our comprehensive limitations. (that is more rousseu , I murdered the spelling I know)

[Matrim Cuathon]

bookworm obviously doesnt know anything about physics.

[Bandiceet]

When I was in High School I had a teacher who was quite a devout Christian. He actually taught Physics.

He openly admitted that he had seen enough scientific proof that there was a big bang. (though mind you, I don't what he thought about evolution). He had seen the proof, beleived it, though he did beleive it was god that made it go "bang" in the first place.

After reading some of these posts, I have seen SOME people have the general opinion that they are right because they see everyone else as being wrong. (Please note that the operative word in that sentence is SOME not ALL)

Do not forget, Ladies and Gents, the question that started this thread is:
"Do you consider yourself an atheist?" People have answered this with comments to quanitify and explain their answers.
It is not "Do you think that people are wrong for their beleif?"

[Matrim Cuathon]

but thats implied...
if you consider yourself an atheist, you think that the religious people are wrong and vice versa.

[Wintermute]

. . .I think generally, openmindedness on both sides should occur, both groups should acknowledge that the other side may have a point...innoccent untill guilty...

Agreed :)



as for the question:

philisophically speeking, god is theoretically beyond our understanding, and thus perchance may not need to do anything in the snense of doing as we understand it. (thats platonic). or... we are not able to understand, based on our comprehensive limitations. (that is more rousseu , I murdered the spelling I know)

I was really wondering what YOU (anyone here) thought he/she/it was doing for infinity, not what philosophers of the past have concluded. Take a walk on the wild side--speculate. If you're so inclined. It seems like kind of convenient to answer a question with, "well, we're too dumb to understand God." We certainly understand some things, no--do unto others for example.

[watkinsguy]

Do not forget, Ladies and Gents, the question that started this thread is:
"Do you consider yourself an atheist?" People have answered this with comments to quanitify and explain their answers.
It is not "Do you think that people are wrong for their beleif?"

Oh yeah that thing :) I am not an atheist because being an atheist requires too much faith for me :)

[Stanislaw]

but thats implied...
if you consider yourself an atheist, you think that the religious people are wrong and vice versa.

Well, essentially, yes. :D


Agreed :)



I was really wondering what YOU (anyone here) thought he/she/it was doing for infinity, not what philosophers of the past have concluded. Take a walk on the wild side--speculate. If you're so inclined. It seems like kind of convenient to answer a question with, "well, we're too dumb to understand God." We certainly understand some things, no--do unto others for example.

Well, it does seem convineient, but consider children, they do not comprehend why there are laws/rules (eventually they do, as they grow) nor do they comprehend their birth or many things for that matter...maybe its a form of existance beyond our understanding...it seems like a convieniat answer...because it is, but at the same time, it does make sense logically.

but If I were to take a guess within human parameters...I really have no idea, maybe fishing...that's what I would do.

[Dante Wodehouse]

So, you are saying that science should just throw up their hands and stop trying to understand what is going on in the universe? Just accept without question that one partiuclar religion is right?? I'm sorry, but to me that is the definition of closed minded.

Note: I have presented this question before in several posts and it seems to be unanswerable, but what the heck, perhaps somone has a theory?

What was god doing before it created the universe 14 billion years ago? What was it doing for infinity (much more than a 'gagillion') years? I mean many of you seem to find is so impossible for humans to have evolved from other primates. But the notion that some supreme being has just been existing for infinity and suddenly decided to create a universe a little while ago to be a perfectly rational idea!

Again, what do you think God was doing for eternity before it (he) decided to create the universe?

No one knows what God was doing, but at least it is supposed to be a mysterious, unexplainable, and metaphysical, whereas the purely scientific big-bang theory believes everything has an order, yet still doesn't try to explain the pre-bang time period.
Of course a practicer of a religion is going to think that that religion is right while others are wrong. Who would follow a faith that they didn't regard as superior?

[SFG75]

do you think this list of qualities is unique to atheists only, or can Christians claim the same qualities? I ask this because many atheists seem to be under the (mistaken) impression that Christians are not critical thinkers, that we "blindly" follow "what we've been taught" and that we need to "think for ourselves."


Just so there is no misinterpreation, the context of my statement wasn't that religious people lack critical thinking skills, quite the contrary. Religious people are civically involved and that's a noble thing. To get to the heart of the matter, atheists don't organize themselves as well as religious people do. The American Humanist Association is a very small group compared to the relatively large number of atheists and humanists who would join. I don't believe that athiests feel compelled to join groups like that as many view it is a personal prerogative and are somewhat dismissive of those wh would "lead" the group. This is somewhat ironic to me as I know more than a few atheists who are very active in the ACLU or democratic politics. You would think they would be inclined to ban together to fight for the separation of church adn state more, but alas, that just isn't a big thing for some reason. I'm at a loss as to why that is thecase quite frankly. Christians in America have groups such as the Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family. They are well-financed and have a ton of members. At the same time, not every Christian is a member of either group, so yes, critical thinking is still around for Christians, as well as for every group out there.

On top of that, theree is a wide gap of opinion. Do I believe that a Unitarian is less of a critical thinker simply as a Christian? I do not. I know of many Methodists and Lutherans that I respect who are very profound and erudite intellectually.


Frankly, I think that's tired, stereotyping of Christians; it's almost as if many atheists want to brand rejection of established institutions, or "nonconformity" or whatever as their badge - but can't Christians claim the same qualites in different ways?

The sheer number of Christian sects bears that out. I would imagine that ministers/priests are also beside themselves at times with church members who clash with them over doctrinal matters. Stereotyping isn't right and yes, some atheists are "angry atheists" who only seek to trigger bad blood between people. I don't believe any group owes a monpoloy on that "bad" side of human behavior however.

[Wintermute]

No one knows what God was doing, but at least it is supposed to be a mysterious, unexplainable, and metaphysical, whereas the purely scientific big-bang theory believes everything has an order, yet still doesn't try to explain the pre-bang time period.
Of course a practicer of a religion is going to think that that religion is right while others are wrong. Who would follow a faith that they didn't regard as superior?

So, you don't want to speculate what it was doing for infinity. Fair enough, I understand you dilemma--kind of a sticky-wicket.

I'm not certain I understand what you mean by "the purely scientific big-bang theory believes everything has an order". By 'having an order' what do you mean exactly and specifically?

"Of course a practicer of a religion is going to think that that religion is right while others are wrong."

And this is not closed-minded?

[Bookworm4Him]

I was simply browsing and a specific post caught my eye.



If you really mean that seriously I...I am at a loss for words.

This is why some people are atheists. They question their beliefs for a while and extremists end up shoving the Bible down their throats and telling them that they will go to Hell if they do not believe in God.

Now, I'm not an atheist. I am a practicing LDS member, but I do have respect enough for those who believe differently. It doesn't mean that Christians, Muslims, or whatever you are should shun them simply because they don't believe in a higher being. God told us to love everyone. And it should end right there.

you are an athiest, so you don't belive in God, yet you claim that we should love each other because God commands it. Isn't that a little contradictory? I mean, I don't totally believe that quote either. Some people do do that, but you can't catagorize all atheists that way, just as you cant catagorize all Christians as "extremist who shove the Bible down their throats" But you can't claim something that was given by something that you don't believe exists. :thumbs_up

[Bookworm4Him]

An atheist is rational and always willing to examine the evidence. They know that living by a set of ethical principles is the right thing to do and that the greatest measure of one's life, is to dedicate one's life to something beyond the self.

Well stated. Red already talked about this, but I will add my two cents. Red asked if it is possible that Christians are like this too. I am more than willing to examine the evidence. I was raised Christian, but you come to a time where people begin to tell you that Christianity isn't true, and I have examined it myself, and come to the conclusion that it the only logical option. When you accept that there is a God, but are questioning Jesus, a wonderful book to read is The Case For Christ. It is about a journalist that set out to prove Jesus, and the Bible, a fraud. I highly recommend all you atheists to try to pull apart his arguements, and let me know your results.
I realize that you only mean that quote for certain of the sect, and I will not catagorize all atheists by the multitude of bad ones, but I ask that you do not catagorize all the Christians by the majority of those who call themselves Christians.
"They try to dedicate their life to something beyond the self." Isn't that our whole purpose? To try to reach out and y'all the truth before you die and go to hell? gtg

[Matrim Cuathon]

you are an athiest, so you don't belive in God, yet you claim that we should love each other because God commands it. Isn't that a little contradictory? I mean, I don't totally believe that quote either. Some people do do that, but you can't catagorize all atheists that way, just as you cant catagorize all Christians as "extremist who shove the Bible down their throats" But you can't claim something that was given by something that you don't believe exists. :thumbs_up

he said he wasnt an atheist.

[Dante Wodehouse]

So, you don't want to speculate what it was doing for infinity. Fair enough, I understand you dilemma--kind of a sticky-wicket.

I'm not certain I understand what you mean by "the purely scientific big-bang theory believes everything has an order". By 'having an order' what do you mean exactly and specifically?

"Of course a practicer of a religion is going to think that that religion is right while others are wrong."

And this is not closed-minded?

I do speculate, but I cannot be sure. Having an order means that it should be explainable, but infinity is not explainable, not by science. It is closed minded, but why would you entrust your immortal soul to a cause that you didn't consider correct.

[Dante Wodehouse]

If you really mean that seriously I...I am at a loss for words.

This is why some people are atheists. They question their beliefs for a while and extremists end up shoving the Bible down their throats and telling them that they will go to Hell if they do not believe in God.

Now, I'm not an atheist. I am a practicing LDS member, but I do have respect enough for those who believe differently. It doesn't mean that Christians, Muslims, or whatever you are should shun them simply because they don't believe in a higher being. God told us to love everyone. And it should end right there.

You don't seem to be at a loss for words.
There are extremists out there, but there are also people who love (and this may not be such a crazy idea) by trying to save other people. Many times people who are just trying to make an atheist see the light are docketed as intolerant radicals. Respect is good, but to love you should have an interest (not neccessarily a pushy one) in helping their immortal soul. In my not-quite so humble opinion, trying to get a fellow human in to heaven demonstrates more love than playing 18 holes of golf with them every other Sunday.

