NationStates Jolt Archive

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.

I lack a belief in God because I see no evidence for Him, nor do I see a need for Him in my life.

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.

lol..... I can picture this...

"God, you suck.. you have never given me anything. You didnt let me win the lottery when I asked you for it... you didnt make Justin Timberlake fall in love with me... I want to get back at you... I know.. I just wont believe in you anymore. That will show you."

In seriousness.. ask your friend what is it she is looking for from God and religion (atheism being just another religion). Then tell her that one gets from religion what one puts into it. God doesnt force himself on people (although other people do force God on people, but that's a different tread). She has to seek him out.

That's not a very good reason for becoming an atheist. I mean, what have octopuses ever done for your friend? If her experiences have been anything like mine, the answer is "sod all". But I still believe in their existence.

what reasons are there apart from "I dont think god exists."?

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.
First, the word is spelled a-t-h-E-I-s-t. "athiest" = most athy

My reasons for being an atheist are myriad. There's the fact that "god" is simply an ill-defined word, denoting nothing possibly real. Then there's the claims about what the god did, which all entail begged questions, context dropping, stolen concepts, and utter bullshit. Then there's the notion that we can see the evolution of god ideas, from simple animism to the tribal phallic symbols of monotheism.

Belief in a God or gods gives people too many excuses.

I think the world has problems, and we should all be working to fix them, as best we can. But too many people relax in the notion that they will be "forgiven"... or that "God has a plan"... etc. etc.

Now, I am not a fool. I do not believe that the non-existence of God can be "proven"... or "disproven."

For me, it is an existential decision. I am a better person because there is no God. Moreover, I am not agnostic in any way. If someone did "prove" the existence of God to me, I would still not believe. If God dropped in for a visit, in a thundering cloud of fire, I would come up with another explanation. I would have to. Because "God" just doesn't work for me.

On the other hand, there are very rare people for whom religious belief really is a spur to moral activity and the search for political justice. (Far more people than claim this is what belief does for them. Interestingly, most of these people understand that no one can "prove" God's existence... that it come down to a decision about how to live one's life. These people, I respect in their religious belief. As for everyone else, including atheists who think that having no God means having no morals, or no purpose, they are merely using their beliefs as an excuse.

So, to answer your question... why become an atheist? You need to examine your life, and the way you live it, and decide for yourself. You need to decide what kind of person you want to be... and then decide what, if any, religious belief furthers or hinders that goal.


For those of you who like philosophy, I think of myself as a "Kierkegaardian atheist"... which sounds like an oxymoron, but isn't.


EDIT: Finally, if doing my damndest to do good in the world, belief or no belief, is not good enough for "God"... then I don't want her/him. I would, in fact, rebel against her/him.

lol..... I can picture this...

"God, you suck.. you have never given me anything. You didnt let me win the lottery when I asked you for it... you didnt make Justin Timberlake fall in love with me... I want to get back at you... I know.. I just wont believe in you anymore. That will show you."

In seriousness.. ask your friend what is it she is looking for from God and religion (atheism being just another religion). Then tell her that one gets from religion what one puts into it. God doesnt force himself on people (although other people do force God on people, but that's a different tread). She has to seek him out.

I can see your point, but she has had kind of a crappy life. Her dad was on drugs and he isn't even around anymore. Her mom has a creepy boyfriend, she doesn't have that much money, and she has various other problems to deal with. But then again, she hasn't ever been that religous. So I don't know. I don't want to try and convince her not to be athiest because she will think that I'm interfering, but then again I don't think she's really giving Christianity a chance. Gaaahh! :headbang:

First, the word is spelled a-t-h-E-I-s-t. "athiest" = most athy

My reasons for being an atheist are myriad. There's the fact that "god" is simply an ill-defined word, denoting nothing possibly real. Then there's the claims about what the god did, which all entail begged questions, context dropping, stolen concepts, and utter bullshit. Then there's the notion that we can see the evolution of god ideas, from simple animism to the tribal phallic symbols of monotheism.

I always screw up the spelling.

(atheism being just another religion)

Arghhh, how many times must we go through this? Atheism is NOT, I repeat not a religion. Yes, it maybe a belief, but not all beliefs = religion. I don't believe a broken toaster will work, it doesn't make it a religion. I do believe my dishwasher will wash dishes, it doesn't make it a religion. I believe many things and don't believe many other things, that does not make them religions. The only thing in common atheists have is they don't believe in any type of higher being then humans. That's it, that's all. That does not equal a religion. Got it? Cause I'm getting tired of explaining this to people..

Anyway, you can't *become* an atheist by simply pretending that God doesn't excist. You either believe in Him or not.
Only thing your friend go do is determining whether they still have faith or not.

Arghhh, how many times must we go through this? Atheism is NOT, I repeat not a religion. Yes, it maybe a belief, but not all beliefs = religion. I don't believe a broken toaster will work, it doesn't make it a religion. I do believe my dishwasher will wash dishes, it doesn't make it a religion. I believe many things and don't believe many other things, that does not make them religions. The only thing in common atheists have is they don't believe in any type of higher being then humans. That's it, that's all. That does not equal a religion. Got it? Cause I'm getting tired of explaining this to people..

agreed entirely. to be athiest is not to believe in any religion. (for whatever reason) so if you begin to believe it's a religion you've kinda missed the point

agreed entirely. to be athiest is not to believe in any religion. (for whatever reason) so if you begin to believe it's a religion you've kinda missed the point
Its to not believe in any god.

"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod shows a lack of confidence."
--Doug Macleod

Personally, I find the whole concept of "faith" intolerable. I guess the only thing I can have faith in is that the universe is as it appears. Because, well, if it isn't then nothing we decides matters and the point is moot. So, faith is the hanging point...i won't believe something simply because I am told it is true, I need some evidence.

Being that as it is, atheism is in many ways having faith in the non-existence of a god(s). So it doesn't work for me.

I say the whole god business is silly, no one can show evidence one way or the other, if they did the God would cease to exist. Don't believe me? Read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy :D

That last bit is a joke people :)

Oh, and there are forms of Taoism and Buddhism that allow you to be atheist...so you don't have to give up religion, just the belief in a god(s).

The fact that she thinks God is there to do something for her in the first place kind of removes any chance she has of becoming atheist, doesn't it?

Its to not believe in any god.

you found a religion that doesn't in some was worship or listen to the teachings of a higher power? or a god?

I'm atheist because I find the idea of serving god for a reward called heaven is a little selfish. But yet if god could give you nothing for all that you do for him I would guess that at least half the people that believe would no longer do so because they no longer recieved anything for the good works they performed on earth. I am atheist because I think that the person who does good works and expects nothing in return is better than the person who is doing it to please god so they can get into paradise. But of course there are theists who do good things because they like to, I suppose these are good people but they shouldn't have a need for religon then because they're not looking for something in return, and it seems religon stresses the point that all that matters is getting to heaven nothing more.

That's not a very good reason for becoming an atheist. I mean, what have octopuses ever done for your friend? If her experiences have been anything like mine, the answer is "sod all". But I still believe in their existence.

Unlike Octopusses, we can not verify God exists, nor is he nescessary for the world. The existance of octopusses is very likely nescessary for some food chains.

Nobody is born believing in God. Nobody will have even heard of God until someone tells them about it, unlike other phenomena which they can go out and see for themselves. Athiesm is like a natural default, until the point where you get brainwashed by some evangelism. You need to have some reason to start believing in God, to make the transition from not believing to actually believing that this invisible, intangible thing exists. Since there is no proof for the existence of God, and there isn't even any circumstantial evidence in nature to point towards his existence, it most likely isn't a particularly good reason. Often it's an emotional reason rather than a rational one - people want there to be a God, rather than them weighing up the possibilities and deciding that the existence of God is more likely than not. People usually revert to Athiesm when they find that the reason they started believing in God in the first place just wasn't good enough. Once you get out of the loop, and look at religion from the outside, you realise how silly it looks. That's where I've got to, the point where I find religion so laughable that I don't think anything short of a miracle will tempt me back in.

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.

You don't DECIDE to be an atheist.

You realise you no longer believe, or you never start to believe, or something happens to you that makes you realise that your belief is 'unreal'.

At that point, you ARE an atheist.

If your friend has a life that is so dismal that she no longer believes in god, she is already an atheist. What she is deciding to do is to express her atheism - come out of the 'atheist' closet.

If she is an atheist, why should you stop her? You said in one of your other posts that you tried to convince her not to... but what gives you a right to impress YOUR religion on her? And don't start in on the 'witnessing' platform - since I have noticed that many christians become VERY upset if you 'witness' back to them.

God gave her life and then gave her all the food, oxygen, etc. that she needs to sustain life. It seems to me that God has done a lot for your friend, she's just too self-centered to realize it.

God will not begin to work in her life until she accepts Him in His rightful place in her life. Also, she needs to keep in mind that His plan for her may not be her plan for herself. I'm a perfect example of that. I was living my life the exact way I'd envisioned it, and I was miserable. I prayed, asking God what He wanted for me and told Him I'd accept His will for my life instead of my own, just show me what He wanted. And, 2 years later, my life is not at all what I'd envisioned, but I'm happier than I ever imagined I could be.

God gave her life and then gave her all the food, oxygen, etc. that she needs to sustain life. It seems to me that God has done a lot for your friend, she's just too self-centered to realize it.

God will not begin to work in her life until she accepts Him in His rightful place in her life. Also, she needs to keep in mind that His plan for her may not be her plan for herself. I'm a perfect example of that. I was living my life the exact way I'd envisioned it, and I was miserable. I prayed, asking God what He wanted for me and told Him I'd accept His will for my life instead of my own, just show me what He wanted. And, 2 years later, my life is not at all what I'd envisioned, but I'm happier than I ever imagined I could be.

She has decided 'gods' place in her life. In HER life, god goes in the trash.

In your life, you cannot bear a life that doesn't have some kind of 'supernatural' explanation for all the crap, so you consider 'god' to be central.

It's kind of harsh to judge someone you've never met as self-centred, just because her religious view is different to yours...

And, I suspect you have explained away much more than you realise in your last two sentences. If you ever understand the depth of what you just typed, you will look back at this phase of your life with the twinge you get from something you regret, but that made you a better person.

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.

Despite ur request to hear reasons for becoming athiest i have to post a reply to ur friend's question- what has she ever done for God?

Her question lacks a sound basis as she fails to recognise the numerous things God has done - for example, does He not allow the rain to fall to provide sustenance to us, even to those who refuse to believe in Him, and deny His existence? Did He not provide guidance to mankind- hence the foundation for so many of the worlds religions. Although the question of which religion is the "right" one to choose remains, once u believe in God I believe that it would motivate a search and examination of all religions in order to find the truth.

Yes- I accept that God is not a visable being- simply because He is The Ultimate Creator who is beyond physicality- also does it not require a great deal of faith to believe in that which u cannot see, and hence a more perfect faith?- it is also his choice not to reveal Himself to us like this, and a decision we have no right to question as God ALWAYS KNOWS BEST. His existence is simply beyond humanity and our mind- as I always argue- the only part of u that can truely believe in God is our heart and soul- not our mind- it's not strong enough. I also fail to understand how one believes in things such as atoms, or in air itself, when they are in fact invisable to the eye- just as in the case of God- u can see their effects and what they can create- just like in the case of God!

I apologise that my response is perhaps a simple answer which i recognise requires a proper discussion so please do not hesitate to post any replies to me.

First of all, there is no such thing as a true atheist unless you are completely and totally blind to any kind of logic. God cannot be formally "proven" or "disproven" as was said earlier. Therefore, atheism is the foolish feeling that you have proved there is no God, which is incredibly arrogant and in my opinion, stupid.

Next, if her mindset is "What has God ever done for me?" then she seriously needs to look at her faith. God has (for those of you who aren't Christian) encouraged people through the Bible (written by whoever you like) to accept His son Jesus Christ as the forgiver of all of our sins. He's saved her from eturnal damnation. Also, if she trusts Him, the benifits are amazing. Even the little bit and the few times I have worked up the courage to have faith in Him, my actions are rewarded. Why I still have a problem trusting Him is my problem, but you cannot look at it as a "What have you given me lately?" deal. God has given you everything. Maybe your work will be to encourage her in the mindset of "God has given me everything, what can I do to honor Him?" It give you purpose, love and a joyful way to exist. Plus, I find that really religious people are often nicer.

That is my two cents. Feel free to cuss me out on them, but do so via telegram.

-R. S. of UC

First of all, there is no such thing as a true atheist unless you are completely and totally blind to any kind of logic. God cannot be formally "proven" or "disproven" as was said earlier. Therefore, atheism is the foolish feeling that you have proved there is no God, which is incredibly arrogant and in my opinion, stupid.


I'm an atheist, i dont claim to have proved god doesnt exist, i just beleive there is no god.

You don't DECIDE to be an atheist.

You realise you no longer believe, or you never start to believe, or something happens to you that makes you realise that your belief is 'unreal'.

At that point, you ARE an atheist.

If your friend has a life that is so dismal that she no longer believes in god, she is already an atheist. What she is deciding to do is to express her atheism - come out of the 'atheist' closet.

If she is an atheist, why should you stop her? You said in one of your other posts that you tried to convince her not to... but what gives you a right to impress YOUR religion on her? And don't start in on the 'witnessing' platform - since I have noticed that many christians become VERY upset if you 'witness' back to them.

Well, you didn't read my earlier post very carefully. I specifically said that I didn't want to try and convince her that God is real, because I didn't want to seem interfering. It's her decision what she does and doesn't believe, don't be a total jerk to me just because you misread a post of mine. I don't CARE what other peoples' beliefs are.

you found a religion that doesn't in some was worship or listen to the teachings of a higher power? or a god?
As someone said up there, some forms of buddhism and taoism.

I´m atheist for not believing in god and that´s the only point that I´m sure I have in commom with all atheists, this doesn´t make it a religion.
It´s like saying "theism" is a religion, that would make christians and osama bin laden believe in the exactly the same thing and although the god that osama believe is almost the same that christians believe, there a few things that make it two different religions.
I mean, being an atheist is not really a BIG deal, it´s just like not liking cherry coke...

Sorry for the awful english, I´m learning...