[Matrim Cuathon]

well, you nubs can go love someone else then :)

[Bookworm4Him]

he said he wasnt an atheist.

sorry old chap. I was quickly skimming thru. I'm not quite sure what an LDS thingy is.

[Logos]

I'm not quite sure what an LDS thingy is.

Latter Day Saints (http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg) are people, not 'thingys' :)

[Bookworm4Him]

well, you nubs can go love someone else then :)

True love is helping your "enemies" (i don't consider you my "enemy" as much as just not agreeing) as well as your friend. Anyone, including barbarians in who-knows-where, will help their friends; only those who really care will help those they don't know. If y'all have relatives, esp. close family, who are Christians, do you think that they will stop loving you if you don't convert? Not on your life! You don't have to agree to love. :thumbs_up

[Bookworm4Him]

Latter Day Saints (http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg) are people, not 'thingys' :)

sorry!

[Weisinheimer]

"Of course a practicer of a religion is going to think that that religion is right while others are wrong."

And this is not closed-minded?
No, it's not closed-minded to be sure about something. I believe there is a God. I, therefore, believe that people who don't believe there is a God are wrong. I do however recognize that there are logical arguments for atheism. They just aren't as convincing to me as the ones for theism.

[watkinsguy]

Pluralism in today's society is so illogical....You can not have everyone be right and no one wrong.....i agree Weisninheimer

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Yo! Yo! Yo! Homies!!! What's up? Word!

[RobinHood3000]

No, it's not closed-minded to be sure about something. I believe there is a God. I, therefore, believe that people who don't believe there is a God are wrong. I do however recognize that there are logical arguments for atheism. They just aren't as convincing to me as the ones for theism.In what way?

[SFG75]

Red asked if it is possible that Christians are like this too.

They are like that to a degree. There are those who do acknowledge evolution and who wouldn't believe that we should take the Old Testament too literally, as stoning children and reverting back to a primtive, barbarian Taliban-esque society is untenable. There are those who are in denial. I coun't those who believe the earth is only 14,000 years old or who fail to believe that there are new species (http://www.onelocalnews.com/whiterockreviewer/ViewArticle.aspx?id=76326&source=2) that emerge, which ultimately, validates evolution. I know more of more than a few Ph.D. holders who sudenly develop amnesia, or at least, stay away from the biology department.:lol: The least critical thinking are those who are like Fred Phelps. People who take selected portions of the Old Testament, only to ignore the more absurd parts of it; people who equate a free-thinking deist Jefferson as a litaerlist; people like Jerry Falwell and Oral Roberts, who talk about morality, but who ignore social justice and the economy to the detriment of working people. These are the folks who exhibit the least amount of critical thinking in my honest, biased, flawed opinion.:yawnb:



I realize that you only mean that quote for certain of the sect, and I will not catagorize all atheists by the multitude of bad ones, but I ask that you do not catagorize all the Christians by the majority of those who call themselves Christians.

Oh I more than agree. Martin Heidegger was a known Nazi sympathizer. How someone with his background could have fallen under the sway of national-socialism merely accounts ofr the fact that humans...are well....human.




"They try to dedicate their life to something beyond the self." Isn't that our whole purpose? To try to reach out and y'all the truth before you die and go to hell?

LOL-I have investigated the claims of Christianity, and I have found them to be false. For one, Christianity is terribly unoriginal. Large parts of Christianity are products of Pagan stories of the past. (http://www.aznewage.com/rootsofchristianity.htm) From a "flesh and blood savior" to the resurrection, though they called him Osiris-Dionysus. On top of that, every major Christian holiday has a pagan predecessor. (http://www.2think.org/hii/holiday.shtml) Second, Christianity claims nothing that makes it more discernablly correct than any other system of belief. Testimony?, absolutely worthless as there are plenty of Hindus, Buddhists, and Hindus who can tell you that their convictions are of equal value. The holy scriptures? The process of what is added or subtracted was nothing more than political scheming and the stories written were by the victorious tribes. Ethnic cleansing and all sorts of backwards behavior such as stoning children, clearly show this pattern IMHO. Look at our own politicas, for years, the "curse of Ham" theory was used to justify slavery and segregation. How laughable is it that a man seeing his drunken father is cursed, but the daughters who get their father drunk and sleep with him isn't?:lol: Now you could argue that those instances are different, however, that would be to admit the *relative* nature of things, and we now how *relativism* is the boogie-man for every known(or pretended) problem that there is. Third, the religion that one takes up is mostly predicated upon geography. If you grow up in Thailand, you will probably be a Buddhist. If you grew up in India, perhaps a Hindu or a Sikh. If you are an American, well, your sect depends upon your own family background. Yes, I suppose one could look at the "evidence" and dismiss other religions or sects, but that can be a rather creative task in reasoning as well.

No, atheists aren't perfect and they(I) are more than flawed. I hold on to some ntoions myself related to politics and philosophy that I know perhaps aren't exactly so "true." However, I acknowledge that(or seek to) and in doing so, hope to continue learning what I can. I can't say the same goes for a theistic person. Contrary evidence can be rationalized away or simply ignored.

Sorry the rant/rambling. I should have less coffee.

I hope I did not offend with my post, it wasn't my intention. This is a fine board and I'm very impressed with the content posted thus far by everyone.:thumbs_up

[Weisinheimer]

In what way?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, Robin. some clarification, please.

[Wintermute]

I do speculate, but I cannot be sure. Having an order means that it should be explainable, but infinity is not explainable, not by science. It is closed minded, but why would you entrust your immortal soul to a cause that you didn't consider correct.

Ok, let's do away with infinity. Lets pose the question as:

What do you think God was doing 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000 years ago?

I think we all agree that this is only a drop in the bucket compared to infinity.

And as for an 'immortal soul', I'm far from convinced that such a thing even exists, let alone what I would trust it to if it did.

[quasimodo1]

Got to go with you here. I still havn't ruled out reincarnation and karma as distinct methods or resources. The deity concept has basic conundrums built in. Can the rules of physics be applied to spiritual things. Rhetorical question maybe. Oh well, back to unreality. RJS

[Wintermute]

Got to go with you here. I still havn't ruled out reincarnation and karma as distinct methods or resources. The deity concept has basic conundrums built in. Can the rules of physics be applied to spiritual things. Rhetorical question maybe. Oh well, back to unreality. RJS

Hi Quasi,

Yeah, I'm with you, I can't really rule anything out. I sometimes think the native americans may have been onto something with their animal spirit guides, dreams, natural signs, etc. I could swear I've noticed unusual animal behaviour preceeding certain major events in my life--perhaps its just an over-active imagination though.

If spiritual = paranormal, then no, the laws of physics do not apply, imo. By definiton paranormal consistis of events beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation (1).

(1)
paranormal. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paranormal

[The Atheist]

Can you guess which way I voted?

[thuraiya]

the one who suffere from materialism ...
and look for the reality of this life in wrong way
he sufferes from inside because he don't understand the actual realationship between his mind and his heart ..
everything in his life must be material even the love 2 be real ..




in my opinion , if he or they don't believe that there is god "ALLAH" for this life ...
why ?
most of them live in confusing life ...

[Taliesin]

O sancta simplicitas!

[thuraiya]

Atheists don't believe in a god. Like myself I only believe in materials processions. Of which I can personally see, touch, and feel. Unlike a god as many Christians believe in I do not see him. I have tried to pray to see some type of signs that to prove he exists, but as of now I have failed to get a reply. Therefore I don't believe there is a god, or ever will be one.

the actual feeling will tell you ..
the try does not carry any meaning of feeling ..
and the materials does not mean everythings ..

[Taliesin]

We wonder, thuraiya, how can you be so sure about Corlen's feelings about god? We understand that you are sure in your feelings and that you feel so, but how can one be sure that all people in the world have similar feelings?

[Bookworm4Him]

ahhh! I do have a response to the eternity question, but I have to get off right now... :flare: well, I will answer be back soon!

[Wintermute]

Hi Thuraiya,


the actual feeling will tell you ..

What feeling? Could you please describe precisely what you are talking about. Is it a warm feeling of goodness? Is it awe inspiring? Please be as verbose and descriptive as you are able. These little cryptic, half-sentences are not very helpful, but they are typical of discussions of this nature.


the try does not carry any meaning of feeling ..

How do you know this? This seems a bit presumptive and arrogant on your part. Do you personally know Colren? Speaking for myself, my attempts at prayer have been loaded with sincerity. I suspect this is the case with Colren too. Folks would not be posting in this forum if their feelings were not powerful and sincere.


and the materials does not mean everythings ..

Agreed. But, and this is a big but: this concept does not in any way prove or even imply an omnipoten, omnicient, eternal, multi-universal creator/judge. It just means that love is good. It means that baseball is fun and that happiness is to be cherished.

[Bookworm4Him]

So, you are saying that science should just throw up their hands and stop trying to understand what is going on in the universe? Just accept without question that one partiuclar religion is right?? I'm sorry, but to me that is the definition of closed minded.

I in no way am trying to say that science should just accept that they can't know everything. I'm saying that instead of trying to prove we came from monkeys, and disprove everything else, maybe they should try proving religion and see if they can find enough facts. That would be less close-minded.


Note: I have presented this question before in several posts and it seems to be unanswerable, but what the heck, perhaps somone has a theory?

What was god doing before it created the universe 14 billion years ago? What was it doing for infinity (much more than a 'gagillion') years? I mean many of you seem to find is so impossible for humans to have evolved from other primates. But the notion that some supreme being has just been existing for infinity and suddenly decided to create a universe a little while ago to be a perfectly rational idea!

Again, what do you think God was doing for eternity before it (he) decided to create the universe?

As someone has so kindly pointed out, I don't know physics very well. But still, I believe a key component of most of the equations have to do with time- seconds, minutes...months, years- am I correct? Because one thing everyone forgets is that day and night (by which we base all of our time measurements on) didn't exist until God created them on the first day of creation. Now, we can't say that God was out there for 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...etc. years, because years don't exist! However, most people would still call the period between when God created the world back to forever as "time", but we cannot measure it. There is a verse in the Bible that says that a thousand years are as one day to God. I don't believe this to mean an exact measurement, but meaning a long period of time. So the "time" that cannot be measured would be quick enough anyway.
One other thing is that we count certain periods of time as a long time. Being in school or work for a few hours is long, a 30 min. isnt. A year takes forever...etc. But I am sure God doesn't base long and short periods of time by our opinions. As He had lived, and lives, and will live, for eternity, I'm sure He doesn't get bored after half and hour.
Talliho! Good-bye! Hasta la Vista! Adios! C'ya! ...bye.