I have read this string and it concerns me that no one has pointed out that this is a very old question. Many great thinker have written about the subject Plato, Xenopoen, The book of Kings, and many more scholars from the middle ages. Tomas Aquinus set out to prove the existence of God and he as well as others have demonstrated it at least to my satisfaction. It sounds like your friend has had a hard life and that some of these scholars lived lives to rivial her own. Personal Faith can be a great burden or a source of strength and despite what has been written here the good we do comes back to us. The reward of heavan is held up as a myth heaven and eternal peace mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Do I believe in a cloudy space with winged haloed people talking, no but the discovery of what it means to you is kind of the whole point.

First of all, there is no such thing as a true atheist unless you are completely and totally blind to any kind of logic. God cannot be formally "proven" or "disproven" as was said earlier. Therefore, atheism is the foolish feeling that you have proved there is no God, which is incredibly arrogant and in my opinion, stupid.

Next, if her mindset is "What has God ever done for me?" then she seriously needs to look at her faith. God has (for those of you who aren't Christian) encouraged people through the Bible (written by whoever you like) to accept His son Jesus Christ as the forgiver of all of our sins. He's saved her from eturnal damnation. Also, if she trusts Him, the benifits are amazing. Even the little bit and the few times I have worked up the courage to have faith in Him, my actions are rewarded. Why I still have a problem trusting Him is my problem, but you cannot look at it as a "What have you given me lately?" deal. God has given you everything. Maybe your work will be to encourage her in the mindset of "God has given me everything, what can I do to honor Him?" It give you purpose, love and a joyful way to exist. Plus, I find that really religious people are often nicer.

That is my two cents. Feel free to cuss me out on them, but do so via telegram.

-R. S. of UC

Atheism is: The belief that there is no god.

Logic has little to do with it. If you don't believe there is a god, you are an atheist... it's that simple.

And you only find 'really religious' people nicer when they agree with you, I'm sure. Unless you truly are as happy among islamic fundamentalists, or satanists as you are among whichever christian denomination you belong to.
Which is - let's face it - unlikely. Most of the christians I know don't even really like the people of other christian churches.

Most of the 'really religious' people I know are patronising, condescending, sanctimonious examples of the 'holier-than-thou' mentality.

First of all, there is no such thing as a true atheist unless you are completely and totally blind to any kind of logic. God cannot be formally "proven" or "disproven" as was said earlier. Therefore, atheism is the foolish feeling that you have proved there is no God, which is incredibly arrogant and in my opinion, stupid.

It give you purpose, love and a joyful way to exist. Plus, I find that really religious people are often nicer.

That is my two cents. Feel free to cuss me out on them, but do so via telegram.

-R. S. of UC

These are mild forms of the sorts of statements I was referring to in the other atheist thread.

I always have found God and religion an interesting subject for debate, at least when it don't end up in name calling.

I am an athiest however

Christianity is something I would consider a poison, the religion that is, not the idea of it, and the bible is the greatest work of fiction ever written
But even if I would say that god doesn't exist, you see the funny thing with God is that you can't prove that he exists, but you can't prove that he doesn't exist either.

It's the whole free will thing .

Well, you didn't read my earlier post very carefully. I specifically said that I didn't want to try and convince her that God is real, because I didn't want to seem interfering. It's her decision what she does and doesn't believe, don't be a total jerk to me just because you misread a post of mine. I don't CARE what other peoples' beliefs are.

You are correct, I misread it... I thought you said you wanted to convince her.

I apologise.

I don't think I was being a jerk, though. I just think people shhould be left to make up their own minds about something as personal as religion.

If you are open-minded enough to treat others with that degree of civility, i applaud you.

By the way - one of the reasons I answered the way I did: We had a thread on this forum a few weeks back where a teenager was being hassled by his 'friends' to become a christian - despite how uncomfortable it made him. They stooped to any tactic - one of them apparently even suggested he should commit suicide if he wasn't going to convert - but, he was having trouble with all of them basically telling him they couldn't be friends if he wasn't 'one of them'.

Like I said. Not your fault. Unlike some, you won't let your choice of religion interfere with your actions as a human.

You are correct, I misread it... I thought you said you wanted to convince her.

I apologise.

I don't think I was being a jerk, though. I just think people shhould be left to make up their own minds about something as personal as religion.

If you are open-minded enough to treat others with that degree of civility, i applaud you.

By the way - one of the reasons I answered the way I did: We had a thread on this forum a few weeks back where a teenager was being hassled by his 'friends' to become a christian - despite how uncomfortable it made him. They stooped to any tactic - one of them apparently even suggested he should commit suicide if he wasn't going to convert - but, he was having trouble with all of them basically telling him they couldn't be friends if he wasn't 'one of them'.

Like I said. Not your fault. Unlike some, you won't let your choice of religion interfere with your actions as a human.

Despite the common belief that Christians are annoying, interfering, and don't respect other religions, Christians (at least where I live) aren't total nazis. In fact nobody really cares what you believe, I've known Buddhist people, athiest people, Jewish people, and I've never, ever seen anyone criticize them for their beliefs. But there are always the Jehovah Witness types that try to convert everyone to their specific church and belief that form the common Christian stereotype.

And this may be off topic, but in my town, we pretend that we aren't home when Jehovah Witnesses come by.

God gave her life and then gave her all the food, oxygen, etc. that she needs to sustain life. It seems to me that God has done a lot for your friend, she's just too self-centered to realize it.
Ad hominem fallacy and blatant question begging.

God will not begin to work in her life until she accepts Him in His rightful place in her life.
Utterly backwards.

And this may be off topic, but in my town, we pretend that we aren't home when Jehovah Witnesses come by.

I like to lead them on, then suddenly slap it all back in their faces.

C.S. Lewis was a philosopher. His mind worked in connecting ideas and seeing patterns, and he loved analogies and the development of thought. While serving as an English Lit Fellow at Oxford and Cambridge, he wrote thrity books explaining how he, using philosophy, went from being a total atheist, disbelieving the existence of God, to a devout christian and one of the most influential religious authors of all time. I will now use two of his theories, ones he used to look at the existence of God, and then of the Christian God.

One must remember in this argument that God has many different connotations. The first one most people think about is the Christian God, but let's leave those behind for the moment. Let's just look at the existence of any God for now. We begin by dividing human beliefs into two categories: the Naturalist and Supernaturalist. The Naturalist believes that the universe as can be seen is all that can be seen or detected, all matter and energy and emptiness, are the sum of life. There is nothing outside of or separate from the universe. Everything inside follows the laws of nature, everything is a product of what is. Supernaturalism is the belief that something besides nature exists, something apart from it.

Now, human beings reason. We extrapolate data and come to conclusions. There are two types of thought, valid and invalid. Valid thought uses the above methods. Example: my neighbor has a dog. I often see him tied and muzzled, and the mailman is afraid to approach the house. I use this data to determine that the dog is dangerous. This is valid thought. Invalid thought would be my believing the dog is dangerous because it is a terrier, and a terrier once bit my sister. There is no data about this dog besides my own past experience, which was a different time and place. Valid thought can be used to argue something. Invalid thought is irrelevant in a court of law or philosophy.

But, if Naturalism is true, then everything inside the universe follows its laws, the laws that govern the motions of quarks, and therefore the actions of atoms, and therefore the uses of molecules. If everything is of the universe, then we are of the universe, and our minds are of the universe. And if this is true, then the thoughts in our minds simply come about by the motions of quarks, and the actions of atoms. Since we cannot control these, but these are controlled by the laws of nature, the thoughts passing through our minds are the products of nature, and not the products of our wills, because our wills are products of nature. Everything follows physical and mathematical laws, and we cannot separate anything from them. And if our thoughts are caused by anything other than our wills, then the thoughts must be invalid, because it isn't us thinking them, but nature. Therefore, for naturalism to be true, one must admit that we can truly know nothing, because it isn't us knowing, but the nature we come from.

Human reason, for any of it to be valid, must be separate from the laws of nature. It must be something that we ourselves can control. And if thought is valid, and we control it, then nature cannot have created it, because if it had then it would follow nature's laws, and we would have no will. So for thought to be our own, valid, it must have been created by something which is a law itself, which is separate from the universe, and which is free from the laws that govern it. This is pure Supernaturalism, the belief that something exists apart from us. So, we have two choices here. We can believe that nothing can be known or seen, because we do not know or see. Or we can believe that there is something separate from nature that has a will and reason and that creates other reasons itself. I, for one, would like to think that I can think, and I'm sure you do too. I therefore choose to believe that there is something outside the universe that created me.

This leads us to need to define the God that exists. It must have reason, because it created reason, and it must be separate from the universe. And it must have a purpose in creating something. Christian doctrine teaches that God made human beings from matter, but also gave them a spirit, a soul. We can look see this obviously because there are parts of us that do follow the laws of nature, our bodies. But if we assume that we can think, there is a different, separate nature also. We are dual beings, with two parts. The Bible teaches that these were in union until man sinned and fell, at which time the spirit and body began waging war on each other, and also against God. Christ came to bring the perfect union back.

We can see the war in our members by looking at human behavior. Since C.S. Lewis put it succinctly, I will use a direct quote from his paper on Miracles.
"Almost the whole of Christian theology could perhaps be deduced from the two facts (a) That men make coarse jokes, and (b) That they feel the dead to be uncanny. The coarse joke procalims that we have here an animal which finds its own animality either objectionable or funny. Unless there had been a quarrel between the spirit and the organism I do not see how this could be: it is the very mark of the two not being 'at home' together. But it is very difficult to imagine such a state of affairs as original -- to suppose a creature which from the very first was half shocked and half tickled to death at the mere fact of being the creature it is. I do not perceive that dogs see anything funny about being dogs: I suspect that angels see nothing funny about being angels. Our feeling about the dead is equally odd. It is idle to say that we dislike corpses because we are afraid of ghosts. You might say with equal truth that we fear ghosts because we dislike corpses -- for the ghost owes much of its horror to the associated ideas of pallor, decay, coffins, shrouds, and worms. In reality we hate the division which makes possible the conception of either corpse or ghost. Because the thing ought not to be divided, each of the halves into which it falls by division is detestable. The explanations which Naturalism gives both of bodily shame and of our feeling about the dead are not satisfactory. It refers us to primitive taboos and superstitions -- as if these themselves were not obviously results of the thing to be explained. But once accept the Christian doctrine that man was orginally a unity and that the present division is unnatural, and all the phenomena fall into place."

The Christian belief explains everything we have deduced and seen. It fills in every gap that I have ever seen, and I challenge you to pose one to me for an answer. E-mail me, t_diddy@mad.scientist.com, or telegraph my nation, or post here. But what we have seen is a choice: either believe in a god, most likely the Christian God, or believe that nothing can be believed. The choice is yours to make.

Human reason, for any of it to be valid, must be separate from the laws of nature. It must be something that we ourselves can control. And if thought is valid, and we control it, then nature cannot have created it, because if it had then it would follow nature's laws, and we would have no will. So for thought to be our own, valid, it must have been created by something which is a law itself, which is separate from the universe, and which is free from the laws that govern it. This is pure Supernaturalism, the belief that something exists apart from us. So, we have two choices here. We can believe that nothing can be known or seen, because we do not know or see. Or we can believe that there is something separate from nature that has a will and reason and that creates other reasons itself. I, for one, would like to think that I can think, and I'm sure you do too. I therefore choose to believe that there is something outside the universe that created me.

I can't really be bothered to argue on the subject, since it rarely goes anywhere, but I will say that this is one of the most dubious passages I have read in months.

Don't believe me? Read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy


That was a funny book!

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.

"What has God ever done for me?" is hardly logic, but rather emotion. Wouldn't it be better to base one's beliefs on reality as it really is, rather than how we would like it to be?

Rationality.

Heres why i am an atheist:
science has actually given some sort of reazonable explanation to stuff religion expects me to believe that a mystical guy i cnat see, but who is definetely there watches over me and i need to listen to him to hear him(imagine voices in my head) and do a bunch of other crazy stuff (like Judaism imposes diets) and make certain life choices based on blind faith

Despite the common belief that Christians are annoying, interfering, and don't respect other religions, Christians (at least where I live) aren't total nazis. In fact nobody really cares what you believe, I've known Buddhist people, athiest people, Jewish people, and I've never, ever seen anyone criticize them for their beliefs. But there are always the Jehovah Witness types that try to convert everyone to their specific church and belief that form the common Christian stereotype.

And this may be off topic, but in my town, we pretend that we aren't home when Jehovah Witnesses come by.

Perhaps you have been very lucky with the christians you have encountered. Most of those I have met have been Anglicans, Baptists or Southern Baptists (The baptists make THAT distinction VERY clear). ANd most of them have been exceedingly patronising (at the very least) to anyone not of their religion - often rude to others who didn't attend the same church!

(e.g. The Southern Baptist who, when introduced to one of my Hindu friends, thought it acceptable to point out that she "didn't mind Hindus" because "they would be christians if they only knew better").

And Jehovah's Witnesses stopped being a problem, down our way, when one of the neighbours painted a chalk "murder" outline outside the frontdoor, and left a copy of the Watchtower just next to the chalky outline's hand.

Invalid thought would be my believing the dog is dangerous because it is a terrier, and a terrier once bit my sister. There is no data about this dog besides my own past experience, which was a different time and place. Valid thought can be used to argue something. Invalid thought is irrelevant in a court of law or philosophy.


But it IS enough to get you stopped at customs...

Perhaps you have been very lucky with the christians you have encountered. Most of those I have met have been Anglicans, Baptists or Southern Baptists (The baptists make THAT distinction VERY clear). ANd most of them have been exceedingly patronising (at the very least) to anyone not of their religion - often rude to others who didn't attend the same church!

(e.g. The Southern Baptist who, when introduced to one of my Hindu friends, thought it acceptable to point out that she "didn't mind Hindus" because "they would be christians if they only knew better").

And Jehovah's Witnesses stopped being a problem, down our way, when one of the neighbours painted a chalk "murder" outline outside the frontdoor, and left a copy of the Watchtower just next to the chalky outline's hand.

Well, I do remember my mom saying that she wasn't allowed in a bible group at a certain church because she hasn't been "born again". So, of course all Christians aren't accepting, but the Christians I have had the opportunity to meet have been very polite.

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.

If your friend wants to become athiest, let her.

She should decide herself what religion she believes in, if any. I'm sure she's heard about Christianity and other religions, and now it's time for her to choose.

Perhaps you have been very lucky with the christians you have encountered. Most of those I have met have been Anglicans, Baptists or Southern Baptists (The baptists make THAT distinction VERY clear). ANd most of them have been exceedingly patronising (at the very least) to anyone not of their religion - often rude to others who didn't attend the same church!

(e.g. The Southern Baptist who, when introduced to one of my Hindu friends, thought it acceptable to point out that she "didn't mind Hindus" because "they would be christians if they only knew better").


There is nothing that makes me angrier than seeing different denominations being so hateful. It's pathetic, and the exact opposite of what Christians are supposed to do. That "love thy neighbor" thing? Yeah, I think Jesus meant that. And all of the parts where it calls for perfect unity, and acceptance, and where it states that "the only thing that matters is faith expressing itself through love" (Galatians 5) -- something tells me that these get overlooked quite often.

Most Christians argue about the proper way to baptize someone. I don't really care, and neither do most of my friends. But the church today is turning into a mockery! It makes me sick to every single part of my body. When will the church act like a church?

I guess the only thing I can have faith in is that the universe is as it appears.... i won't believe something simply because I am told it is true, I need some evidence.

What evidence do you have that the universe is only as it appears?

That last bit is a joke people :)

For which God will surely strike you down.

That last bit is a joke people. :) :p

I'm not an Atheist, I'm Jewish, but all the same God is an iffy thing to me.

Rationally, I know the unlikelyhood of a giant, invisible, omnipotent, bearded man that knows everything, and can do anything he wishes. But another part of, the less rational side, the side that dreams of penguins with ice cream cones, and Ninja Pirates, still knows that there is something more than what we can see and touch. I've always though that religion, rather than it being fact, was something to just give you a sense that you're never alone, (Not even on the toilet.) and that when you die, there will be something more than just nothingness. More than just being, then ceasing to exist. Like a way to combat fears about life and death.

preaching

Preaching is rude. And CS Lewis was a piss-poor apologist.

I said preaching? When did I say preaching?

And the connotation preaching has is rude. Preaching is just another method of teaching, and there's a thousand ways to do it that aren't rude.

Ahh, or were you summing up my post by saying I was preaching?

I'm sorry if my post made you uncomfortable, but those are my feelings on the subject, and that's the way I know to express them. Could you point out something specific that made you angry?

I think that religion, for all reasons, is a coping mechanism. Someone asked "how does this work", and when someone couldn't explain, say, why a tsunami formed, they cop out with "A god got angry", or something like that. I'm not saying all religions are bad or anything, if they work for you, more power to ya, but you have to remember what's happened in the past.

Personally, I think that it's all BS. My strongest arguement comes from Science. At first there is nothing, then God created everything. Humans are created in His image. Evolution is VERY palusable. You can't create something from nothing. There are RULES that everything, yes, even a God, would have to follow.

There are things, horrible atrocities, that have happened that, if God existed, would have never allowed to happen. The Holocast, etc. Then there is the Devil. If God is allpowerful, then why allow a demon of pure evil to exist? Why allow humans to fall into temptation? Why not just go down to hell and deal out a good dose of smiting? That'd solve everything, seeing how the Devil is actually only a demonized form of Pan, with Posideon's trident by his side.

I'm not an Atheist, I'm Jewish, but all the same God is an iffy thing to me.

Rationally, I know the unlikelyhood of a giant, invisible, omnipotent, bearded man that knows everything, and can do anything he wishes. But another part of, the less rational side, the side that dreams of penguins with ice cream cones, and Ninja Pirates, still knows that there is something more than what we can see and touch. I've always though that religion, rather than it being fact, was something to just give you a sense that you're never alone, (Not even on the toilet.) and that when you die, there will be something more than just nothingness. More than just being, then ceasing to exist. Like a way to combat fears about life and death.
Ummm, don't diss Ninja Pirates. I WILL find a japanese pirate that studied karate, and he will be the coolest person in the world.

I lack a belief in God because I see no evidence for Him, nor do I see a need for Him in my life.

My reason for being atheist too.

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.
well for ME its the part where god doesnt exist that makes me think that atheism is the way to go

i have no fear for the devil so i don´t need god anyway

I store my faith for myself.

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.

I don't believe in the existence of God(s).

My main reason for my atheism is that I have become so interested in science and the study of how things really work, that I don't think I have that "mechanism" for blind faith anymore. Which is what religion comes down to a lot of the times, a faith against all logic and reason.

As for this whole "you cannot prove or disprove god" idea, that is not completly true. In my mind, what you cannot disprove is the idea of an omnipotent being or beings, who may or may not have created the universe and may or may not be working behind the scenes in our everyday lives. Notice I said "being(s)". The key to this, is that the word "being(s)" is non-specific. I have given no parameters to this being(s), I have not said it is a god, or gods, or aliens, or The Force, or whatever, or that it has done anything specific. THIS cannot be disproven, because it is extremely abstract. When it comes down to particular religions however, they have assigned real and significant parameters to god. My theory is that those kind of notions of god can be disproven. The idea is that religion has assigned god very specific actions. For experimentation purposes, let's say that some religion says that god came down from the mount, and participated in events A, B, and C, and/or performed "miracles" A, B, and C. In my mind, when you can prove that events/miracles A, B, and C never happened beyond a reasonable doubt (obviously there would be more than three events/miracles), you disprove that notion of god. "Notion of god" meaning religion. The perfect example is the religion of ancient Greece. When people got up there and discovered that was no palace atop Mount Olympus, and discovered that the sun was most definetly not pulled across the sky by a massive chariot, most people concluded that the Greek religion was false. Yet many people today seem to think that their religions are immune from such things, despite the fact that the Greeks believed with as much fervor as modern religious people do. Perhaps people think that because they never assigned something quite so literal to their god (by which I mean that they never said he actually lived on a mountain that everybody knew about or something like that) that their beliefs cannot be disproven. But modern religions (christianity for one) have their god performing many feats and participating in many events in the actual, literal, world. You can't open the bible without reading about God directly communicating with people, or sending representatives to do so for him (ie. Noah, Moses, Lott, etc.) or directly meddling with events on Earth (ie. Creation, the biblical flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lott's wife turning to salt, etc.), so it's highly unlikely that the same "A, B, C" scenario will not eventually befall christianity/islam/judaism/hinduism/whatever at some point in the future. So I believe that it is only a matter of time before modern religions are thrown on the pile along with those of ancient Greece and Rome.

Oh, and the Ninja Pirates, now those are real. In my town, you can't take a step without bumping into a Japanese pirate, and having your head chopped off from behind by his Katana-wielding first mate, who had lay hidden in the shadows.

[QUOTE=Srg_science]"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod shows a lack of confidence."
--Doug Macleod

Personally, I find the whole concept of "faith" intolerable. I guess the only thing I can have faith in is that the universe is as it appears. Because, well, if it isn't then nothing we decides matters and the point is moot. So, faith is the hanging point...i won't believe something simply because I am told it is true, I need some evidence.

Being that as it is, atheism is in many ways having faith in the non-existence of a god(s). So it doesn't work for me.
QUOTE]


YOu see, this is where I dont get some of your arguments. Pardon me if this has been mentioned before, but i did not have time to fully read all of the replies, but not believing in God does not mean that you do not have faith. You Believe that the sun will rise every morning, do you not? you do not know this for a fact becuase one day it will cease to do this, but you believe that it will rise because it always has risen. that is faith. you have faith that your house will be standing when you get back home, but you do not infact know that it will until you see it. Until that moment of visual contact, you have faith. Faith is inherent in us (humans) because our ability to do things is based on it. think about it, if you had to verify everything everytime you were going to eat, you would starve to death. when you drink a glass of milk in hte morning, you have faith that it is free of harmful bacteria and mold, but you do not actually put it under a microscope do you? Athiests do not stop having faith, they just put thier faith in Humanity and Random chance instead of a "god."

People say that they see no evidence for a god. Tell me then, have you ever seen any evidence against the existance of a god? I am not refering only to the christian God at this point, but any diety whatsoever. For I have yet to see anything that convinces me that all you see around you is just a random chance collision of amino acids. there is so much complexity in a "simple" cell, with parts that are co-dependant on eachother, for me to believe that it all just magically appeared.

You Believe that the sun will rise every morning, do you not? you do not know this for a fact becuase one day it will cease to do this, but you believe that it will rise because it always has risen. that is faith. you have faith that your house will be standing when you get back home, but you do not infact know that it will until you see it.

That's extrapolation based on existing precedence. To believe in God, you should need no precedence. The idea is simply to believe in Him. Both can be argued to be a form of faith, but the latter is blind faith. Even if evidence is given against God, one would be expected to believe in him regardless; while if evidence was given against the sun rising the next day, one would be expected to disbelieve it would happen.

I think that religion, for all reasons, is a coping mechanism. Someone asked "how does this work", and when someone couldn't explain, say, why a tsunami formed, they cop out with "A god got angry", or something like that. I'm not saying all religions are bad or anything, if they work for you, more power to ya, but you have to remember what's happened in the past.

Personally, I think that it's all BS. My strongest arguement comes from Science. At first there is nothing, then God created everything. Humans are created in His image. Evolution is VERY palusable. You can't create something from nothing. There are RULES that everything, yes, even a God, would have to follow.

There are things, horrible atrocities, that have happened that, if God existed, would have never allowed to happen. The Holocast, etc. Then there is the Devil. If God is allpowerful, then why allow a demon of pure evil to exist? Why allow humans to fall into temptation? Why not just go down to hell and deal out a good dose of smiting? That'd solve everything, seeing how the Devil is actually only a demonized form of Pan, with Posideon's trident by his side.


Evolution is plausible? then tell me, where did Matter come from? And don't say the big bang, I mean originally. did it just "poof" into existance as another one of the random chances that you call evolution? Or what about cells, where if several key, but independant, parts are not present, the cell will not function and will die. are you telling me that all of the parts for a cell were randomly created at the exact moment in time? Evolution has something created from nothing as well. where are these rules here? and what about the law of nature that states that things will become less organized over time.... How does this fit with Evolution, where things become more complex over time, eventually creating at least one sophont creature. I'm sorry, but that makes absolutly no sense to me.

So bad things happen. Are you saying that you would rather be a Robot? because that is the only other alternative. If Good only existed in the universe, there would not be any choice. we would all think the same thing, wear the same clothes and worship the same exact way. Choice plays a key role in Christianity, which is the religion you are talking about. We were given choice from the start, and Humans (Adam and Eve) chose to allow death and destruction to enter the world. Its called a consequence of our actions. they allowed Sin into the world, which gave us true choices, but it came at a very great cost. God does not allow war and murder, we do. If you look at the Christian doctrine as an example, He created us to be Stewards of Earth. THis means that we have a control of sorts over it. we are the ones who messed it up. seriously how would you feel if you were just a mindless drone... but then again you wouldnt even have feelings because oyu would know nothing but joy. sounds like an unfulfilling and dull life if you ask me.

C.S. Lewis was a philosopher. His mind worked in connecting ideas and seeing patterns, and he loved analogies and the development of thought. While serving as an English Lit Fellow at Oxford and Cambridge, he wrote thrity books explaining how he, using philosophy, went from being a total atheist, disbelieving the existence of God, to a devout christian and one of the most influential religious authors of all time.

Influential to whom, others who wanted to believe the same things? The already converted? The wafflers who just wanted some small justification to push them back to the fold? Please.

BTW, this is another Argument from Authority. "So-and-so says this, and he's smart! Therefore, everything so-and-so says must be true." Utterly ridiculous. Learn to think and argue for yourself.


But, if Naturalism is true, then everything inside the universe follows its laws, the laws that govern the motions of quarks, and therefore the actions of atoms, and therefore the uses of molecules. If everything is of the universe, then we are of the universe, and our minds are of the universe. And if this is true, then the thoughts in our minds simply come about by the motions of quarks, and the actions of atoms. Since we cannot control these, but these are controlled by the laws of nature, the thoughts passing through our minds are the products of nature, and not the products of our wills, because our wills are products of nature. Everything follows physical and mathematical laws, and we cannot separate anything from them. And if our thoughts are caused by anything other than our wills, then the thoughts must be invalid, because it isn't us thinking them, but nature. Therefore, for naturalism to be true, one must admit that we can truly know nothing, because it isn't us knowing, but the nature we come from.

Human reason, for any of it to be valid, must be separate from the laws of nature. It must be something that we ourselves can control. And if thought is valid, and we control it, then nature cannot have created it, because if it had then it would follow nature's laws, and we would have no will. So for thought to be our own, valid, it must have been created by something which is a law itself, which is separate from the universe, and which is free from the laws that govern it. This is pure Supernaturalism, the belief that something exists apart from us. So, we have two choices here. We can believe that nothing can be known or seen, because we do not know or see. Or we can believe that there is something separate from nature that has a will and reason and that creates other reasons itself. I, for one, would like to think that I can think, and I'm sure you do too. I therefore choose to believe that there is something outside the universe that created me.

Are you serious? There's no way for free will to evolve naturally, but it must be imposed on us by a supernatural being? What then is free will, but some extremely advanced Artificial Intelligence engine, designed by a creator, and installed in us like so much operating software? If free will truly comes from a creator, how do you know it's really free? How do you know you truly have the choices you think you have, or are you simply processing the routines, logic, data analysis that your creator saw fit to install in you? Are there other options that might be considered, but you are unable to see them because your creator didn't foresee all contingencies? (I guess here would be the part where you'd really, REALLY want to believe in an omniscient and omnipotent creator.)

How is being programmed with free will any more truly free than it being a product of nature? To use CS Lewis, if you choose Naturalism, you are governed by the laws of the universe, and therefore never truly free. However, if you are governed by the laws of a creator, no are no less a slave to the principles and function of those laws.

Personally, I'll wait for version 2.0, if this is the best you can do.