[watkinsguy]

this would be a valid arguement if this were amongst a group of believers Bookworm, but you are not. There is much scientific proof of Christinity all you have to do is look :)

[Wintermute]

I in no way am trying to say that science should just accept that they can't know everything. I'm saying that instead of trying to prove we came from monkeys, and disprove everything else, maybe they should try proving religion and see if they can find enough facts. That would be less close-minded.



As someone has so kindly pointed out, I don't know physics very well. But still, I believe a key component of most of the equations have to do with time- seconds, minutes...months, years- am I correct? Because one thing everyone forgets is that day and night (by which we base all of our time measurements on) didn't exist until God created them on the first day of creation. Now, we can't say that God was out there for 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...etc. years, because years don't exist! However, most people would still call the period between when God created the world back to forever as "time", but we cannot measure it. There is a verse in the Bible that says that a thousand years are as one day to God. I don't believe this to mean an exact measurement, but meaning a long period of time. So the "time" that cannot be measured would be quick enough anyway.
One other thing is that we count certain periods of time as a long time. Being in school or work for a few hours is long, a 30 min. isnt. A year takes forever...etc. But I am sure God doesn't base long and short periods of time by our opinions. As He had lived, and lives, and will live, for eternity, I'm sure He doesn't get bored after half and hour.
Talliho! Good-bye! Hasta la Vista! Adios! C'ya! ...bye.

Howdy Book,

Just an fyi:

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

Do you think a second is the same on say...Mars? I bet it is! If carried a caesium-133 atom to Mars, I bet it would vibrate 9.19 X 10e9 times/second just like on earth. Now, do you think a day and night are the same on Mars? Look it up if you have an open mind 8-)

Anyway, I can see when I'm beaten. You make a heck of an argument and I'd like to formally throw in the virtual towel. Be safe and happy my friend.

[Dante Wodehouse]

LOL-I have investigated the claims of Christianity, and I have found them to be false. For one, Christianity is terribly unoriginal. Large parts of Christianity are products of Pagan stories of the past. From a "flesh and blood savior" to the resurrection, though they called him Osiris-Dionysus. On top of that, every major Christian holiday has a pagan predecessor. Second, Christianity claims nothing that makes it more discernablly correct than any other system of belief. Testimony?, absolutely worthless as there are plenty of Hindus, Buddhists, and Hindus who can tell you that their convictions are of equal value. The holy scriptures? The process of what is added or subtracted was nothing more than political scheming and the stories written were by the victorious tribes. Ethnic cleansing and all sorts of backwards behavior such as stoning children, clearly show this pattern IMHO.

Testimonies are not worthless. There were witnesses to Christs miracles, death, and rising, many witnesses. The process of adding and subtracting was written by the losers. Israel has been in and out of foreign control forever. The area's practices were quite cruel (the stoning children), but ethnic cleansing obviously failed, as the Jews (obviously the losers. The name Jew was actually applied to the people by the Persians who were occupying them at the time) are still there.

[Redzeppelin]

LOL-I have investigated the claims of Christianity, and I have found them to be false.

Could you qualify the extent and method of your "investigation," please?


For one, Christianity is terribly unoriginal. Large parts of Christianity are products of Pagan stories of the past. (http://www.aznewage.com/rootsofchristianity.htm) From a "flesh and blood savior" to the resurrection, though they called him Osiris-Dionysus. On top of that, every major Christian holiday has a pagan predecessor. (http://www.2think.org/hii/holiday.shtml)

Easily countered. C.S Lewis convincingly argued in a number of essays that Christ was the fulfillment of all the other "symbolic Christs" before Him; the other myths were prefigurations of the Christ to come. If you examine Plato's Republic and peruse Socrates' description of the "totally righteous man" you will see a decription that resembles Christ perfectly. Lewis suggested that if Plato had been alive at the time of the crucifixion that he would have said "yes - that is the exact thing of which I was speaking." Lewis contends (rightly so) that Christ was the "myth made real." Secondly, that the early Christian church may have had holidays that resembled pagan festivals doesn't invalidate Christianity - it simply confirms that it can, on occasion, resort to pragmatics to deal with cultural shifts (hence the Christian church's use of "harvest festivals" as alternatives to Halloween celebrations).


Second, Christianity claims nothing that makes it more discernablly correct than any other system of belief.

This too is false. The cosmological and design arguments show that God is necessary, powerful, transcendant, non-contingent, intelligent, and personal; the moral argument shows that God has a moral will, a purpose for how we are to live, that he is engaged with the world, and that the motives and actions of human beings matter to Him. No other belief system puts forth anything/body that meets the same criteria.


Testimony?, absolutely worthless as there are plenty of Hindus, Buddhists, and Hindus who can tell you that their convictions are of equal value. The holy scriptures? The process of what is added or subtracted was nothing more than political scheming and the stories written were by the victorious tribes.

Fine - let's here your evidence, because I've heard this cliche a hundred times. Nobody who knows the history of the early church would agree with this. People do not die the horrible deaths early Christians did because of some made up book of lies. Please. The internal coherence of the Bible and numerous textual integrity studies absolutely trash-can these misinformed assertions.


Ethnic cleansing and all sorts of backwards behavior such as stoning children, clearly show this pattern IMHO.

I'm sorry - your out-of-context quoting won't work either. I could cut and paste enough statements out of your postings or take a few sentences of yours out of context and make you sound like you're saying something really bad too. Don't apply your 21st century politically correct lense on the Bible without knowing clearly what's inside it, the context within which these things occured, the the God whom it reveals. Doing so is reckless.


Look at our own politicas, for years, the "curse of Ham" theory was used to justify slavery and segregation. How laughable is it that a man seeing his drunken father is cursed, but the daughters who get their father drunk and sleep with him isn't?

Why don't you dig up an argument from the 20th century? Current Christian theology believes no such thing. Digging through the past doesn't do much to condemn modern Christianity.


:lol: Now you could argue that those instances are different, however, that would be to admit the *relative* nature of things, and we now how *relativism* is the boogie-man for every known(or pretended) problem that there is.

There is no "relativism" required - both actions were sinful.

[Matrim Cuathon]

the why dont you use the 20th century arguement doesnt work. if the bible is how things should be then christians actions shouldnt change. what if you are wrong in some of your beliefs as well, and they change in the future? why is your intepretation right, anf the ones from the past wrong?

[Redzeppelin]

the why dont you use the 20th century arguement doesnt work.

Sure it does; allow me to explain how. You are a free agent in this world - whatever crimes your father may have committed (obviously I'm making this up to make a point) have zero to do with who you are today and what you do today. For me to say "because your father is bad and did bad things, therefore you are bad and do bad things" is equivalent to the historical attack on Christianity. Is that not sheer absurdity? If people in the 21st century are going to criticize Christianity, they need to show that it is still commiting atrocitites equal to those of mislead individuals of the past. Otherwise, you put the "sins" of the father on the son. Unfair, and unfounded.


if the bible is how things should be then christians actions shouldnt change.

The Bible is not "how things should be" (I'm not even sure I understand what that statement means) - it reveals God's character through the history of His chosen people (the Israelites); as such, the story it tells is not "how things should be" but how things were. Luckily, it does contain principles that tell us how we ought to be. That some people have gone off the deep end doesn't indict the Bible any more than some kid who machine-guns a high school campus after listening to heavy metal music indicts heavy metal.


what if you are wrong in some of your beliefs as well, and they change in the future? why is your intepretation right, anf the ones from the past wrong?

Why don't you clarify this wildly unclear statement and then I'll be happy to deal with it.

[EitherOr]

The cosmological and design arguments show that God is necessary, powerful, transcendant, non-contingent, intelligent, and personal;

The Cosmological argument is based on the idea of an 'uncaused cause' and neglects the idea of infinite regression. There's also no reason to believe the God of the conclusion, should you accept it, is anything like that of the God of any religion (personal for example).

My only understanding of ID is that it's based around the fact nature is too complex to have evolved, and therefore must have been designed. This seems to be a great leap (of faith, so to speak), in that it appears to state because we have not seen evolution in progress, then it cannot be true.

[Redzeppelin]

The Cosmological argument is based on the idea of an 'uncaused cause' and neglects the idea of infinite regression. There's also no reason to believe the God of the conclusion, should you accept it, is anything like that of the God of any religion (personal for example)..

There is no such thing as "infinite regression." What is known as "actual infinities" do not exist in reality - only potential infinities exist. Explain your "no reason" statement, if you would, please.


My only understanding of ID is that it's based around the fact nature is too complex to have evolved, and therefore must have been designed. This seems to be a great leap (of faith, so to speak), in that it appears to state because we have not seen evolution in progress, then it cannot be true.


No - it states nothing of the sort. ID deals with the idea that the universe betrays signs of a "designer." One of the arguments is the idea of "irreducable complexity." But your final statement also works to justify a belief in God: just because you haven't seen Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist. How cool is that?

[Wintermute]

But your final statement also works to justify a belief in God: just because you haven't seen Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist. How cool is that?

Howdy Red,

I've noticed similar statements that apply to both trains of thought. For example:

Big Bang: what created it?
God: what created it?

If you accept that God is eternal, doesn't that imply infinity? Has God not been around for infinity?

[Wintermute]

Sure it does; allow me to explain how. You are a free agent in this world - whatever crimes your father may have committed (obviously I'm making this up to make a point) have zero to do with who you are today and what you do today. For me to say "because your father is bad and did bad things, therefore you are bad and do bad things" is equivalent to the historical attack on Christianity. Is that not sheer absurdity? If people in the 21st century are going to criticize Christianity, they need to show that it is still commiting atrocitites equal to those of mislead individuals of the past. Otherwise, you put the "sins" of the father on the son. Unfair, and unfounded.