We can see the war in our members by looking at human behavior. Since C.S. Lewis put it succinctly, I will use a direct quote from his paper on Miracles.
"Almost the whole of Christian theology could perhaps be deduced from the two facts (a) That men make coarse jokes, and (b) That they feel the dead to be uncanny. The coarse joke procalims that we have here an animal which finds its own animality either objectionable or funny. Unless there had been a quarrel between the spirit and the organism I do not see how this could be: it is the very mark of the two not being 'at home' together. But it is very difficult to imagine such a state of affairs as original -- to suppose a creature which from the very first was half shocked and half tickled to death at the mere fact of being the creature it is. I do not perceive that dogs see anything funny about being dogs: I suspect that angels see nothing funny about being angels. Our feeling about the dead is equally odd. It is idle to say that we dislike corpses because we are afraid of ghosts. You might say with equal truth that we fear ghosts because we dislike corpses -- for the ghost owes much of its horror to the associated ideas of pallor, decay, coffins, shrouds, and worms. In reality we hate the division which makes possible the conception of either corpse or ghost. Because the thing ought not to be divided, each of the halves into which it falls by division is detestable. The explanations which Naturalism gives both of bodily shame and of our feeling about the dead are not satisfactory. It refers us to primitive taboos and superstitions -- as if these themselves were not obviously results of the thing to be explained. But once accept the Christian doctrine that man was orginally a unity and that the present division is unnatural, and all the phenomena fall into place."

The Christian belief explains everything we have deduced and seen. It fills in every gap that I have ever seen, and I challenge you to pose one to me for an answer. E-mail me, t_diddy@mad.scientist.com, or telegraph my nation, or post here. But what we have seen is a choice: either believe in a god, most likely the Christian God, or believe that nothing can be believed. The choice is yours to make.

This part is perhaps even less lucid than the previous. I can't begin to pick it apart, or I'd be here all day. First, I can't have free will unless it's imposed on me, then I can't laugh at the incongruity of man's nature because dogs don't. Thanks, now I'm no more evolved than a dog.

What amuses me most about these arguments is the ridiculous nature of the multiple choice offerings that follow the "reasoning". Here's an example:

"Naturalism teaches us that products of nature are for the good of nature, and that nothing occurs without purpose in nature. Forest fires may ravage fruit trees, yet the charred remains are consumed by no creature in nature, not bears, or squirrels, or even birds. Yet, routinely, we humans cook these fruits, primarily in the forms of pies and tarts. How then would we have acquired this knowledge or preference, if our spirits did not tell us that this is infinitely preferable, indeed divine. Therefore our choices are, believe that God exists because we like apple pies, or believe that charred food is preferrable to nature, a fact that has been refuted time and again."

Pretty stupid, huh? Yet these are exactly the same choices an essay like the above offers. Just because the author chooses to pose two possible outcomes, does not mean there are no others. How about:

C. None of the above

and

D. None of the above, because the initial argument was so ridiculous that it would be an insult to my free will to consider it valid.

Evolution is plausible? then tell me, where did Matter come from?
That has nothing to do with evolution, and of course we can ask where god came from, in which case you can't say that god always existed.

(note: your post only incidentally had some relation to the topic)

I said preaching? When did I say preaching?
Your entire post was preaching, so I snipped it and instead of your post I just put "preaching", since that's what do you did.

And the connotation preaching has is rude. Preaching is just another method of teaching,
No, it's not. It's a method of screaming at someone and bears no relation to any methodology of teaching.

My main reason for my atheism is that I have become so interested in science and the study of how things really work, that I don't think I have that "mechanism" for blind faith anymore. Which is what religion comes down to a lot of the times, a faith against all logic and reason.I don't think science and religion have to be adversaries. I know people like to stereotype Christianity as the opium of the hoi polloi, but many Christians truly know what stance they're taking. They know just how much guts it takes to do this.

[QUOTE=Mooms]it is also his choice not to reveal Himself to us like this, and a decision we have no right to question as God ALWAYS KNOWS BEST[QUOTE]

THAT is sick, to think that some high and mighty being should know better about my pains than me, "we have no right to question" THAT sentence is part of the foundation of dictatorships, when ppl stop questioning what the leaders does, it all goes to shit "We have no right to question "der Führer" and yes, ppl said that during the nazi reign

"Despite ur request to hear reasons for becoming athiest i have to post a reply to ur friend's question- what has she ever done for God?"


If god exist, and is a being like christians say, he wouldt require anything of her, because he is so good, nice and friendly! :headbang:


"Did He not provide guidance to mankind- hence the foundation for so many of the worlds religions. "


Provide guidence!!!! religion has brough death pain and missery, until ppl finally got their eyes of the cross (renaissance and all), the world was shit, there´s a reason its called "The dark age"! Religion, not just christianity, has been wrong more times than me, its just doesnt work anymore, religion is dead

To say that a human could rightly comprehend the entire universe is false. If you saw 2001: A Space Odyssey, that's a large point in it, demonstrated by all the wavy colours near the end (in that you couldn't understand what the hell they meant). Because of this, I consider all reputable religious texts to be bastardisations of the truth; not in making them false or incorrect, rather making them simpler so a human could rightly comprehend it. As such, what may have been written as a "God" could easily be some other force that cannot be named an entity. What does this mean? It means, in my opinion, a Godlike force must exist; there's no other explanation we may understand. What is this God? None of us truly know. All we have is faith.

If you don't have faith, then you cannot know anything you have never seen and analysed to the fullest extent, and as such, cannot believe in most items.

I am an atheist because i think that religion makes people crazy. They talk to nothing thinking that some all-powerful being will hear them and help them, when this really never happens. Religion also causes more harm than good in my opinion. Having a bunch of so called "holy people" telling you what to do in your lives is practically the same as a dictator telling you what to do.

[QUOTE=Mooms]it is also his choice not to reveal Himself to us like this, and a decision we have no right to question as God ALWAYS KNOWS BEST[QUOTE]

THAT is sick, to think that some high and mighty being should know better about my pains than me, "we have no right to question" THAT sentence is part of the foundation of dictatorships, when ppl stop questioning what the leaders does, it all goes to shit "We have no right to question "der Führer" and yes, ppl said that during the nazi reign

"Despite ur request to hear reasons for becoming athiest i have to post a reply to ur friend's question- what has she ever done for God?"


If god exist, and is a being like christians say, he wouldt require anything of her, because he is so good, nice and friendly! :headbang:


"Did He not provide guidance to mankind- hence the foundation for so many of the worlds religions. "


Provide guidence!!!! religion has brough death pain and missery, until ppl finally got their eyes of the cross (renaissance and all), the world was shit, there´s a reason its called "The dark age"! Religion, not just christianity, has been wrong more times than me, its just doesnt work anymore, religion is dead
Don't compare God to Hitler. That barely makes sense. The Germans did not question Hitler because he was doing what they wanted, the Jews had money and the rest of Germany didn't. Furthermore, Hitler was a war hero. Even worse, if you DID question Hitler, the Gestapo would take you away in the night and your entire life would be wiped clean. God has NEVER used the Gestapo to take Atheists away in the night for questioning him.
Fuhrermore, what are the possibilities that an omnipotent and omniscient being beyond comprehension doesn't know best? He knows all of your problems, what you are thinking, but he can't put them together because... I don't know, but you probably do. Make something up, like he's on drugs or something. That'll convince us.

God does want something in return for his guidance and help. He wants faith and respect. This friend, having not been particularly faithful, evidentally has not paid for any guidance. I, not being extremely faithful but simply believing in God, have few problems, most of which are the result of my own incompetence. I'm also EXTREMELY lucky.

... By the way, according to you, Religion just became dead. Wouldn't it be more likely for it to be dead when it made the mistakes originally? Not years after? Or what, it only stopped working

I am an atheist because i think that religion makes people crazy. They talk to nothing thinking that some all-powerful being will hear them and help them, when this really never happens. Religion also causes more harm than good in my opinion. Having a bunch of so called "holy people" telling you what to do in your lives is practically the same as a dictator telling you what to do.
That's the problem with all extremists. If you cannot question others, you are doomed to a life of servitude. I'm personally a Protestant, allowing me to have freedom in the church and being able to interpret the Bible however I want. You're thinking of Catholicism, in which you are forced to regularly confess your sins to someone who doesn't really care that much and will sell this information on the street for $5 after you're finished. You are not allowed to think differently, the Bible is absolute and you cannot say anything that will change anything in it.

Even if evidence is given against God, one would be expected to believe in him regardless; while if evidence was given against the sun rising the next day, one would be expected to disbelieve it would happen.
Well, if no one could contrive some half-baked evidence that basically says "he didn't let me win the lottery" or something like that, then we'd have no atheists.

There have been questions of faith before, it's not like once you join the church, you can never go back. You can choose to leave, there's no Gestapo (yeah, I like bringing up the Gestapo) to break your legs if you try to leave the church, unless you live in an extremist culture.

There is such a thing as prior knowledge, such as seeing the sun rise every day; if it's never failed, then it's hard to believe it would stop rising.

And if you did have evidence that the Sun would stop rising, few people would believe it. It sounds like it's a stupid thing to say, even if it's right, and as such, you're going to be the only person who realised that the Sun was in fact, not going to rise. People question statements all the time, no matter how reasonable.

Also, there is such a thing as a miracle of God. It can easily be testified against, but to say that it's impossible that for once, God decided that, because you believe in him and worship him and do what he says, he would get you a raise or a promotion or something or make sure that instead of dying from painful death, as he had previously planned, you'll live to see the rest of the day and die a painless death in your sleep, doesn't make sense. I can't see any other reason why I am extraordinarily lucky, rarely fall into obvious bad situations and am still living (I've been in some accidents before).

If "god" is all seeing all powerful, Could he/she create a rock so large even he/she couldnt lift it?

If there was a compassionate god that was all knowing then he/she would know, what it would take to convince me of his/her existance. Without providing this necessary information, he/she (if truly compassionate) would never condemn someone for disbelief as he/she gave us the power to make logical decisions and not follow blindly.

Going to split this reply up, too long to quote all in one piece.

Well, if no one could contrive some half-baked evidence that basically says "he didn't let me win the lottery" or something like that, then we'd have no atheists.

I have absolutely no idea what that metaphor is intended to say, so I'll move forward.

There have been questions of faith before, it's not like once you join the church, you can never go back. You can choose to leave, there's no Gestapo (yeah, I like bringing up the Gestapo) to break your legs if you try to leave the church, unless you live in an extremist culture.

Who said anything about stopping people from believing in God? You're pulling things out of thin air and putting them in my mouth. I stated that someone who truly believes in God has blind faith. And if you have blind faith, no outside source will deter you - you're blind to contrary arguments. Hence 'blind' faith.

There is such a thing as prior knowledge, such as seeing the sun rise every day; if it's never failed, then it's hard to believe it would stop rising.

And if you did have evidence that the Sun would stop rising, few people would believe it. It sounds like it's a stupid thing to say, even if it's right, and as such, you're going to be the only person who realised that the Sun was in fact, not going to rise. People question statements all the time, no matter how reasonable.

Some people wouldn't believe, yes. But you can't apply that to all people as fact. It entirely depends on who presents the evidence (and/or how many people), how compelling the evidence is, and how open-minded the person hearing the evidence is.

Also, there is such a thing as a miracle of God. It can easily be testified against, but to say that it's impossible that for once, God decided that, because you believe in him and worship him and do what he says, he would get you a raise or a promotion or something or make sure that instead of dying from painful death, as he had previously planned, you'll live to see the rest of the day and die a painless death in your sleep, doesn't make sense. I can't see any other reason why I am extraordinarily lucky, rarely fall into obvious bad situations and am still living (I've been in some accidents before).

I don't see how preaching to me about your God(s) has anything to do with blind faith being different than scientific faith.

If "god" is all seeing all powerful, Could he/she create a rock so large even he/she couldnt lift it?
This is a paradox. No matter how you slice it, there is no way that statement could make sense. So, to settle this dispute, from now on, God is omnipotent, except when it comes to creating paradoxes. Unless it's proved otherwise.
If there was a compassionate god that was all knowing then he/she would know, what it would take to convince me of his/her existance. Without providing this necessary information, he/she (if truly compassionate) would never condemn someone for disbelief as he/she gave us the power to make logical decisions and not follow blindly.
Yeah... I said God would never send the Gestapo after you. That was a metaphor, of course there's no Godly Gestapo, but ya know what I mean. He'd never condemn you. Even so, he'd not aid you in a definite time of need because you would never ask for it and you would never do something in return for it. Furthermore, there is the chance that you are so ignorant and stubborn that, no matter what is done, you will never believe in a God. Even though the option to switch to and from atheism is there, few people consider it. Even after several back-and-forth topics between definite fanatics and atheists who refuse to believe the sun will rise, none of us have changed belief. I have hardly questioned God during this thread, and as such, still am a believer. I do believe the same for you as well, no? One side is so blind it cannot see the obvious and the other is so blind it cannot question the obvious.

This is a paradox. No matter how you slice it, there is no way that statement could make sense. So, to settle this dispute, from now on, God is omnipotent, except when it comes to creating paradoxes. Unless it's proved otherwise.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but dosent omnipotency give you control of all? Regardless, thats not my point.

Yeah... I said God would never send the Gestapo after you. That was a metaphor, of course there's no Godly Gestapo, but ya know what I mean. He'd never condemn you. Even so, he'd not aid you in a definite time of need because you would never ask for it and you would never do something in return for it. Furthermore, there is the chance that you are so ignorant and stubborn that, no matter what is done, you will never believe in a God. Even though the option to switch to and from atheism is there, few people consider it. Even after several back-and-forth topics between definite fanatics and atheists who refuse to believe the sun will rise, none of us have changed belief. I have hardly questioned God during this thread, and as such, still am a believer. I do believe the same for you as well, no? One side is so blind it cannot see the obvious and the other is so blind it cannot question the obvious.

What I am trying to get at is, the idea of something omnipotent does not make logical sense. The Freedom to choose would mean there were no consequences to our actions. The consequences dictate the outcome in any situation. I think ignorant and stubborn are very clever words to describe me. It is very true. I am ignorant to the world and the universe, I do not (and will never) truly understand it all, and I will not be convinced to contribute the rest of my life to following a religion that cannot prove to me the existance of what would be my purpose. That is the logic that I have been gifted with. It keeps me sane. I cant believe in stuff that isnt there... cause 9 times out of ten, its not and that other 1% will eventually show itself at which point I will decide. I cant believe there is a god who would want me to sacrifice my time on earth while ignoring the good sense to question first then decide. BTW I am not an atheist, I just havent decided yet and dont plan to till I have the evidence I need to feel comfortable with such an important decision.

I have absolutely no idea what that metaphor is intended to say, so I'll move forward.
It's half-cheap-insult (half-baked evidence; I've never seen any evidence for disbelief in God, everything wrong that has happened to me has taught me a lesson) and half-actual-information. I'm saying that evidentally, someone must not consider
Who said anything about stopping people from believing in God? You're pulling things out of thin air and putting them in my mouth. I stated that someone who truly believes in God has blind faith. And if you have blind faith, no outside source will deter you - you're blind to contrary arguments. Hence 'blind' faith.
If I did pull things out of thin air and put them in your mouth, I apologise, I'm making a general argument here. I'm saying it's blind faith because there's no true evidence, only what seems to make sense. Even so, that doesn't neccessarily mean you have no ability to question the evidence that you are given and make your own decision.
In terms of stopping people from believing in God (I'm honestly not sure what you mean based on what you quoted), I'm talking about you saying that one would be expected to believe God even after there's evidence against. If someone gives you logical evidence, no one's going to stop you from leaving the church if you want to. I thought that you meant you were expected to never lose faith regardless, and that would be false; if you are given evidence, then even with blind faith, no one is expecting you to plainly not consider the evidence. That's your choice to make.
Honestly, this one sort of confused me when trying to explain it. I forgot what I was trying to explain. I think I mostly covered it.
This one is closely tied to the next one, read on.
Some people wouldn't believe, yes. But you can't apply that to all people as fact. It entirely depends on who presents the evidence (and/or how many people), how compelling the evidence is, and how open-minded the person hearing the evidence is.
And these criteria could never influence someone in leaving the church? And you can apply it to all people as fact if it has to deal with blind faith? Pretty good argument, I agree, but you also have to make sure you're not being hypocritical and making an earlier argument worse off. Thing is, even blind followers can question things.
I don't see how preaching to me about your God(s) has anything to do with blind faith being different than scientific faith.
I'm saying that's the closest thing I have to knowing there's a God. If there was no God, I think I would be much worse off. This is what gives me faith.

Blind Faith is different from Scientific Faith. Scientific faith is usually true, but is not completely fail-proof. Blind faith, we cannot entirely be sure whether it is true or not unless you have evidence; however, there's so little evidence against most of today's religions, so it's harder to question them. Even so, they are both comprised of thinking something is true that you do not entirely know yourself.

As a test to see how you'd react to scientific faith, how'd you react to me saying there may be a mini-ice age like the one during the Dark Ages? Come up with a reply to that, and then I'll explain why it might happen; that is, if you think I actually have evidence it could. Most people do not believe me when I say this, so it is a sign that people can question these things.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but dosent omnipotency give you control of all? Regardless, thats not my point.



What I am trying to get at is, the idea of something omnipotent does not make logical sense. The Freedom to choose would mean there were no consequences to our actions. The consequences dictate the outcome in any situation. I think ignorant and stubborn are very clever words to describe me. It is very true. I am ignorant to the world and the universe, I do not (and will never) truly understand it all, and I will not be convinced to contribute the rest of my life to following a religion that cannot prove to me the existance of what would be my purpose. That is the logic that I have been gifted with. It keeps me sane. I cant believe in stuff that isnt there... cause 9 times out of ten, its not and that other 1% will eventually show itself at which point I will decide. I cant believe there is a god who would want me to sacrifice my time on earth while ignoring the good sense to question first then decide. BTW I am not an atheist, I just havent decided yet and dont plan to till I have the evidence I need to feel comfortable with such an important decision.
Yeah, omnipotence does grant you all power, but God is no longer omnipotent. He does not have the power to create paradoxes. Honestly, to that question, God certainly can create a rock that he cannot lift it, but he can make it so that he can later. It's the only way to think of it without driving you insane, and I can't risk that kind of thinking considering where I already am. I'm pretty reckless coming to this message board, where every topic is either "Bush is dumb!" or "Christians suck!" Either that, or they'll be overtaken by Thread Hijackers, like me. That's why you need to keep your language skills in good shape, or we'll insult you for spelling "assassin" wrong.
If you cannot be convinced with faith alone, you will become atheist. I, for instance, have faith because of the many miracles I have seen; I don't even have proof they're godly, though. To say that eventually, a religion will finally find proof that it exists, is blind faith, and you can't be too sure of that ever.

People still don't get it, and I keep saying this; some of us actually question religion. It's why the Protestants exist today, who have based their entire culture on questioning the Bible and how some parts of it obviously don't make perfect sense.

Even if you don't believe in God, there's still the Placebo effect that could be worth it regardless. If you know how to use it, you can convince yourself that God is keeping you safe at all times and fighting off your own diseases. It's incredibly handy, and despite getting sick all the time, I rarely feel the full effects because God will save me from illness. 'Course, not many other people can give themselves their own Placebo.

...On a side note, 9/10 is 90% and 10% (not 1%).

I think there is a fundamental break down of communication here. This is probably my fault, so to fix it I'm going to define how I use some terms.

Faith, to me, is believing without evidence. No evidence of any kind. You simply believe because. However, if evidence is given to you, you may change your mind (lose your faith).

Blind faith is similar to faith in that it does not require evidence. It is believing simply because. However blind faith differes from ordinary faith in that evidence does not affect it. It could be called "true faith"; faith is defined as "Complete confidence in a person or plan etc" and "Loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person".

Let's hold that thought and analyze loyalty for a moment. If I am loyal to my King for 10 years, and then I turn my back on him, am I loyal? I was partially loyal, but how can I be completely loyal if I ended up betraying him? One could say I am loyal, but not absolutely loyal.

If I have faith in something, therefore, and I lose my faith - I did not have complete faith in it. One could say I am faithful, but not absolutely faithful.

Blind faith is absolute/true faith. It is complete and unchangable faith. It does not rely on evidence, and evidence holds no ground before it.

--BLATANT OPINION AHEAD--

Believing in God (at least organized religion's God) is meant to be blind faith. You aren't supposed to be required to prove God exists. If someone proposes a theory that he doesn't, your faith shouldn't be shaken.

Let's assume you believe God exists:

If God exists, people who don't believe in him are wrong, or tricked by Satan.
If people are wrong or tricked by Satan, their evidence is false.
If their evidence is false, it doesn't matter.

And you can easily see how one who truly believes in the existence of God would never need to question Him. In fact, to question blind faith would mean you never had blind faith - you just had faith. Blind faith requires an absolute, uncompromisable level of faith.

--END BLANTANT OPINION--

Last but not least, there is the phenomenon I call scientific faith. It differs from faith in that it requires some form of evidence (circumstantial or not). Scientific faith requires a basis, as opposed to faith which exists simply because one believes it.

Scientific faith shares something in common with faith, which is that evidence affects it. Compelling evidence can fell both faith and scientific faith. But not blind faith.

Hence blind (or religious) faith is not the same as scientific faith (in my opinion).

As a test to see how you'd react to scientific faith, how'd you react to me saying there may be a mini-ice age like the one during the Dark Ages? Come up with a reply to that, and then I'll explain why it might happen; that is, if you think I actually have evidence it could. Most people do not believe me when I say this, so it is a sign that people can question these things.

I've never researched the subject, nor heard any indication of a mini-ice age forthcoming. I would view the matter with skepticism until I had heard more about it, and seen the sources of the claim. I won't outright deny the possibility - I don't know enough about it - but it's not one I take very seriously at the moment.

I'm pretty reckless coming to this message board, where every topic is either "Bush is dumb!" or "Christians suck!" Either that, or they'll be overtaken by Thread Hijackers, like me. That's why you need to keep your language skills in good shape, or we'll insult you for spelling "assassin" wrong.
...On a side note, 9/10 is 90% and 10% (not 1%).
I cant believe you corrected my figures...

Even if you don't believe in God, there's still the Placebo effect that could be worth it regardless. If you know how to use it, you can convince yourself that God is keeping you safe at all times and fighting off your own diseases. It's incredibly handy, and despite getting sick all the time, I rarely feel the full effects because God will save me from illness. 'Course, not many other people can give themselves their own Placebo.

Placebo's only work if yu believe they do.
Remember how we were saying I was stubborn before... Thanks anyway.

Faith, to me, is believing without evidence. No evidence of any kind. You simply believe because. However, if evidence is given to you, you may change your mind (lose your faith).

Blind faith is similar to faith in that it does not require evidence. It is believing simply because. However blind faith differes from ordinary faith in that evidence does not affect it. It could be called "true faith"; faith is defined as "Complete confidence in a person or plan etc" and "Loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person".

--BLATANT OPINION AHEAD--

Believing in God (at least organized religion's God) is meant to be blind faith. You aren't supposed to be required to prove God exists. If someone proposes a theory that he doesn't, your faith shouldn't be shaken.

Let's assume you believe God exists:

If God exists, people who don't believe in him are wrong, or tricked by Satan.
If people are wrong or tricked by Satan, their evidence is false.
If their evidence is false, it doesn't matter.

And you can easily see how one who truly believes in the existence of God would never need to question Him. In fact, to question blind faith would mean you never had blind faith - you just had faith. Blind faith requires an absolute, uncompromisable level of faith.

--END BLANTANT OPINION--

Scientific faith requires a basis, as opposed to faith which exists simply because one believes it.

Scientific faith shares something in common with faith, which is that evidence affects it. Compelling evidence can fell both faith and scientific faith. But not blind faith.

Hence blind (or religious) faith is not the same as scientific faith (in my opinion).
I believe that if I was presented evidence of no God, I'd consider it, but the matter is, most of what I have encountered can easily be overcome by the Protestant trick. I do question everything, and thus, I have no blind faith; this is in common with Protestant ideals.

As I said before, my only proof that god exists is the many miracles I have experienced. And the Bible, but, as I said before, it is not perfectly correct.

I do not believe all other religions are wrong. I have no proof of whether they are more or less accurate than my own religion, so I cannot pass judgement. I will say that I favour Christianity and that is my personal system of belief, but I do not simply pass others up as "sinners" or something bizarre like that. Well, sometimes I do, but only as a joke.

All faith has a basis; some are more reliable, but all do. Even those with Blind Faith have a massive text of Things God Did.

Now time for Ice Age theory;

The Gulf Stream is a handy-dandy water current at the equator; it is warm water. As currents work, it goes past the eastern coast of North America to somewhere south of Greenland, crosses the Atlantic, goes down the western European coast and back to the Equator. As heat transfers into the air, it makes the surrounding area warmer.
Now for the ironic part...
GLOBAL WARMING is causing water at the equator to melt. The water melts, but, as it is part of the ocean, it is salt water; the salt mixes in with other hot salt water, super-saturating it. However, at this point, the hot super-saturated water is now heavier than cold water, and sinks below it. Now, despite that the hot water used to power the current is gone, it maintains a portion of the energy made by the current and continues. Now heat from the air is transferring to the water, making the surrounding area cooler.

i'm confused by the ice age theory.
nvr mind i'm just an idiot. someone explained it.

All faith has a basis; some are more reliable, but all do. Even those with Blind Faith have a massive text of Things God Did.

Yes, but when it comes to blind faith, none of those "Things God Did" actually need to be true. It's not necessary for God to have actually done anything written in their "massive texts", or even for those things to have any basis in reality whatsoever.

Yes, but when it comes to blind faith, none of those "Things God Did" actually need to be true. It's not necessary for God to have actually done anything written in their "massive texts", or even for those things to have any basis in reality whatsoever.
I know, I'm just saying.

i doubt God for the same reason i doubt Santa, the Easter Bunny, and The Jolly Green Giant.

Arghhh, how many times must we go through this? Atheism is NOT, I repeat not a religion. Yes, it maybe a belief, but not all beliefs = religion. I don't believe a broken toaster will work, it doesn't make it a religion. I do believe my dishwasher will wash dishes, it doesn't make it a religion. I believe many things and don't believe many other things, that does not make them religions. The only thing in common atheists have is they don't believe in any type of higher being then humans. That's it, that's all. That does not equal a religion. Got it? Cause I'm getting tired of explaining this to people..

well.. kinda depends on your definition of religion...

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

that pretty much sums up Atheist fundamentalists.

Yeah, omnipotence does grant you all power, but God is no longer omnipotent. He does not have the power to create paradoxes. Honestly, to that question, God certainly can create a rock that he cannot lift it, but he can make it so that he can later. It's the only way to think of it without driving you insane, and I can't risk that kind of thinking considering where I already am.

A much easier way would be for God to create a rock the size of the universe. He would be unable to lift it, but not for lack of His own power.

Or He could create a rock that is already lifted.

There was a time when religion ruled the world...

... It's known as the Dark Ages.


I don't believe in gods of any sort, for the same reason I don't believe that "everything will work out for the best" or that 'sleeping on it' will make things better. It's all just optimistic bullshit that works out occasionally due to statistics (yep, well done. Given enough time, a Christian with cancer with find the cancer has stopped spreading. Never mind the *thousands* of Christians who *don't* recover... one did! BINGO! GOD!.... right, excuse me while I bash my head against a wall).

Shit happens. It happens all the time. People attribute reasons to it so they don't have to stop believing in their comforting fantasies - ever heard the saying 'the only exact science is hind-sight"? It means that you can justify *anything* when looking back on it.

Ugh, sorry for the ranting-ness, but some ignorant fool just tried to convert me a few days ago at a train station. Can you say RUDE? Bleah. Sure, I'm an insomniac, but I don't want 'God's' help, thank you. I want you to stay the hell away from me so I don't have to deal with you or your religion. I don't appreciate being preached to in public. I don't lose my right to a secular lifestyle when I walk out the door, so just. SHUT. UP. ABOUT. GOD. <- not directed at anyone here, but at the crazy-converting++ fool

i doubt God for the same reason i doubt Santa, the Easter Bunny, and The Jolly Green Giant.

But God's had more written about him. And you don't find a substantial number of people (the number itself is subjective, but it's large if you look at the world's population and history) claiming to know personally Santa, the Easter Bunny etc.

But God's had more written about him. And you don't find a substantial number of people (the number itself is subjective, but it's large if you look at the world's population and history) claiming to know personally Santa, the Easter Bunny etc.