The problem I have with this, is that we may not be aware of current 'atrocities'. For example, stem-cell research (SCR) seems to be a no-no for most Christians and many actively work/vote against it. One hundred years from now we may find that SCR saves thousands of lives and that by delaying advancement in the field, Christian voters are directly responsible for much pain, grief, and death that could have been avoided.

I agree that you don't automatically assume that the son is like the father, but you might want to keep an eye on him.

Again, its the absolute certainty that leads to zealotry which results in human agony. While you may not have a mean bone in your body Red, many do. And personally, one of my primary fears is that some zealoted religious nut-case will come to power, access old internet postings on forums like this, and hunt us heathens down in the name of his or her Lord. It's a deep rooted fear, and its real--it's happened in the past. And someone said, "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." (or something similar).

Just my two cents.

[Redzeppelin]

The problem I have with this, is that we may not be aware of current 'atrocities'. For example, stem-cell research (SCR) seems to be a no-no for most Christians and many actively work/vote against it. One hundred years from now we may find that SCR saves thousands of lives and that by delaying advancement in the field, Christian voters are directly responsible for much pain, grief, and death that could have been avoided.

Hi Winter - SCR's potential benefit has been much touted - but it requires the destruction of an embryo - a potential human being. There are other ways to solve the problem. Humans are inventive. Simply because SCR is convenient, we argue to keep it - but something potentially human dies for an unproven theory. No.


I agree that you don't automatically assume that the son is like the father, but you might want to keep an eye on him.

No problem there. Watch us closely - but don't condemn us for what we personally could not condemn/prevent.


Again, its the absolute certainty that leads to zealotry which results in human agony. While you may not have a mean bone in your body Red, many do. And personally, one of my primary fears is that some zealoted religious nut-case will come to power, access old internet postings on forums like this, and hunt us heathens down in the name of his or her Lord. It's a deep rooted fear, and its real--it's happened in the past. And someone said, "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." (or something similar).

Just my two cents.

I don't think God (or our secular society) would let that happen. The hostility out in the world today is aimed at religion, and Christianity in general. It is I who worry about the future. Intellectual atheists like Dawkins have crossed the line from saying "Christians are confused and deluded" to "Christians are dangerous and their views are destructive."

[billyjack]

The point is an atheist doesn't belive IN deities. The way you put it sounds like 'to belive' has only a single meaning, that is 'having a theistic belief'.

well said. atheist are typically stonger believers than theist. and by believer i mean someone who is un-open to the unknown and thereby commits intellectual suicide by refussal to hear out other beliefs.

[Redzeppelin]

well said. atheist are typically stonger believers than theist. and by believer i mean someone who is un-open to the unknown and thereby commits intellectual suicide by refussal to hear out other beliefs.

Care to clarify this statement a little? It kind of "loops around" itself and I'm not quite sure what it's saying. Thanks

[watkinsguy]

something i would like to ask is why do atheists and other critics 95% of the time target Christianity whenever they have a problem with "religion"? Islam is just as big if not bigger than Christianity membership wise, yet I never hear boo about them. Would any atheist like to answer my question?

[Neo_Sephiroth]

something i would like to ask is why do atheists and other critics 95% of the time target Christianity whenever they have a problem with "religion"? Islam is just as big if not bigger than Christianity membership wise, yet I never hear boo about them. Would any atheist like to answer my question?

It could possibly be that the majority of people are more familiar with Christianity moreso than Islam.

But I probably shouldn't be answering this, I ain't an atheist.:p

[billyjack]

Care to clarify this statement a little? It kind of "loops around" itself and I'm not quite sure what it's saying. Thanks

yeah, sure, i'll clarify. when someone truly believes in something, atheist or theist, they tend to make this belief (be it god, truth, ect.) the unquestionable benchmark of any incoming data. meaning, new things can be brought forth to our "believer" but their god or truth cannot be touched because the believer has put up an intellectual fence around their absolute with a no touch sign on it. and athiest are just as guilty of this as theist. the only difference is the name they give to their benchmark of belief.

[Bookworm4Him]

yeah, sure, i'll clarify. when someone truly believes in something, atheist or theist, they tend to make this belief (be it god, truth, ect.) the unquestionable benchmark of any incoming data. meaning, new things can be brought forth to our "believer" but their god or truth cannot be touched because the believer has put up an intellectual fence around their absolute with a no touch sign on it. and athiest are just as guilty of this as theist. the only difference is the name they give to their benchmark of belief.

Everyone believes in something, as you stated. But not everyone who truly believes in something necessarily believes it blindly. I believe in God, the One True God, the God of the Bible, the Father of Jesus, one of the Trinity. (I could go on, but I'll stop there for the sake of time) That is what I believe in. And of course we have an inclination to protect what we believe in. If we didn't, then you wouldn't be on here. ;) But I am open-minded, also. I have listened and considered other's evidence, and even tried proving Athiesm, and disproving God, to myself to see if it was possible. But no matter how much evidence I examined, no matter how many points of view I took, nothing else proved true, through and through. I find it worthy to be defended now. I realize that many people say that they believe something, and don't even research it, both Atheists and Christians. But I beseech you, try my way of view. Instead of building the fence against God, try proving God and seeing what you come up with. :thumbs_up

[Dante Wodehouse]

The problem I have with this, is that we may not be aware of current 'atrocities'. For example, stem-cell research (SCR) seems to be a no-no for most Christians and many actively work/vote against it. One hundred years from now we may find that SCR saves thousands of lives and that by delaying advancement in the field, Christian voters are directly responsible for much pain, grief, and death that could have been avoided.

Christians do not have a problem with stem cell research, however they do have a problem with research on embryo stem cells. Those who are advocated of embryonic stem cell research are becoming more close-minded. They are refusing to pursue other very good and in some instances certain and more effective stem cells. For instance, umbilical cords have an abundance of stem cells that are just as (and some believe to be more so) usable as those from embryos, and you don't have to kill any potential humans (nor clone them).

[Dante Wodehouse]

Everyone believes in something, as you stated. But not everyone who truly believes in something necessarily believes it blindly. I believe in God, the One True God, the God of the Bible, the Father of Jesus, one of the Trinity. (I could go on, but I'll stop there for the sake of time) That is what I believe in. And of course we have an inclination to protect what we believe in. If we didn't, then you wouldn't be on here. ;) But I am open-minded, also. I have listened and considered other's evidence, and even tried proving Athiesm, and disproving God, to myself to see if it was possible. But no matter how much evidence I examined, no matter how many points of view I took, nothing else proved true, through and through. I find it worthy to be defended now. I realize that many people say that they believe something, and don't even research it, both Atheists and Christians. But I beseech you, try my way of view. Instead of building the fence against God, try proving God and seeing what you come up with. :thumbs_up

Well said.

[thuraiya]

As I said his attempt 2 find ALLAH does not mean anything at all !!
Surely
I respect his attmpt . *_*
*BUT*
Why did I said that"??

Simply:- If I ask u or him 2 solve a complicated equation !!;

But he did not find any solution 2 it ..
"HE TRIED "
Is that mean the equation does not have any
solution !!
My be u consider the equation as material …
OK
As you believe "everything in this life should be material 2 be acceptable 2 our mind"
I have one question 2 u ..
If everything should be material 2 be acceptable 2 our mind as u said …*
Could you describe my soul !!
How it looks... What its colour ?
Plz do not tell me that I have not soul because I will not believe u '

hi wintermut.*_*

as u asked:
what do you think God was doing ..... before it (he) decided to create the universe?
i think it is very good qustion ..:thumbs_up
as you know everything in this life should have place & time ..
ok ...
just imagine anything without them event or anything u like ..
surly u can not..
what that mean?plz*
are our minds limited or what ??:idea:
we can not know what ALLAH WAS DOING
with this limited mind...**


We wonder, thuraiya, how can you be so sure about Corlen's feelings about god? We understand that you are sure in your feelings and that you feel so, but how can one be sure that all people in the world have similar feelings?


hi Taliesin :) :)
no i did not say iam sure in my feeling *at all*

and i did not say that that all people in the world have similar feelings..
you can return 2 my post*^*
may be it is misunderstanding...
i said by the actual feeling he will discover the existence of his god..


Hi Thuraiya,



What feeling? Could you please describe precisely what you are talking about. Is it a warm feeling of goodness? Is it awe inspiring? Please be as verbose and descriptive as you are able. These little cryptic, half-sentences are not very helpful, but they are typical of discussions of this nature.


How do you know this? This seems a bit presumptive and arrogant on your part. Do you personally know Colren? Speaking for myself, my attempts at prayer have been loaded with sincerity. I suspect this is the case with Colren too. Folks would not be posting in this forum if their feelings were not powerful and sincere.



Agreed. But, and this is a big but: this concept does not in any way prove or even imply an omnipoten, omnicient, eternal, multi-universal creator/judge. It just means that love is good. It means that baseball is fun and that happiness is to be cherished.

hi...Wintermute *_*

1) the feeling that can make connection between yuor heart & mind
not only with your mind ..

2)you will know the answer if you make comparison between your post & carolin's post what you are saying is completly diffrent with what carolin said *as i see*..


3)as you said it is just concept ...

Posted by Bookworm4Him
. Instead of building the fence against God, try proving God and seeing what you come up with. _


it is very fantastic sentence...
also do not say i am athiest ..
say ... i am looking for truth..;) ;)

[billyjack]

Everyone believes in something, as you stated. But not everyone who truly believes in something necessarily believes it blindly. I believe in God, the One True God, the God of the Bible, the Father of Jesus, one of the Trinity. (I could go on, but I'll stop there for the sake of time) That is what I believe in. And of course we have an inclination to protect what we believe in. If we didn't, then you wouldn't be on here. ;) But I am open-minded, also. I have listened and considered other's evidence, and even tried proving Athiesm, and disproving God, to myself to see if it was possible. But no matter how much evidence I examined, no matter how many points of view I took, nothing else proved true, through and through. I find it worthy to be defended now. I realize that many people say that they believe something, and don't even research it, both Atheists and Christians. But I beseech you, try my way of view. Instead of building the fence against God, try proving God and seeing what you come up with. :thumbs_up

why is it that mystics of every religion after studying scripture and digging deep into the way of things always renounce dogma and create a new idea of what god is? this new idea usually consist in coming to the conclusion that god is everyone of us, playing hide and seek with himself. so i have to wonder, if the universal trends amongst devote scholars with an open mind is to deviate from their scripture and conventional ideal of god, what would make an open minded person not fall into this same trend? did the mystics of lore overlook something or have you? i beseech you to ponder this.