..... You seriously base your belief on the *amount* written about it? even though a large amount is unverifiable, and written by the very people who benefitted by the writings existing? Sounds, um... not very logical. To say the least.

And I've met people who've claimed to have met Elvis (after his disappearance). It's called heresay, yo. And it's not evidence.

lol..... I can picture this...

"God, you suck.. you have never given me anything. You didnt let me win the lottery when I asked you for it... you didnt make Justin Timberlake fall in love with me... I want to get back at you... I know.. I just wont believe in you anymore. That will show you."

In seriousness.. ask your friend what is it she is looking for from God and religion (atheism being just another religion). Then tell her that one gets from religion what one puts into it. God doesnt force himself on people (although other people do force God on people, but that's a different tread). She has to seek him out.

I don't think this is such a stupid reason for not believing. I originally lost faith in God [I was brought up Christian] at about 17, because God did not seem to be answering my prayers. By that age, I had also heard them pray for an end to famine, violence, hatred, etc. in church loads of times and had God done anything about it? Every church in the country had been praying as well and nothing had happened. There were other reasons why I stopped believing - like why God decides to kill half of King David's men for the great sin of counting them - but that was the main reason.

When I got older, I started to realise how no two Christians seemed to have the same picture of God. They used to say, "God wants you to be happy," and then another would say, "God wants you to suffer at times" and they would just make up whatever God wants them to do. When I went to the Bible, I found that the properties given to God there are incompatible. Asides from the fact that he turns from a jealous god in the Old Testament to a god of compassion in the New, there are also a lot of other problems. Rather than write them all out, I'll refer to this website:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/philo/drange_1_2.htm
That has lots of arguments and it criticises them, but many are powerful. The ones to do with space and time generally appeal the most to me.

At the end of the day, people don't convert to religions by some philosophical conviction that God exists, though; not most of the time, anyway. Most people convert to Christianity because of the sound ethics in there and that's the essence of the religion.

But God's had more written about him. And you don't find a substantial number of people (the number itself is subjective, but it's large if you look at the world's population and history) claiming to know personally Santa, the Easter Bunny etc.
That's wholly irrelevant, though.

That has nothing to do with evolution, and of course we can ask where god came from, in which case you can't say that god always existed.

(note: your post only incidentally had some relation to the topic)

Actually, that has everything to do with Athiesm. It is the "start" of the universe. Sure, there is no "evolution" per se occuring at that moment, save the creation of matter, but it is the very start of the universe as we know it. Actually, I could tell you that God always existed, because that is what I believe. I do not think that God is wrapped up in physical time, nor is he a slave to the rules of the Universe because I believe he created it.

Sure, you could always say that matter has always existed, but It doesnt really make sense. How could inanimate stuff just be there, for all of eternity? Sure, maybe you could make the argument for some form of intelligence, but I do not understand how people can think that atoms and molecules and quarks have always existed, and that there was nothing that created them. If you have some belief on this matter, then please, enlighten me. If you do not think the universe was created Ex Nihilo, then how do you explain it?

And before you turn the question around, let me answer Why I believe that GOd is pre-existing. As I stated before, I do not think that God needs to follow the rules as I see them. In any religion, the god or gods are seen as being some kind of a superhuman. They can do things that we cannot, and usually do not comprehend. Assume with me for a moment that an all powerful Being of some sort does exist, and that he did create everything that we can ever possibly see (ie Matter). Do you think that he would be bound to simple laws of physics or even our ideals of being just? If someone is a god, then they are by definition, more than a mere human. How then can we expect them to act like one, or assume that we know just as much as they do. I know that if you are an athiest, the concept someone believeing that God exists might utterly amaze you (if at nothing more than their stupidity). But as a thiest, I believe in a God that is greater than myself (again, why would God just be someone like me) so I accept that there are things that I do not know about him. He is like the Universe, there is no way that we as a species could ever hope to comprehend the entire universe.

What I am trying to get at is, the idea of something omnipotent does not make logical sense. The Freedom to choose would mean there were no consequences to our actions. The consequences dictate the outcome in any situation. I think ignorant and stubborn are very clever words to describe me. It is very true. I am ignorant to the world and the universe, I do not (and will never) truly understand it all, and I will not be convinced to contribute the rest of my life to following a religion that cannot prove to me the existance of what would be my purpose. That is the logic that I have been gifted with. It keeps me sane. I cant believe in stuff that isnt there... cause 9 times out of ten, its not and that other 1% will eventually show itself at which point I will decide. I cant believe there is a god who would want me to sacrifice my time on earth while ignoring the good sense to question first then decide. BTW I am not an atheist, I just havent decided yet and dont plan to till I have the evidence I need to feel comfortable with such an important decision.


Free will does not negate consequences. How can you think that? There are certain laws that are established here that if you do something, these laws have effect. are you saying that if there was truly free will, you could jump off a building and fly? No, gravity would take effect no matter how strong your will would be. also, what about moral consequences? you kill someone, you are going to get a lot of people angry with you. are you saying that your free choice negates that and that they will all still be nice to you all the time. or better yet, that if you shoot someone, and he doesnt want to die, that the bullet will just fall out of his body and the would would instantly heal itself? :confused:

There was a time when religion ruled the world...

... It's known as the Dark Ages.


I don't believe in gods of any sort, for the same reason I don't believe that "everything will work out for the best" or that 'sleeping on it' will make things better. It's all just optimistic bullshit that works out occasionally due to statistics (yep, well done. Given enough time, a Christian with cancer with find the cancer has stopped spreading. Never mind the *thousands* of Christians who *don't* recover... one did! BINGO! GOD!.... right, excuse me while I bash my head against a wall).

Shit happens. It happens all the time. People attribute reasons to it so they don't have to stop believing in their comforting fantasies - ever heard the saying 'the only exact science is hind-sight"? It means that you can justify *anything* when looking back on it.

Ugh, sorry for the ranting-ness, but some ignorant fool just tried to convert me a few days ago at a train station. Can you say RUDE? Bleah. Sure, I'm an insomniac, but I don't want 'God's' help, thank you. I want you to stay the hell away from me so I don't have to deal with you or your religion. I don't appreciate being preached to in public. I don't lose my right to a secular lifestyle when I walk out the door, so just. SHUT. UP. ABOUT. GOD. <- not directed at anyone here, but at the crazy-converting++ fool

The dark ages was a time ruled by a few people who used religion to control the masses. The mass of people were ignorant about thier faith, so they accepted whatever was told to them. Blaiming the faith of Christianity for the dark ages is like blaming the faith of Islam for 9/11. Neither faith, to my knowledge would condone those actions.

How come when something bad happens it proves that there is no God or it is challed up as unanswered prayer? But when something good happens, it is not a miracle, but simply something that is easily explained by science?

Should it not be one way or the other, especially if you do not believe about God? ie, bad things: come from bad people, and accidents. Good things: come from good people and "luck." Bad things happen because humans by nature, are "bad." Good things happen because sometimes people can overcome this human nature and do something for one another.... I dont really care how you put it, but do not take all negative things and state that it is proof of there being no God, while not accepting that there are miracles.

You are allowed to rant. I had someone a few days ago tell me that God does not exist, and called me ignorant and stupid for believing otherwise. that was also Rude, and really really annoying. No one can convince another to change faith. They can present evidence and sup[port for their beliefs, but they should not try to convert another person. that decision should be left up to the person himeself.

But God's had more written about him. And you don't find a substantial number of people (the number itself is subjective, but it's large if you look at the world's population and history) claiming to know personally Santa, the Easter Bunny etc.
wow, so if i can get a substantial number of people to believe the world is flat and located at the center of the universe then that will become true? far out, the Church was right!

sorry bud, the number of people who believe something does not have any impact on how right it is, nor does the volume of written material on the subject.

Free will does not negate consequences. How can you think that? There are certain laws that are established here that if you do something, these laws have effect. are you saying that if there was truly free will, you could jump off a building and fly? No, gravity would take effect no matter how strong your will would be. also, what about moral consequences? you kill someone, you are going to get a lot of people angry with you. are you saying that your free choice negates that and that they will all still be nice to you all the time. or better yet, that if you shoot someone, and he doesnt want to die, that the bullet will just fall out of his body and the would would instantly heal itself? :confused:
if God is all-powerful and all-good, then by definition He would not be able to stand by while a human takes a wrong action, unless that action were supposed to happen for some higher reason and therefore was Good.

thus, any human action that is completed is, by definition, Good. God would have stopped them if it wasn't, by definition of God. therefore, we cannot punish criminals because God has judged their action to be Good, or at least necessary for some higher purpose. He allowed them to act, and therefore endorsed that their action was necessary, so we are wrong to judge them as criminals when God has put His celestial stamp of approval on what they did.

now, if God isn't all-good then this whole thing falls apart, but then we are left to wonder why we should worship Him, or at least why we can't disagree with Him. likewise, if God isn't all-powerful, we might not need to be obeying Him in the first place. if humans have the power to take actions that defy His will or His Good then why should we bend our lives to suit Him?

I think, therefore I am.

I am unable to logically prove that anything else exists other than by the evidence presented by my senses, which can be fooled.

In the absence of proof that anything other than myself exists, I conclude that either there is no god, or that I am god.

QED.

"Religion is true to the common man, False to the educated man, and 'Useful' to kings"

Nuff said! ;)

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.

Someone else may have mentioned this, but why doesn't your girl friend create her own god. After all, the god of the three sister religions is a working progress of humanity.

My god is: me, me and me. Simply because I can rely on myself more than I can rely on anything or anyone else.

if God is all-powerful and all-good, then by definition He would not be able to stand by while a human takes a wrong action, unless that action were supposed to happen for some higher reason and therefore was Good.

thus, any human action that is completed is, by definition, Good. God would have stopped them if it wasn't, by definition of God. therefore, we cannot punish criminals because God has judged their action to be Good, or at least necessary for some higher purpose. He allowed them to act, and therefore endorsed that their action was necessary, so we are wrong to judge them as criminals when God has put His celestial stamp of approval on what they did.

now, if God isn't all-good then this whole thing falls apart, but then we are left to wonder why we should worship Him, or at least why we can't disagree with Him. likewise, if God isn't all-powerful, we might not need to be obeying Him in the first place. if humans have the power to take actions that defy His will or His Good then why should we bend our lives to suit Him?

So you are saying that we are just mindless drones then? I stated before (previous posts) that we as humans are given Stewardship of this planet, and largely over our own lives. If God Corrected us everytime that we made a mistake, there would be no choice but to believe in him, true? Free Choice is negated there as well.

Humans are fallen, we are imperfect creatures. we also are blessed (or cursed depending on how you look at it) with minds that are able to formulate thier own opinions on things, and we are also capable of acting on those opinions. If God stopped us from acting on those opinions He would not be the God that is written about in the Bible. The things we do do serve a higher purpose, but they are not always good. Take 9/11. That was a terrible event that took thousands of lives. But it united our country, for a time, and it also briefly got "us ignorant americans" to look beyond our all important lives and see the hatred that others have for us (and rightly so in mayn regards). Now, because 9/11 had a positive consequence in that regard, does that justify the deaths and make the event itself good? I don't think that it does.


Again, you are trying to apply your own logic to what you think an all knowing, just God would do. But he created us "in his own image." This does not refer to how we physically appear so much as it gives us the ability to think for ourselves and the ability to create things. if he prevented us from doing wrong, he would not have created us in his image anyway, so he would not be who he said he is. if that were the case, people would not believe him to be all knowing and just. Its a thought loop.

Here's a concept: We are able to choose what we do on this planet, but we also have to face whatever concequences our actions create. God will intervene at times, but only on rare occasions, and only when this intervention fits into a larger part of his Will (ie Jesus, random miracles). If he interfered all the time, there would be no free will, and since he wants a people that will choose to worship him, this does not fit in with his will, so he does not interfere with every little event. What does this mean? it means that the evil that occurs in the world is on our shoulders, just like nearly all of the "good" things that happen occur because of us. We are given control of the planet, how we handle that power is part of our freedom to choose.

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.
I am an agnostic Deist. I have no proof of God to offer anyone or myself.

However, I am always looking for reason to believe. Most times I believe. Sometimes I doubt. Its a bitch when you have no empiricle evedence.

Really its a matter of the heart. (which is valid)
If believing is benificial to you then you have no buisness doing otherwise. Be true to yourself and your God/s.

It would be nice if theists could worship thier Gods without pushing thier God or moral values on others. Many can and do repect others belief systems. Secular Ethics are everyones best friend because not everyone is of the same religion. Religion is for you personaly and Ethics is for everyone.

Now Science.... has nothing to say about God/s. And it never can.
Atheists like everyone else Have no empirical evedence of God/s.
They do not KNOW that there is no God/s , they believe that there are no God/s.

Thier belief is just as valid as everyone elses. There is no Empiricle evedence either way. For them they feel that it is best to consider and deal with what is probable and possible and ignor what is possible but obviously can not be tested through the Scientific method. GOD/s can not be tested that way.
We should respect them and accept the fact that they are capable of being Loving, and Honorable people. Just like anybody else.

Now if someone wants to call themselves an atheist because they are looking for a handout from thier GOD/S and thier comming up empty handed that should be very telling. They are trying to get thier GOD/s attention by rejecting thier God/s verbaly NOT intellectually. They still believe. They are just angry is all.

So you are saying that we are just mindless drones then? I stated before (previous posts) that we as humans are given Stewardship of this planet, and largely over our own lives. If God Corrected us everytime that we made a mistake, there would be no choice but to believe in him, true? Free Choice is negated there as well.

Humans are fallen, we are imperfect creatures. we also are blessed (or cursed depending on how you look at it) with minds that are able to formulate thier own opinions on things, and we are also capable of acting on those opinions. If God stopped us from acting on those opinions He would not be the God that is written about in the Bible. The things we do do serve a higher purpose, but they are not always good. Take 9/11. That was a terrible event that took thousands of lives. But it united our country, for a time, and it also briefly got "us ignorant americans" to look beyond our all important lives and see the hatred that others have for us (and rightly so in mayn regards). Now, because 9/11 had a positive consequence in that regard, does that justify the deaths and make the event itself good? I don't think that it does.


Again, you are trying to apply your own logic to what you think an all knowing, just God would do. But he created us "in his own image." This does not refer to how we physically appear so much as it gives us the ability to think for ourselves and the ability to create things. if he prevented us from doing wrong, he would not have created us in his image anyway, so he would not be who he said he is. if that were the case, people would not believe him to be all knowing and just. Its a thought loop.

Here's a concept: We are able to choose what we do on this planet, but we also have to face whatever concequences our actions create. God will intervene at times, but only on rare occasions, and only when this intervention fits into a larger part of his Will (ie Jesus, random miracles). If he interfered all the time, there would be no free will, and since he wants a people that will choose to worship him, this does not fit in with his will, so he does not interfere with every little event. What does this mean? it means that the evil that occurs in the world is on our shoulders, just like nearly all of the "good" things that happen occur because of us. We are given control of the planet, how we handle that power is part of our freedom to choose.

please show how my proof is wrong, from the original post. please show how God being all-powerful and all-good is consistent with him allowing evil to be done against innocent humans. if wicked actions are necessary for His plan, and His plan is all-good, then why are those actions wicked? they bring about the Good, and all-powerful God would surely have found a Good way to bring it about if that were possible. it is unfair of us to punish somebody for taking an action that was necessary to bring about the Good, especially if God himself could not find any alternative.

if His will is to withhold His power and allow a child to be murdered, then who are we to judge that murderer? our sinful, fallen, incomplete logic is clearly inferior to Gods, and He judged that murder necessary.

Oh, and there are forms of Taoism and Buddhism that allow you to be atheist...so you don't have to give up religion, just the belief in a god(s).

Buddhism and Taoism ain't no religions.

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.

For me, it was quite simple - one question, with no hoops to jump through! "Do you believe in a god?" If you can answer "No," then, by golly, you're an atheist! If she still wants to be Christian, there are lots and lots of very good rationalizations for why God has seemingly deserted her (try "The Lord works in mysterious ways." - one of my favorites!).

Obviously she's not an atheist. It sounds like she's merely upset and wants to rebel. Here is what I would recommend to you - if you think that she really wants to believe in God, but is frustrated by hard times, then set up a meeting between her and a pastor. It will either provide her with some kind of support to help her, or push her farther away from Christianity. Either way it helps settle the issue.

Just an idea.

wow, so if i can get a substantial number of people to believe the world is flat and located at the center of the universe then that will become true? far out, the Church was right!

sorry bud, the number of people who believe something does not have any impact on how right it is, nor does the volume of written material on the subject.

Hold on a second matey, I didn't actually say that it meant that Christians (or anyone) was right, I was just pointing out there was a difference!

Truth isn't decided by majority vote; I was just merely pointing out that Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny et al don't have any religions to their name (that I know of!) and don't have any religious texts written about them.

I assume you meant there's sod all in the way of proof for their existence, fair enough. I wasn't getting at that, just there'd be no reason to believe in Santa Clause or anything as a personal saviour just because he never claimed to be.

Ok, I'll get me coat...

please show how my proof is wrong, from the original post. please show how God being all-powerful and all-good is consistent with him allowing evil to be done against innocent humans. if wicked actions are necessary for His plan, and His plan is all-good, then why are those actions wicked? they bring about the Good, and all-powerful God would surely have found a Good way to bring it about if that were possible. it is unfair of us to punish somebody for taking an action that was necessary to bring about the Good, especially if God himself could not find any alternative.

if His will is to withhold His power and allow a child to be murdered, then who are we to judge that murderer? our sinful, fallen, incomplete logic is clearly inferior to Gods, and He judged that murder necessary.

I do not see how it is inconsistant. he allows these things to happen becuase he has Given us CHoice, something that has been mentioned many times in this thread. evil actions are not neccesary for his plan, but that does not mean that he cannot use them for his will. as I stated before, sometimes an evil event can bring about something positive. you mentioned the murder of a child. let us use our human morals for a moment and state that muder is wrong. ok, so according to usual human logic and morals, the murder is wrong. But what if that murder spawned a better neighborhood watch program, or the police beefed up their force so that future murders would be harder to commit. this is a very positive thing because it is preventing another wrong (ie murder), but it came about from an event that is clearly wrong and people should have no trouble seeing it.

Do you think that the police wanted that murder to happen? or that they were hoping that something like that would occur so that they could move foreward with their plan to beef up their forces? I do not think that they were, and yet because of that tragic event, their plan was helped along.

Applying this to a larger scale, God can use negative events to further his will, but that does not mean that he wanted these events to occur. again, you are assuming in your post that God controls every aspect of everyones life, where the basic tenent of Christianity is that he doesnt control us like that. I cannot state this enough, HE HAS GIVEN US A CHOICE OVER WHAT WE DO. it is a basic idea that Christians believe. A choice, in a world with laws, means that you can choose to do something wrong.

Think of a father. he is trying to teach his son how to ride a bike. He KNOWS that his son will fall down and hurt himself. he also KNOWS that his son will not enjoy that pain, and yet he teaches his son anyway. would it not be in the best interest of the son if he were kept in a plastic sphere so that there was no possible way he would hurt himself? But where would be the joy in that. the father knows that his son will love riding the bike, even if it does occasionally cause pain, so he allows him to ride on it. now tell me, does this make the father any less loving becuase he is allowing his son to suffer pain? He Knew beforehand that it would cause this, but yet he allowed it anyway, does this make him not loving and not good?

God knew that by giving us a choice, that we would choose wrong and that people would abuse that power. He knew that there would be a lot of pain inherent in those choices, and yet he allowed it anyway. would you prefer to be kept in a "bubble" with everything already decided for you? You see, because God also knew that we would choose to do good as well, and that by us choosing to do the action, it would make the accomplishment of that actyion even better.

If everything was good all the time, how would we know it without wrong to compare it to. How could we truly understand Love if we never felt Hatred or pain? Choice by its very nature is painful, but it also allows you to appreciate "good" that much more.

That's not a very good reason for becoming an atheist. I mean, what have octopuses ever done for your friend? If her experiences have been anything like mine, the answer is "sod all". But I still believe in their existence.

I don't believe in octopuses (octopi?). I've never seen one myself, after all. If I ever do see one I may change my mind, but I think belief in celopoids of any form is a crutch. I don't need them, they've never done a thing for me, and the onus is on those who believe in them to prove that they are real.

I do not see how it is inconsistant. he allows these things to happen becuase he has Given us CHoice, something that has been mentioned many times in this thread. evil actions are not neccesary for his plan, but that does not mean that he cannot use them for his will. as I stated before, sometimes an evil event can bring about something positive. you mentioned the murder of a child. let us use our human morals for a moment and state that muder is wrong. ok, so according to usual human logic and morals, the murder is wrong. But what if that murder spawned a better neighborhood watch program, or the police beefed up their force so that future murders would be harder to commit. this is a very positive thing because it is preventing another wrong (ie murder), but it came about from an event that is clearly wrong and people should have no trouble seeing it.

Do you think that the police wanted that murder to happen? or that they were hoping that something like that would occur so that they could move foreward with their plan to beef up their forces? I do not think that they were, and yet because of that tragic event, their plan was helped along.

Applying this to a larger scale, God can use negative events to further his will, but that does not mean that he wanted these events to occur. again, you are assuming in your post that God controls every aspect of everyones life, where the basic tenent of Christianity is that he doesnt control us like that. I cannot state this enough, HE HAS GIVEN US A CHOICE OVER WHAT WE DO. it is a basic idea that Christians believe. A choice, in a world with laws, means that you can choose to do something wrong.

Think of a father. he is trying to teach his son how to ride a bike. He KNOWS that his son will fall down and hurt himself. he also KNOWS that his son will not enjoy that pain, and yet he teaches his son anyway. would it not be in the best interest of the son if he were kept in a plastic sphere so that there was no possible way he would hurt himself? But where would be the joy in that. the father knows that his son will love riding the bike, even if it does occasionally cause pain, so he allows him to ride on it. now tell me, does this make the father any less loving becuase he is allowing his son to suffer pain? He Knew beforehand that it would cause this, but yet he allowed it anyway, does this make him not loving and not good?

God knew that by giving us a choice, that we would choose wrong and that people would abuse that power. He knew that there would be a lot of pain inherent in those choices, and yet he allowed it anyway. would you prefer to be kept in a "bubble" with everything already decided for you? You see, because God also knew that we would choose to do good as well, and that by us choosing to do the action, it would make the accomplishment of that actyion even better.

If everything was good all the time, how would we know it without wrong to compare it to. How could we truly understand Love if we never felt Hatred or pain? Choice by its very nature is painful, but it also allows you to appreciate "good" that much more.
in the cases you describe, the police and the father are limited by their own abilities; they are unable to find better ways to accomplish the necessary end. if the police could bring about the better neighborhood watch etc without the murder that prompted it, wouldn't that be a whole lot better? wouldn't it be great if the police could just prevent wickedness altogether, making the neighborhood watch unnecessary? well, God can...by definition of all-powerful. what if the father could make sure his son had perfect balance and coordination, or that every time the boy fell he would land safely on some soft, pillowy grass? well, God could do that. the kid would still end up with the same skill at riding a bike, or would still learn from falling, but wouldn't have to suffer injury and pain.

or are you saying God is incapable of finding another means to a Good end? that He is choosing to allow pain even though it is possible to avoid it? He could have given us the power of choice along with improved intellect and reasoning so that we would understand The Plan and choose wisely, but He didn't do that...He chose to put us in a situation where we will make wrong choices, and He allows those wrong choices even when they harm the innocent. therefore, He clearly thinks those pains are Good and necessary, or He would be able to find a way to stop them without interfering with free will; He's all-powerful, remember.

you can't have it both ways. if God is capable of anything then He is capable of finding non-painful ways for life to procede and for people to learn. thus, all pain and wrong in the world exists because God thinks it is the best possible means to approach the Good. thus, since wickedness is the best possible way to approach the Good (since even God cannot find better way), we are wrong to punish those who take the best possible course toward the Good.

if, on the other hand, God cannot control our actions, then why worship Him? if He cannot cause us to take a better path without interfering with free will then why is He to be obeyed without question? (remember, our logic is puny compared to His, therefore you can't claim there is no way for him to fix things without messing with free will...just because that seems to be the case to our puny logic doesn't mean that an all-powerful God couldn't do it. by His definition, He MUST be able to do it.)

or, alternatively, if God chooses to allow actions that are not the best possible course toward the Good, then we are left wondering why to worship yet again. He is not all-good, so why should we follow Him instead of our own powers of reasoning? how do we know He will lead us to the Good at all?

you ask if i would prefer to be kept in a bubble, with no power of choice; i ask why you think that is relavent. just because i might not like that something is so, that doesn't make it less true. wishful thinking has no bearing on reality. i don't like the fact that i can't fly, but i'm not going to start claiming it is otherwise just to make myself happy. you don't like the idea that you don't have free will, but you can't seem to explain how your premeses can lead to any conclusion that allows such free will. wanting it to be true won't change the will of the God you've created. boy am i sorry for you.

Buddhism and Taoism ain't no religions.
Just like how Christanity isn't a religon?(/sarcasm)

lol..... I can picture this...

"God, you suck.. you have never given me anything. You didnt let me win the lottery when I asked you for it... you didnt make Justin Timberlake fall in love with me... I want to get back at you... I know.. I just wont believe in you anymore. That will show you."

In seriousness.. ask your friend what is it she is looking for from God and religion (atheism being just another religion). Then tell her that one gets from religion what one puts into it. God doesnt force himself on people (although other people do force God on people, but that's a different tread). She has to seek him out.

Atheism is not a religion. It is merely the belief in the absence of a God. Also, TheOneRule, wants and needs are very clearly divided. Rationality and reason is also important in ones relationship with his/her God or lack there of. If you know someone who doesn't believe anymore because she didn't win the lotto, then does it make sense for countless other millions to not believe either because they didn't win? There is one winner, so CLEARLY the chances of winning are strictly a factor of luck. She is being unreasonable. Maybe you should bring up the idea of contention.

A few things to say

You're thinking of Catholicism, in which you are forced to regularly confess your sins to someone who doesn't really care that much and will sell this information on the street for $5 after you're finished. You are not allowed to think differently, the Bible is absolute and you cannot say anything that will change anything in it.

Confession isn't forced on people, in catholicism. And it doesn't say that everthing in the bible is absolutely true. Catholics don't think the events in Genesis really happened, last I checked.

Anyway, on to atheists who attempt to argue with theists. This has frustrated me in the past. While the atheist is trying to explain why he/she views the universe in the way they do, the theist, more often than not is trying to convince the atheist that they're wrong. This means the listening only goes one way at the best of times, making the theist look like they're doing the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LALALAI'MRIGHTYOU'REWRONGLALALA!

In the worst arguments, this is true of both protagonists. Now, onto those who try to battle blind faith with science. I noticed someone asking where matter came from if God doesn't exist. Scientists don't know. Really, they don't know that the evolution theory is true. It's just an explanation based on evidence. Anyway, the idea that matter is just there, we don't know how, seems to me just as much of a cop-out as the idea that a supreme being is just there, 'cause he is, and you can't question that so stop it. Religious people on the other hand, have a strict set of beliefs that are solid and unchanging. It can't be wrong. So science says, "Look at this evidence, it's probable that we evolved from apes", religion, or at least christianity says, "Shut up! God made man!" Science is based on uncertainty, religion is based on belief. So it's near to impossible to get a fundamentalist to listen to a bit of scientific reasoning if it contravenes their belief system. However, it is possible to convert a true scientist, as long as you can come up with a reasonable explanation for some particular beliefs. The trick is finding a reasonable explanation.

There's no actual underlying arguement to this. I'm just voicing my thoughts

I do not see how it is inconsistant. he allows these things to happen becuase he has Given us CHoice,
Not when your god knows everything and created everything. Then choice is merely illusory.

something that has been mentioned many times in this thread. evil actions are not neccesary for his plan, but that does not mean that he cannot use them for his will.
...meaning they are necessary for his plan.

as I stated before, sometimes an evil event can bring about something positive.
...which is a convenient rationalization.

you mentioned the murder of a child. let us use our human morals for a moment and state that muder is wrong. ok, so according to usual human logic and morals, the murder is wrong. But what if that murder spawned a better neighborhood watch program, or the police beefed up their force so that future murders would be harder to commit.
It would still be wrong. Surely you're not suggesting that people be murdered so as to have better neighborhood watches!