[ennison]

Living forever through one's children? A short distance from me there lived an old woman who lost all her sons in the war. Around me are bachelors and spinsters without children. The couple in the trees behind have none. Immortal work in the public sector? Does that knock out most people - who are after all not in the public sector. The cemeteries are full of the indispensible, whose toils now seem most obscure. Civic participation sounds neat - a hobby for the chattering classes could be synonomous. Truthfully I do not have enough irrationality to believe any of these things constitute any kind of immortality.
If by immortality you mean some historical record of your existence well it seems the World will longer remember Hitler's Nazi state than the millions of its anonymous victims.

[Bookworm4Him]

why is it that mystics of every religion after studying scripture and digging deep into the way of things always renounce dogma and create a new idea of what god is? this new idea usually consist in coming to the conclusion that god is everyone of us, playing hide and seek with himself. so i have to wonder, if the universal trends amongst devote scholars with an open mind is to deviate from their scripture and conventional ideal of god, what would make an open minded person not fall into this same trend? did the mystics of lore overlook something or have you? i beseech you to ponder this.

I would try to ponder it... it's just that I have no idea what you are trying to say. You are the one that is sounding mystifying... :alien: Are you defending my side, or arguing against me? I will try to respond but I have no idea what you are trying to say, so if I am misguided, please tell me, and then say your post again in simpler sentences.
Are you saying that religious scholars, after studying thoroughly their religious texts, reject it, and come up with a whole new religion- which states, usually, that god is within us, and we are god. That is what most openminded scholars come up with.
Is that correct?

[billyjack]

I would try to ponder it... it's just that I have no idea what you are trying to say. You are the one that is sounding mystifying... :alien: Are you defending my side, or arguing against me? I will try to respond but I have no idea what you are trying to say, so if I am misguided, please tell me, and then say your post again in simpler sentences.
Are you saying that religious scholars, after studying thoroughly their religious texts, reject it, and come up with a whole new religion- which states, usually, that god is within us, and we are god. That is what most openminded scholars come up with.
Is that correct?

sorry if my last post was unclear...words have a tendency to put a vale over true meaning.

your interpretation was close, but it fell off somewhere. let me clarify: god is not within us like a liver or a brain. if that is what you mean by within us? we are god in that we, everyone of us, is the totality of existence. everything sensed outside of us is just as much us as everything thought inside of us. cause when you think about it, your sensing of a tree is really a state in your brain and your thoughts are really coming from outside of you, as in thoughts come from society, opionions, mores, conventions, tradition, schooling, ect... so the mystic conception of god is really a person's conception of themself turned inside out.

this is what mystics tend to come up with; they reject the idea of a personified, all consciously powerful god. instead, mystics see god as the entire universe and every person as an expression of the entire universe like waves are experssions of the ocean. mystics still call themselves members of a religion, but enlightened members.

does this help, i know that questioning the ideal of our traditional self can get foggy sometimes, and for that, my apologies, but that is the nature of language.

[Bookworm4Him]

I would try to ponder it... it's just that I have no idea what you are trying to say. You are the one that is sounding mystifying... :alien: Are you defending my side, or arguing against me? I will try to respond but I have no idea what you are trying to say, so if I am misguided, please tell me, and then say your post again in simpler sentences.
Are you saying that religious scholars, after thoroughly studying religious texts, reject it, and come up with a whole new religion- which states, usually, that god is within us, and we are god. That is what most openminded scholars come up with.
Is that correct?

If it is, then first, Which religious texts are they studying? Is it the whole Bible, the Koran, a different text, or a mix of both? Because only studying one at a time would work. I will not vouch for the Koran. I do not believe what I know of it, and don't trust the rest. There could be some truth in it, but I am sure not all of it is. As for other religions, I don't believe those either. If they say that we are all God, then where were we when created the world (and ourselves, may I add :)
Second, I don't believe that every scholar with an openmind, Christian or not, arrives at that conclusion in the first place. I know many who started out Athiest, or agnostic (if that's the word), or some other religion, went to school for theology, and after studying the Bible in depth, realized it had to be true. For example, Lee Strobel was an Athiestic Journalist, a very intellegent man, who decided that once and for all, he would prove Jesus, and the Bible, a fraud. He spent every minute when he was not on the job researching, and could not find any evidence against it. If you all are daring enough to try, read his book, The Case For Christ, and find on flaw in his arguement. (CS Lewis also has an amazing arguement, in Mere Christianity. It is amazing. Try to prove it wrong.) I have to say, most scholars who claim to read the Bible with an openmind usually had a side of bias against it. That is what I have found. And if someone really believes that they were fair but have evidence against it, then present it to me and I'll refute it! lol
If this wasn't your arguement in the first place, sorry. bye-bye!

[Dante Wodehouse]

If it is, then first, Which religious texts are they studying? Is it the whole Bible, the Koran, a different text, or a mix of both? Because only studying one at a time would work. I will not vouch for the Koran. I do not believe what I know of it, and don't trust the rest. There could be some truth in it, but I am sure not all of it is. As for other religions, I don't believe those either. If they say that we are all God, then where were we when created the world (and ourselves, may I add :)
Second, I don't believe that every scholar with an openmind, Christian or not, arrives at that conclusion in the first place. I know many who started out Athiest, or agnostic (if that's the word), or some other religion, went to school for theology, and after studying the Bible in depth, realized it had to be true. For example, Lee Strobel was an Athiestic Journalist, a very intellegent man, who decided that once and for all, he would prove Jesus, and the Bible, a fraud. He spent every minute when he was not on the job researching, and could not find any evidence against it. If you all are daring enough to try, read his book, The Case For Christ, and find on flaw in his arguement. (CS Lewis also has an amazing arguement, in Mere Christianity. It is amazing. Try to prove it wrong.) I have to say, most scholars who claim to read the Bible with an openmind usually had a side of bias against it. That is what I have found. And if someone really believes that they were fair but have evidence against it, then present it to me and I'll refute it! lol
If this wasn't your arguement in the first place, sorry. bye-bye!

C.S. Lewis did the same thing. He was born an atheist, studied theology, and then converted to christianity.

[Bookworm4Him]

sorry if my last post was unclear...words have a tendency to put a vale over true meaning.

your interpretation was close, but it fell off somewhere. let me clarify: god is not within us like a liver or a brain. if that is what you mean by within us? we are god in that we, everyone of us, is the totality of existence. everything sensed outside of us is just as much us as everything thought inside of us. cause when you think about it, your sensing of a tree is really a state in your brain and your thoughts are really coming from outside of you, as in thoughts come from society, opionions, mores, conventions, tradition, schooling, ect... so the mystic conception of god is really a person's conception of themself turned inside out.

this is what mystics tend to come up with; they reject the idea of a personified, all consciously powerful god. instead, mystics see god as the entire universe and every person as an expression of the entire universe like waves are experssions of the ocean. mystics still call themselves members of a religion, but enlightened members.

does this help, i know that questioning the ideal of our traditional self can get foggy sometimes, and for that, my apologies, but that is the nature of language.

lol. I was typing my response while you were typing your translation, but you posted it first. You are probably reading my post, and responding to it right now, but i will go ahead and respond to this, to see if it helps.
First, you said that god is not within us like a liver or a brain, but we still must have gotten the liver and the brain from somewhere. We still are missing the essential point that we must have come from somewhere. We can't be the "totality of existence, because we can't have existed without being made to exist. (if that makes sense.)
As for the "everything outside of us is the ideas of what is within us", and all that mumbo jumbo just convinces most people to believe it because it sounds confusing, and therefore people think it's right. (And before I get kicked off here, I can back that up with history and science. It's simply mob phsycology, or something like that. A perfect example is the lovely Friends, Romans, Countrymen speech. but enough of that) I will try to explain it with a little more detail oriented view, though I haven't studied this area of theology in particular. Earlier, I think starting on page 37, we talked about the neccesity for a supreme being. That was an awesome debate, and enough proof, I think, to tear the god within us belief apart; but i will continue anyway.
"everything sensed outside of us is just as much us as everything thought inside of us. cause when you think about it, your sensing of a tree is really a state in your brain and your thoughts are really coming from outside of you, as in thoughts come from society, opionions, mores, conventions, tradition, schooling, ect... so the mystic conception of god is really a person's conception of themself turned inside out. " You know, there are a bunch of theories about how the world is new everyday, and each day we are recreated with a new set of memories, and what I find amazing is the idea that people sit around thinking up, and trying to prove this stuff when, according to them, it won't make one ounce of difference because they think they will be a different person the next day! But back to the subject. I am not a master of any subject. I love my God, I love debate, and if you put the two together, you better have a defense. I did not major in, or spend the time studying, brain-senses-mind connections. My answer is not some profound scientific thing. It is simple.
I know what a tree is, because I have seen one, touched one, and learned what one is (not that all of those are neccesary. Someone from the desert could have it explained to them, and still know what it is) My point is, I know what a tree is, because it exists. This is where some people say that reality is different for each person, yada yada yada, but that is a different discussion. (One I would be glad to discuss, though. I don't know much about it, but would still try. Someone start a thread on that) There is proof of such a thing as a tree. I don't think that I know a tree because the "god within me" installed a knowledge of what a tree is.
One quick thing to add on to that is that if reality was based on everyone's opinions, etc, there wouldn't be a reality. Everyone has different opinions, and they can't all be true, despite what certain people say. I say that there is one true God, and Jesus is his Son. Atheists say there is no God. We can't both be true.
I have a bunch more to say, but this post is long enough. If you actually read all of this, then congrats! :lol:

[quasimodo1]

Believe, worship, pray or skoff; your prerogative. Evagelalize and you migrate to some degree or arrogance. My opinion. RJs

[aprildutcher]

I'm an athiest and beleive in myself. However, I dont knock other peoples religions, thats just not fair.

[aeroport]

Funny that I happened to encounter this thread just as a rerun of the Dawkins interview is being aired on NPR. Right now!

[watkinsguy]

gotta love NPR...totally unbiased and oh so exciting to listen to...lol

[.shuu.]

Athiest and for once, very proud of it. For such a long time, every time I told people I was athiest I would automatically apologize, which seemed so normal to me then. Athiest to me, is the 95-100% of non-belief. Chances are, it's hard to meet an athiest is is absolutely, all research done and checked, entirely sure there is no god for him or herself. Most athiests would fall into the "I'm almost positive there is no god, and I'm going to live my life assuming there isn't" type of deal. And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".

[cuppajoe_9]

And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".And then God would say "Hey! Bertrand Russell already said that!".

[.shuu.]

And then God would say "Hey! Bertrand Russell already said that!".


He would too, and I might wonder why he didn't do something about it then....oh well. never question the "almighty" eh?

[JGL57]

Athiest and for once, very proud of it. For such a long time, every time I told people I was athiest I would automatically apologize, which seemed so normal to me then. Athiest to me, is the 95-100% of non-belief. Chances are, it's hard to meet an athiest is is absolutely, all research done and checked, entirely sure there is no god for him or herself. Most athiests would fall into the "I'm almost positive there is no god, and I'm going to live my life assuming there isn't" type of deal. And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".

I ran two polls about four months apart on the Internet Infidels forum last year regarding absolutist atheism vs. non-absolutist atheism. Both times there was a 20/80 split between absolutists and non-absolutists.

So, there, you have a definitive answer. As to religionists, I suspect the per centages would be reversed, if not completely then to a great degree.

[watkinsguy]

ok....how does this have anything to do with this thread? just wondering.....

[Redzeppelin]

And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".

His reponse would more than likely be that you didn't understand the definition of the word "faith" - hence your confusion. If evidence exists, faith is unnecessary.

[Bookworm4Him]

If evidence exists, faith is unnecessary.

I see what your point is, but must clarify for others who might mistake what you're trying to say. Evidence does exist, but faith is also nessecary. You can't be like Spock (sp?) and say that you are doing it simply b/c it's the "logical choice" It Is the logical choice, but you also need to want it, to believe in it.

[cuppajoe_9]

His reponse would more than likely be that you didn't understand the definition of the word "faith" - hence your confusion.That's an interesting choice of words. She doesn't sound very confused to me.


If evidence exists, faith is unnecessary.This has always confused me. There are plenty of things for which no evidence exists. Why should one have faith in the Judeo-Christian God particualrly?

[The Atheist]

Athiest and for once, very proud of it. For such a long time, every time I told people I was athiest I would automatically apologize, which seemed so normal to me then. Athiest to me, is the 95-100% of non-belief. Chances are, it's hard to meet an athiest is is absolutely, all research done and checked, entirely sure there is no god for him or herself. Most athiests would fall into the "I'm almost positive there is no god, and I'm going to live my life assuming there isn't" type of deal. And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".

And fortunately, that's a biblically acceptable stance.

Luke 23:34.

As they hammered the nails into his wrists, Jesus himself asked his dad to forgive the blokes doing it, "because they know what they do"

Not to mention Saulus and the Damascus Road.

[Redzeppelin]

That's an interesting choice of words. She doesn't sound very confused to me.

The confusion exists in the logic of saying that one's faith is "weak" because of a lack of evidence. Faith is what one relies upon in the absence of evidence.


This has always confused me. There are plenty of things for which no evidence exists. Why should one have faith in the Judeo-Christian God particualrly?

Because He is different from all other variations of "God" presented by other belief systems. Other systems either deny the transcendancy of God, His personal nature and/or intelligence, His moral will or they make Him a blind "force" or worse, contingent upon something else. Only the God of Christianity exists, is necessary, is powerful, is transcendant, is non-contingent upon anything else, is intelligent, is personal, is moral, is engaged, is unique. No other "god" fits all that criteria.

[cuppajoe_9]

I believe you are wide of my point, Red. Why should one have faith in deities at all? I believe we are in agreement that no evidence exists for them (because if there was any evidence faith would be unnecesary, according to you). Out of all the things that there are is no evidence for, why should deities in particular be the subject of faith? Why not extraterrestrial intelligence, or perfect circles, or government conspiracies, or strange women in ponds selecting English monarchs?

[Redzeppelin]

I believe you are wide of my point, Red. Why should one have faith in deities at all? I believe we are in agreement that no evidence exists for them (because if there was any evidence faith would be unnecesary, according to you). Out of all the things that there are is no evidence for, why should deities in particular be the subject of faith? Why not extraterrestrial intelligence, or perfect circles, or government conspiracies, or strange women in ponds selecting English monarchs?

"Evidence" is an interesting term; when I say "evidence" negates faith, I speak of "evidence" in terms of what a non-believer would accept - scientifically verifiable evidence based on the observable world. Christians believe we have "evidence" as well - but since our "evidence" cannot stand up to scientific inquiry, non-believers tend to brush it off as insubstantial - as if reality can only be comprehended by what our senses can perceive. That's what I meant by my use of "evidence." I think I've got plenty of evidence for my beliefs - but my evidence is of such a personal nature that it would be all but meaningless to you - just as if you tried to convince me that you have the best girl in the world for a girlfriend/wife - how could you convince me that I don't already have a woman with that title?

Second - none of the other options you listed for belief left a record of its existence and interaction with us here on earth like the Bible. The Bible states that all men (meaning humanity) were created with an internal knowledge of God inside their hearts (all creations bear the hallmark of their creator) - knowledge which is partly present in our awareness of wrongdoing (called "guilt"), partly present in the attempts of artists to continually reach for the sublime, in our restless desire to be more, do more, to "suck the marrow out of life." Your other listed options do not change/heal lives, break addictions and inspire acts of sacrifice, compassion and love.

[cuppajoe_9]

...just as if you tried to convince me that you have the best girl in the world for a girlfriend/wife - how could you convince me that I don't already have a woman with that title?Not analogous. The title of 'best girl in the world for a girlfriend' is entirely subjective. We, more than likely, have different opinions of what qualities determine which girl in particular holds that title. A divine and beneavolent creator of the universe, on the other hand, is simply there or not there. He exists or he doesn't. The argument isn't over whether my god is better than yours, it is over whether any such thing exists at all.


Second - none of the other options you listed for belief left a record of its existence and interaction with us here on earth like the Bible.The Lady of the Lake sure did. If I collected all the Arthurian legends in one volume, I'm quite sure I would have something a lot larger than the Bible, and some of it, such as Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, would purport to be fact. In addition, you seem to be using the Bible as evidence of the existence of God which, by your above statement, eliminates the need for faith in him.

[Redzeppelin]

Not analogous. The title of 'best girl in the world for a girlfriend' is entirely subjective. We, more than likely, have different opinions of what qualities determine which girl in particular holds that title. A divine and beneavolent creator of the universe, on the other hand, is simply there or not there. He exists or he doesn't. The argument isn't over whether my god is better than yours, it is over whether any such thing exists at all.

Your criticism is just; nonetheless, the point I was trying to make is still present (in a vague form, I guess): it is near impossible to prove something as personal as the existence of God - as possible as it is to convince you my wife is the best woman in the world. The analogy isn't apt because of the distinction you noted, but the subjectivity of religious experience makes it very very difficult to comminicate to others - and the primary reason for this is the nature of the presuppositional bases that you and I operate off of. I generally have found few atheists who will concede that their world view is predicated on the acceptance of a Naturalistic philosophic view of reality - many tend to insist that they are "clear thinkers" who have no biases and arrived at their conclusions by reason and consideration of the evidence alone; I'm sorry - I dispute that: I think humans are incapable of transcending the "filters" through which we see the world. I suggest that evolution makes logical, rational sense to you because the "evidence" you've examined makes sense inside the frame of Naturalism; as such, the same evidence which seems so persuasive to you is less effective on me because I operate off of the presuppositional base that God is real, and as such, being the all-powerful, all-knowing being that He is, that He is the sole gauge of what is reality - that nature in all its revelation, attests to His reality as well. Other believers will thus listen to my reasons for the belief in God and go "yes - of course, isn't that obvious?" while non-believers shake their heads and call us "deluded" or "blind" or ignorant. Don't you see that we go through the same motions when evolutionists give us their "irrefutable" evidence? Our foundation is predicated on the reality that the world exists at two levels - the physical world being the lower (and as such, less significant) of the two worlds (the spiritual realm being the second). As such, when handed "facts" about the physical world that don't gel with what a spiritual entity has told us, means that the spiritual takes priority. I know that to a scientist, such thinking appears to be intellectual suicide, but faith is not predicated upon verifiable evidence. God asks us to trust Him - because a provable God is not a God whom people would serve out of love - they would serve out of other, less noble motivations.


The Lady of the Lake sure did. If I collected all the Arthurian legends in one volume, I'm quite sure I would have something a lot larger than the Bible, and some of it, such as Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, would purport to be fact. In addition, you seem to be using the Bible as evidence of the existence of God which, by your above statement, eliminates the need for faith in him.

But the Lady of the Lake did not claim Divine Authority and did not leave us a coherent narrative of her divine purpose in this world. As well, her minor role in the Arthurian romances (pretty much the beginning and the end) relagates her to a supporting role.

I am not using the Bible to argue the existence of God - that would result in circular reasoning. The Bible is the testimony of God's character and His relationship to us - it cannot testify to the veracity of God's existence other than in whatever ways the Bible is confirmed by history, or by the truth of its moral statements. Belief in the Bible requires the prerequisite that God exist.

[cuppajoe_9]

t is near impossible to prove something as personal as the existence of GodGod's existence or non-existence is not at all personal, it is a fact that exists objectively, outside of any personal experience. Whether or not your reasons for believing in him are personal is an entirely different question.


I suggest that evolution makes logical, rational sense to you because the "evidence" you've examined makes sense inside the frame of Naturalism;The Vatican, an organization not widely noted for its Naturalistic worldview, recently endorsed Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Acceptance of the theory of evolution is in no way synonymous with atheism.


Don't you see that we go through the same motions when evolutionists give us their "irrefutable" evidence?The difference being, of course, that one does not need to start with the assumption that there is no such thing as a deity in order to arrive at the conclusion that biological evolution occurs.


But the Lady of the Lake did not claim Divine Authority and did not leave us a coherent narrative of her divine purpose in this world. As well, her minor role in the Arthurian romances (pretty much the beginning and the end) relagates her to a supporting role.Both statements are true, and both are irrelivant. Why should I not have faith that the unprovable Lady of the Lake has been guiding the English monarchy for millenia, despite the lack of any supporting evidence?


Belief in the Bible requires the prerequisite that God exist.And therefore your reference to it in post #728 is circular.

[Redzeppelin]

God's existence or non-existence is not at all personal, it is a fact that exists objectively, outside of any personal experience. Whether or not your reasons for believing in him are personal is an entirely different question.

God's existence is objective - but our experience of it is largely subjective in nature.


The Vatican, an organization not widely noted for its Naturalistic worldview, recently endorsed Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Acceptance of the theory of evolution is in no way synonymous with atheism.

True - though I disagree with the Catholic church on a number of theological points; either way, the generalization that evolution appeals to atheists still holds. That some Christians have embraced it is entirely up to them - but the Bible doesn't support its veracity.


The difference being, of course, that one does not need to start with the assumption that there is no such thing as a deity in order to arrive at the conclusion that biological evolution occurs.

You must reject the supposition of divine creation for any other theory to even seem to be sensible.


Both statements are true, and both are irrelivant. Why should I not have faith that the unprovable Lady of the Lake has been guiding the English monarchy for millenia, despite the lack of any supporting evidence?

Your "levelling" of the Bible with Arthurian mythology diminishes the clear moral value of the scriptures and makes it comparable to mere legends - legends that do not present a cohesive world view, that do not predict the future and cannot be historically verified (as many things in the Bible can). You cannot form a world-changing theology out of Arthurian legends, sorry. A lack of verifiable evidence for the Bible and Arthurian legend does not make them equal - the content of the books makes that distinction more than absurd to anybody who's read them both (I have).


And therefore your reference to it in post #728 is circular.

I disagree. My reference to the Bible in post #728 does not assert that the Bible proves God's existence; it states that - given that God is real - we can assume the veracity of scriptures which tells us that He implanted "eternity in our hearts" (from Eccesiastes); I said that to state that according to the Bible, all men have an internal knowledge of God - I did not imply it proved His existence.

[cuppajoe_9]

True - though I disagree with the Catholic church on a number of theological points; either way, the generalization that evolution appeals to atheists still holds.This is the first time in this conversation that you have made that particular generalization. What you said was that it appeals solely to atheists. In fact, you say it again, in your very next sentence. We'll come to that in a minute.

Whether or not you agree with the Catholic church is irrelivant. They believe in a divine creator. They accept the theory of evolution. They aren't the only ones.


You must reject the supposition of divine creation for any other theory to even seem to be sensible.I am truly flabbergasted by this sentence. The existence of gods (any gods, not just your particular conception of them) and the fact of biological evolution are not in any way mutually exclusive. There is no inherent contradiction in theistically-guided evolution or deism. In any case, the fact that they are not mutually exclusive was shown in the very last topic you were talking about. The last time I checked, the Catholic church had not rejected the idea of a divine creator. Neither have the Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Congregationalists or Baptists (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060220creationism.shtml), unless I missed something really big in the news.

I can only conclude that you are confusing biological evolution with abiogenesis.


Your "levelling" of the Bible with Arthurian mythology diminishes the clear moral value of the scriptures and makes it comparable to mere legendsWhich makes sense, given that that is exactly what I think they are. I am an atheist, remember?


A lack of verifiable evidence for the Bible and Arthurian legend does not make them equal - the content of the books makes that distinction more than absurd to anybody who's read them both (I have).I know that they're different, I'm asking why I should have faith in one and not the other.


My reference to the Bible in post #728 does not assert that the Bible proves God's existence; it states that - given that God is real - we can assume the veracity of scriptures which tells us that He implanted "eternity in our hearts" (from Eccesiastes); I said that to state that according to the Bible, all men have an internal knowledge of God - I did not imply it proved His existence.And again, the question was 'Why should one have faith in gods and not something else?' This does not answer it.

[Redzeppelin]

This is the first time in this conversation that you have made that particular generalization. What you said was that it appeals solely to atheists. In fact, you say it again, in your very next sentence. We'll come to that in a minute.

Are you telling me my generalization is inaccurate? Because you've listed some denominations that have IMO compromised the Bible that makes my gereralization flat-out false?


Whether or not you agree with the Catholic church is irrelivant. They believe in a divine creator. They accept the theory of evolution. They aren't the only ones.

So? Denominations exist because a unified interpretation of scriptures is unrealistic given humanity's tendency to interpret things inaccurately (due to bias or whatever).


I am truly flabbergasted by this sentence. The existence of gods (any gods, not just your particular conception of them) and the fact of biological evolution are not in any way mutually exclusive. There is no inherent contradiction in theistically-guided evolution or deism. In any case, the fact that they are not mutually exclusive was shown in the very last topic you were talking about. The last time I checked, the Catholic church had not rejected the idea of a divine creator. Neither have the Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Congregationalists or Baptists (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060220creationism.shtml), unless I missed something really big in the news.

I'm allowed to have my opinion - even if you and the above listed denominations disagree. They do not speak for all of Christianity. They speak for themselves - just as I assume you speak for yourself and not all atheists.


I can only conclude that you are confusing biological evolution with abiogenesis.

That may be true.


Which makes sense, given that that is exactly what I think they are. I am an atheist, remember?

I haven't forgotten that - but my comment was based on the belief that you are a highly intelligent and well-read young man, and that even if one is an atheist, surely one would see from comparing the two that they are radically different in scope, intent, audience and social value. Or do I assume too much? I guess I hoped you would be willing to acknowledge that - whether God exists or not - the Bible has offered many people a hope, a guide, and a better way to live their lives. Perhaps not.


I know that they're different, I'm asking why I should have faith in one and not the other.

Because a belief in the Lady of the Lake cannot change your life, free you from an addiction, guide your choices and decisions and provide a framework from within which to assess the value of the world around you. That's why.


And again, the question was 'Why should one have faith in gods and not something else?' This does not answer it.

Because other things cannot give you a new life and the promise of eternity in the presence of God. I know you've dismissed Pascal's Wager elsewhere here, but my belief costs me nothing in this life except the approval of society and occasional discomfort when God asks me to grow as a person. Your view, IMO, costs too much to hold - because if I'm wrong, I've just spent a good chunk of my life believing foolish things; if you're wrong, you've lost everything.

[The Atheist]

The Lady of the Lake sure did. If I collected all the Arthurian legends in one volume, I'm quite sure I would have something a lot larger than the Bible, and some of it, such as Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, would purport to be fact. In addition, you seem to be using the Bible as evidence of the existence of God which, by your above statement, eliminates the need for faith in him.

That's a very good analogy. I'm a longtime atheist and thought I'd seen all the good analogies, plus I'm a huge Arthurian legend fan, yet it had never clicked until I read that.

You could make an outstanding case for it to be factual. If the bible is factual, despite having no factual basis outside of it and the church, then Arthur is a shoo-in. As you note, it ties in with fact, and it contains sufficient biblical references to be almost made for the job.

You have, however, now caused me to set aside time to further delve into the idea. Have you dome any cross-referencing yourself?

[Redzeppelin]

The one positive benefit of making Arthurian literature into a "religion" is that it is derivative of Christianity - so, of all the legendary material you could chose, at least you chose one that has a legitimate baisis. Good job.:)

[cuppajoe_9]

Are you telling me my generalization is inaccurate? Because you've listed some denominations that have IMO compromised the Bible that makes my gereralization flat-out false?If we are using my wording of your generalization ("it [evolution] appeals solely to atheists") and if we are in agreement that the denominations I mention a) are theistic and b) accept that biological evolution happens (regardless of who or what originated it) then yes, your generalization is flat-out false. If you mean that most atheists accept the theory of biological evolution, then you are most likely correct.


I'm allowed to have my opinion - even if you and the above listed denominations disagree.Certainly. You, however, did not make a statement of opinion, you made a statement of fact:


You must reject the supposition of divine creation for any other theory to even seem to be sensible. [Bolding mine]Given that we were talking about the theory of biological evolution (and not the origin of life on the planet, of which that theory says little), you seem to be saying is that acceptance of the theory of evolution and belief in a divine creator are mutually exclusive. It is, in fact, quite possible to hold both ideas in one's mind simultaneously without any doublethink, regardless of whether or not you, personally, do. The idea of theistic evolution is not immediately self-contradictory, and is quite wide-spread.


I haven't forgotten that - but my comment was based on the belief that you are a highly intelligent and well-read young man, and that even if one is an atheist, surely one would see from comparing the two that they are radically different in scope, intent, audience and social value.I haven't compared the scope, intent, audience or social value of the Grail Legends to the that of the Bible. The only parallel I have drawn is that both claim the existance of a certain person and neither provide any evidence. I am not commenting on the value of either, I am drawing an analogy. I apologize if you are offended by the anaology.


Because a belief in the Lady of the Lake cannot change your life, free you from an addiction, guide your choices and decisions and provide a framework from within which to assess the value of the world around you.You're making a Jamesian "true because it's useful and useful because it's true" argument, unless I'm badly misreading you? Fair enough, that was the answer I was looking for.


Your view, IMO, costs too much to hold - because if I'm wrong, I've just spent a good chunk of my life believing foolish things; if you're wrong, you've lost everything.And if the ancient Egyptians were right, we're both screwed. I doubt if I'll lose much sleep over it. I appreciate your concern, however.


You have, however, now caused me to set aside time to further delve into the idea. Have you dome any cross-referencing yourself?Can't say I have. I'm not really an Arthurian legend specialist. Monmouth's History would be a good place to start, if you're interested, but I've got enough reading to do as it is.

[Redzeppelin]

If we are using my wording of your generalization ("it [evolution] appeals solely to atheists") and if we are in agreement that the denominations I mention a) are theistic and b) accept that biological evolution happens (regardless of who or what originated it) then yes, your generalization is flat-out false. If you mean that most atheists accept the theory of biological evolution, then you are most likely correct.

My language may have been inexact; I was implying the latter.


Certainly. You, however, did not make a statement of opinion, you made a statement of fact:

Fair enough - though would you expect me to speak differently about what I believe to be fact? I think much of this goes on on both sides of the fence (esp in the evolution vs. creationism thread).


Given that we were talking about the theory of biological evolution (and not the origin of life on the planet, of which that theory says little), you seem to be saying is that acceptance of the theory of evolution and belief in a divine creator are mutually exclusive. It is, in fact, quite possible to hold both ideas in one's mind simultaneously without any doublethink, regardless of whether or not you, personally, do. The idea of theistic evolution is not immediately self-contradictory, and is quite wide-spread.

I see my error - I tend to lump all evolution together and I'm not always careful about the distinction. Sorry. I do understand the difference, and I speak primarily about the origin of life on the planet (of which evolution must address if God is eliminated as an option).


I haven't compared the scope, intent, audience or social value of the Grail Legends to the that of the Bible. The only parallel I have drawn is that both claim the existance of a certain person and neither provide any evidence. I am not commenting on the value of either, I am drawing an analogy. I apologize if you are offended by the anaology.

Right - and I get the basis of the analogy - I suppose I'm trying to push the analogy further by showing that there is a weakness within it that won't allow it to seriously stand as an option because the contents of each is very different; as such, I'm suggesting that not all "mythology" is created equal. In fact, C.S. Lewis - an expert on literature - confessed that as mythology, the Bible was actually not even well-written mythology because it didn't follow much of the necessary patterns of mythology. My point is that both you and I know that there is a difference in the legend of the Lady of the Lake and the "legendary" contents of the Bible.


You're making a Jamesian "true because it's useful and useful because it's true" argument, unless I'm badly misreading you? Fair enough, that was the answer I was looking for.

No I'm not. I'm not saying that the qualities I listed prove that the Bible is true; I was applying another qualification to both proffered "faiths" to further underscore the difference between the two; a real faith changes lives; a pseudo-faith does not.


And if the ancient Egyptians were right, we're both screwed. I doubt if I'll lose much sleep over it. I appreciate your concern, however.

I'd be worried if and only if the Egyptian's version of God answered all the necessary qualifications that God must answer in order to explain the existence of life, the universe and morality - luckily, no other god does so, so I'm pretty confident in my position.

[Zirkle2007]

In my opinion, and no offense intended, there is no such thing as an athiest. They are simply people who really don't know if there is a God. They are agnostic, not athiests.

[Redzeppelin]

In my opinion, and no offense intended, there is no such thing as an athiest. They are simply people who really don't know if there is a God. They are agnostic, not athiests.

I understand this logic; I suppose I would reply that the agnostic at least presents the position that he might be open to the idea, provided some sort of "evidence" could be produced. In that way, I might call an agnostic a "passive" atheist. An atheist, by contrast, seems to hold the position that there is no "evidence" to be found, and even if it could be, it would more than likely be dismissed (what good is evidence for something that they refuse to acknowledge exists?). But - I speak for my atheist brothers/sisters and ought not: gentlemen/ladies - care to comment?

[Matrim Cuathon]

an agnostic is not a "passive atheist." agnostics believe that it is impossible to know whether or not a creator exists. atheists believe that one doesnt.

[cuppajoe_9]

There are two types of atheist and two types of agnostic:

A strong (or positive) atheist believes that no gods exist.
A weak (or negative) atheist does not believe in gods.
A strong agnostic believes that it is not possible to have knowledge of gods either way.
A weak agnostic is not sure whether or not gods exist.

All agnostics are weak atheists, but not all weak atheists are agnostics (a person to whom the concept of gods has never been explained, for example, is a weak atheist but not an agnostic). People who describe themselves as atheists are usually strong atheists (i.e. they believe that no gods exist). This does not, however, imply that strong atheists are necesarily closed minded, or that they would not change their minds of sufficient evidence to the contrary was presented (as in the case of the philosopher Antony Flew, for example).


Fair enough - though would you expect me to speak differently about what I believe to be fact? I think much of this goes on on both sides of the fence (esp in the evolution vs. creationism thread).Yes, quite a few people on both sides tend to use the word 'opinion' in a way that is, in my opinion (heh), mistaken. Statements such as "In my opinion, humans are/are not descended from ape-like creatures" have the the same logical value as "In my opinion, that car is red" or "In my opinion, the atomic mass of xenon is 131.3". It works the other way too: "In fact, Finnegans Wake is the greatest novel of the twentieth century".


My point is that both you and I know that there is a difference in the legend of the Lady of the Lake and the "legendary" contents of the Bible.Of course. I wasn't trying to imply any similarity further than the ones I specifically pointed out.


I'm not saying that the qualities I listed prove that the Bible is true; I was applying another qualification to both proffered "faiths" to further underscore the difference between the two; a real faith changes lives; a pseudo-faith does not.I'll be more specific: you are making the case that the idea that a god (or, rather, your God in particular) exists is useful in terms of improving the quality of life of the faithful, and should therefore be treated as true, right? That is exactly William James's point.

[The Atheist]

There are two types of atheist and two types of agnostic:

A strong (or positive) atheist believes that no gods exist.
A weak (or negative) atheist does not believe in gods.
A strong agnostic believes that it is not possible to have knowledge of gods either way.
A weak agnostic is not sure whether or not gods exist.

All agnostics are weak atheists, but not all weak atheists are agnostics (a person to whom the concept of gods has never been explained, for example, is a weak atheist but not an agnostic). People who describe themselves as atheists are usually strong atheists (i.e. they believe that no gods exist). This does not, however, imply that strong atheists are necesarily closed minded, or that they would not change their minds of sufficient evidence to the contrary was presented (as in the case of the philosopher Antony Flew, for example).

Yes, quite a few people on both sides tend to use the word 'opinion' in a way that is, in my opinion (heh), mistaken. Statements such as "In my opinion, humans are/are not descended from ape-like creatures" have the the same logical value as "In my opinion, that car is red" or "In my opinion, the atomic mass of xenon is 131.3". It works the other way too: "In fact, Finnegans Wake is the greatest novel of the twentieth century".

Well said.

I get so bored with these statements which come up as though pre-determined by some kind of christian lottery:

"Hey, it's your turn to point out that they can't be actual atheists..."

N.B. to any which think that way:

In case my screen name doesn't give it away, I'm a strong atheist.

It's taken me nearly half a century to arrive at strong atheism, having passed from an openly atheist child to an agnostic youth, a questioning twenty-something, an atheist thirty-something and on to where I am now, a complete and outspoken atheist as I near fifty.

Just a note for christians - every single one of your positions or arguments is something I've already heard many times over the years and can be summed as up "anecdotal evidence + a collection of Abrahamic god myths = christianity".

You're welcome to retain the comfort-blanket of the big sky-daddy, but please do not, even for a millisecond, suggest that you know anything about life on the side of the road where there are no gods - the real world - because you have no idea why I'm an atheist and almost certainly all of the reasons you've been given to explain why people are atheists are irretrievably wrong.

Atheists are atheists for the simplest of reasons - there are no gods. We'll never agree on that, but I do respectfully ask that you learn to tell the difference between fact and fantasy. It's all very easily explained - from the voice of Jesus you respond to, to the religious awe you feel in contemplating your god. It's all physical and you can find the facts, should you choose to do so.

You won't find the truth on an internet message board, but you might if you open your eyes for a second or two along life's journey.

And note my first Orwell quote - it applies equally to religion as The Party

[Redzeppelin]

There are two types of atheist and two types of agnostic:

A strong (or positive) atheist believes that no gods exist.
A weak (or negative) atheist does not believe in gods.
A strong agnostic believes that it is not possible to have knowledge of gods either way.
A weak agnostic is not sure whether or not gods exist.

All agnostics are weak atheists, but not all weak atheists are agnostics (a person to whom the concept of gods has never been explained, for example, is a weak atheist but not an agnostic). People who describe themselves as atheists are usually strong atheists (i.e. they believe that no gods exist). This does not, however, imply that strong atheists are necesarily closed minded, or that they would not change their minds of sufficient evidence to the contrary was presented (as in the case of the philosopher Antony Flew, for example).

Thank you - that is helpful.


I'll be more specific: you are making the case that the idea that a god (or, rather, your God in particular) exists is useful in terms of improving the quality of life of the faithful, and should therefore be treated as true, right? That is exactly William James's point.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the results or overall effects of following a particular faith system might be said to reveal its value. A dangerous statement, I'll admit - but few things in life adhered to passionately are immune to such risks.

[ennison]

CUPPAJOE JUST GETS CLEVERER. I wish I could believe him not. I feel through the ether a young man heading for a profound and terrifying conversion

[Redzeppelin]

CUPPAJOE JUST GETS CLEVERER. I wish I could believe him not. I feel through the ether a young man heading for a profound and terrifying conversion


Boy - wouldn't that be something.

[cuppajoe_9]

What am I supposed to be converting to? (Or is it converging with?)

[Redzeppelin]

What am I supposed to be converting to? (Or is it converging with?)

I assumed ennison was discussing Christianity. (Hence the use of "terrifying")

[cuppajoe_9]

Yes, it would be. I've tried it before, and I didn't much care for it.

[Redzeppelin]

Yes, it would be. I've tried it before, and I didn't much care for it.

Would you believe me if I told you that sometimes age changes things? I spent much of my 20s paying "lip service" to God and the Christianity I was raised within but living my life as I pleased (and I am still reaping the unfortunate results of many of those choices :( ); years ago, my father (attempting to steer my away from an "interfaith" relationship that had the potential to turn later into a "holy war") warned me to be careful - that what I'd grown up with might come back and re-assert its value in my life. He was right.

Carl Jung asserted something similar in his treatment of the Grail Legend - that young men often come into contact with something profound in their youth that only truly makes itself known to them in middle age. For an interesting treatment of this, I recommend Robert Johnson's short book He.