Applying this to a larger scale, God can use negative events to further his will, but that does not mean that he wanted these events to occur.
Nothing can go against god's will, remember? Paul said so. Are you contradicting Paul? You'd better rethink your position.

again, you are assuming in your post that God controls every aspect of everyones life, where the basic tenent of Christianity is that he doesnt control us like that.
Which contradicts some other basic tenets, such as god creating everything and god knowing everything.

Think of a father. he is trying to teach his son how to ride a bike. He KNOWS that his son will fall down and hurt himself.
...but he didn't create the son to fall down.

he also KNOWS that his son will not enjoy that pain, and yet he teaches his son anyway. would it not be in the best interest of the son if he were kept in a plastic sphere so that there was no possible way he would hurt himself?
As from above, that is an horribly false analogy.

God knew that by giving us a choice,
Impossible.

If everything was good all the time, how would we know it without wrong to compare it to.
God didn't want us to know right from wrong in the first place.

That has nothing to do with evolution, and of course we can ask where god came from, in which case you can't say that god always existed.

(note: your post only incidentally had some relation to the topic)
Actually, that has everything to do with Athiesm.
Nor that, either. And please learn to spell "atheism" correctly.

It is the "start" of the universe. Sure, there is no "evolution" per se occuring at that moment, save the creation of matter, but it is the very start of the universe as we know it. Actually, I could tell you that God always existed, because that is what I believe.
And that would be the special pleading logical fallacy.

I do not think that God is wrapped up in physical time, nor is he a slave to the rules of the Universe because I believe he created it.
Ontologically meaningless. Creation is a TEMPORAL act, moron.

Sure, you could always say that matter has always existed, but It doesnt really make sense. How could inanimate stuff just be there, for all of eternity?
How could god just be there?

Sure, maybe you could make the argument for some form of intelligence, but I do not understand how people can think that atoms and molecules and quarks have always existed, and that there was nothing that created them.
No one but morons who have no clue as to cosmology believe that (i.e. someone like you).

How can you believe that nothing created god? (see how it gets turned right around on you?)

If you have some belief on this matter, then please, enlighten me. If you do not think the universe was created Ex Nihilo, then how do you explain it?
The universe was always there. How is it that you believe the universe was created ex nihilo

And before you turn the question around, let me answer Why I believe that GOd is pre-existing. As I stated before, I do not think that God needs to follow the rules as I see them. In any religion, the god or gods are seen as being some kind of a superhuman.
Which is just convenient rationalization.

They can do things that we cannot, and usually do not comprehend. Assume with me for a moment that an all powerful Being of some sort does exist, and that he did create everything that we can ever possibly see (ie Matter). Do you think that he would be bound to simple laws of physics or even our ideals of being just?
That's a nice assumption. And it's just that--an assumption.

What evidence do you have that the universe is only as it appears?


Now, of course, I'm not saying we've seen everything that the universe has to offer, and I'm also not saying that we ever will...

But I said the only thing I can have FAITH in....faith is believing something is so without reason to do so. Now, I can't find a way around this level of faith...call it faith is the universe being as it appears or faith in logic... eventually it does come down to that.

And being that I'd like to have my beliefs follow the KISS method (keep it simple stupid) that's all I'm going to have faith in. I don't think that is unreasonable. I don't need gods or whatever, just my trusty logic and a universe that isn't a wool over my eyes.

Because, well...if there IS a god/whatever and it/she/he did make the universe a false front for the truth, I'm not worshipping that devious bastard(s)!

Oh, and for you Christians out there...no offense, I see alot of you are reasonable people...but you do notice that the only people getting on here and talking about God like it/she/he has to exist is the Christians? I haven't seen any Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. pushing beliefs on here so far...just Christians. You need to organize the intelligent members of your religion already and boot those people out! ;)

If you ask me, if your friend wants to be atheist, let her but it may help if you both looked into other beliefs together. No one path is right for everyone. This will show her that although you don't agree with her new beliefs that you support her decision. What I find kind of silly is how some people call a belief in a higher power blind. I don't see how it could be that way because the reasons, like if the existance of a higher power were disproven they would be expected to still believe. Now I see how that may happen to very conservative types and, even some atheists in this topic have said, even if God just poofed in front of them they still wouldn't believe. Isn't that blind faith as well? Why bother attacking another belief system as blind while you're beliefs are no superiour to theirs? That's one thing that I myself find intolerable when someone thinks they've got it right and, act superiour because of it and, I've seen those types in ALL belief systems I've come across.

With regards to cosmology, as brought up by BAAWA, what happened before the Big Bang - assuming that our theories are correct - may well prove to be an absolute unknown. We can't currently determine what happened before, if anything at all. This is the point where science cannot provide answers. For all we know, the universe was the created in an act of God, or the bridge between a dying universe and a new one, or the spawn of copulating monkey-fish.

Nor that, either. And please learn to spell "atheism" correctly.

How could god just be there?

How can you believe that nothing created god? (see how it gets turned right around on you?)


Thank you for laying it all so nicely very much BAAWA!

I get so tired of the supernatural out...."everything follows laws except for god, whom can do whatever and therefore can exist first because I believe it".

Even the Christian's lackies in the Intelligent design department know better than that!

For all we know, the universe was the created in an act of God, or the bridge between a dying universe and a new one, or the spawn of copulating monkey-fish.

I vote monkey-fish, who's with me?

Buddhism and Taoism ain't no religions.

Except for the fact that they ARE religions, and ancient ones at that...you'd be...um....

I'm going to go with STUPID here if that's okay with you?

Yeah, that's a stupid and bigoted thing to say. I'm trully hoping it was a joke...

For all we know, the universe was the created in an act of God, or the bridge between a dying universe and a new one, or the spawn of copulating monkey-fish.

Do not mock the Copulating Monkey-Fish, unbeliever. Your Heresy has been noted.

"A fool says in his heart 'there is no God'..." - A quote from the book Proverbs something-or-other. I forgot where but it's there.
~*~
Hmmm... I'm not a Bible Scholar nor am I a cleric of any ordination but as someone moved by that which verifies my faith, I am compelled to write this.

Perhaps what I am about to write means diddly-squat to anybody thoroughly convinced that the Universe had the chance to exist as it is amidst the unfathomably enormous odds that it won't but let me say that this is not the case. I write this to clarify certain things about the God I worship (I am Christian) for those who, iffy on the issue, have been thoroughly misinformed by under-inspired Sunday School Teachers, the media image of God and our own personal views, et cetera, ad nausea.

For he or she who wish for a reason to believe, please read.

First of all, it has been asked how an Infintely Good and Wise God allow so much suffering on Earth when this God (coincidentally All-Powerful also) can possibly think of other ways to resolve these problems.

Now, let me ask you something. Would you be so wise and so noble to be able to say that God allows these things to happen as if enjoying the suffering of man as a sadistic game of chess? And as an All-Powerful God, how would you suggest to rid the World of its ails (material, spiritual, emotional) without impeding on Free-Will?

I tell you this: God may work in mysterious ways but the Lord has been more prompt to telling us how and why he does things than we can ever accept. How do you suppose God usually operates? If he sees a murderer, do you expect him to strike him down dead?

No. Understand, please, that as God is known as a God of the miraculous, so is he also the God of the natural. Every thing in the world that is good has been given to all men since the beginning of time when God created the Universe to act as a mechanism. Every grain of wheat you've eaten in your entire life as bread has been designed to meet your need - God allows entire fields of grain to start growing centuries before so that your need could be filled by the right amount of flour when your time comes. And God, infinitely wise, has thought of all those good things for everybody ever since time even began. That's for you, for me, and even for those people who believe him or not.

Now, why then is there suffering in the world when God himself declared all blessings on man? The answer: man himself. God, naturally wanting to bring out the best in people, uses people (not miracles as many are led to believe) in order to keep the blessing around. he speaks to their hearts, pleads the case of his fellow man and drives his conscience fruity if he does something wrong - everything short of mind control (the Lord ain't like that). It is when man stops listening and starts doing otherwise (sin... or whatever you'd like to call it) that evil comes into the world. If your life sucks right now, its either you're doing something wrong or somebody might be blocking what is rightfully yours (although you can loose it if you stop deserving it... hint, hint)

In summation not a single good deed we've done is our's. Every glimmer of joy smile, and cash reward, however, was given to us. I think it's a bit unfair on the Big Guy but you've got to admit- the way he gives us the strenght, will and courage for free when we choose to do good is a great deal considering the rewards - material & spiritual. Many would hate that last thing but its true. All good things come from the Lord. That's how he operates - through us.

God's ultimate good depends on mankind choosing to be good and not some idyllic mind-control police state. God loves us enough to trust us even if he knows we'll stumble in the end (and loving trust, as you should know, is a greater love than lobotomizing every man, woman and child into holiness, doncha think?). He even sent Jesus as a last bail-out plan so that he could still be able to keep us (as he keeps on losing us to the things we like doing) no matter how stupid in life we've become.

Before you criticize God's ethics, be sure to understand the ground you're standing on. I know that I am not all-too-wise in the worldly sense but the Lord never failed to lend me a word or two to say whenever I asked for it - a great piece of evidence for the existence of God (among bazillions).

The reason why some of you folks might not be getting anything from him is because you keep telling him what you want and he keeps giving you what you need. Submition to God is not enslavement. It is freedom from our bondage to self-destructive desires.

And by the way, I'm just a twenty-year old guy with the same wild streak, hormone ratio and drive as anybody my age so I guess you can count out "Batty Fundamentalist Tract Publisher" from your mental picture now.

In reply to the original question, I'm an atheist because I see no reason not to be. :rolleyes:

Thank you for laying it all so nicely very much BAAWA!

I get so tired of the supernatural out...."everything follows laws except for god, whom can do whatever and therefore can exist first because I believe it".

Even the Christian's lackies in the Intelligent design department know better than that!


this is a topic that will go on forever becuase people are coming from two totally opposite Points of View.

Someone who truly belives that there is a God will always believe that no matter how much someone else tries to tell them otherwise. the same as someoen who truly believes that there is no god will always believe this, no matter how much "evidence" is presented to him.

Why is this? becuase they interpret things very differently. a thiest wills see another human and wonder how anyone could ever think that something so complex, so obviously designed, could not have a creator. Somone who believes in chance will see a human and marvel at the wonders of evolution and how it created something so complex out of a series of random events. when the two meet, there will be only a very small chance that they will even grasp where the other side is coming from, let alone consider their opinion.

We (as christians) are often called ignorant becuase we continue to believe in a God even though there is "evidence" that points that there is no god. But we do not see that as evidence. when I sit in biology and the teacher is droning on about the workings of the common cell, I cannot comprehend how anyone could believe that it just happened to evolve like that. While the teacher in the next few lines states that all of its inner workings are jsut the product of chance and blind evolution.

here is a quote from a book that my brother found in a bookstore. its title is "God doesnt believe in atheists" by Ray Comfort. (who debated Ron Barrier in 2001 at the American athest inc convention)

Creation reflects the genius of the Creative Force's hand. Let's look at the common Cow. Somone once said, "how is it that a brown cow eats green grass, which turns into white milk, then is made into yellow butter and orange cheese, which are eaten by a person that has red hair and blue eyes?" THink of how grass cuttings become milk, butter and cheese--all from a little stirring and Churning. Imagine if you were able to invent a machine that turns your grass into milk. Yet the cow does just that. Tell me how she does it. If it is so simple, make your millions by inventing a machine that does it. call it a "Lawn Mooer." The cow does it with little effort. Is she wiser than you?

as an atheist, you are more than likely shaking your head at the idiocy of this author for typing something like this becuase it is obvious to you why we cannot make milk like the cow does. That thought is why we will never come to an agreement with this issue.

If Christians are ignorant and unable to see reason, then so are atheists. Becuase Both sides cannot, or refuse, to see the logic that the other side uses. its a difference of our worldviews. Until both sides are willing to admit that the other may infact have a point, we are just merely pounding our idealologies against eachother. any reasons I come up with for the existance of God will be seen as ignorance by you, and any reasons you can come up with to prove that he doesnt exist, I will see as ignorance on your part.

Somone also mentioned earlier how she hates it that christians only seem to be attacking atheist's beliefs. the fact is, both sides attack eachother. Don't believe me, just please read any post on the subject anywhere. since we have fundemental differences of belief, we will always try to say why ours is better than the other, or why the other one does not make sense. Its a natural tendency to defend our beliefs by attacking the others. I meet very few atheist who admit that you can believe in God and still be intelligent, just like there are very few christians who will say that atheists can be decent intelligent people. Both sides need to stop polarizing the other side. there are morons on both sides, but both sides also have people of great intellect on them.

I am an athiest but not because I want to be but because through my perception of this world I am forced to be. I envy religion and the religious for their hope and I thank theistic religion for the concept of ethical faith it introduced.

Both sides cannot, or refuse, to see the logic that the other side uses.
I see no logical reason to believe in the supernatural. If the existence of the supernatural is logical then it should be verifiable. If something is not verifiable then it's not logical.

To the people on here that have said that they don't believe in God because if there is a God why does he let horrible things happen on Earth (murders, famine, war), I just wanted to point out that God gave people free will. He isn't directly responsible for peoples' actions. And as far as bad weather and starvation, in my opinion, I believe that God has a plan. And that everything that happens down on Earth is part of his plan. I probably sounds stupid to a lot of you, but it is my opinion so don't attack me for it.

I see no logical reason to believe in the supernatural. If the existence of the supernatural is logical then it should be verifiable. If something is not verifiable then it's not logical.

How is Atheism logical? I see no logical reason Not to believe in God. That is what I was trying to say. We see things very differently. What I may see as evidence, you will see as a convienent rationalization. I do the same with atheism. To me, the entire concept of atheism is a convienent Rationalization. That is why I say we will never agree. Both sides see the other as Lunacy, and it is hard to think anything but that.

God is not real. Have you seen him? Has he talked to you? And no, saying "If you're real then have a car pass my house" doesn't count. I mean have you actually heard his voice? And no, I don't mean some baby-toucher priest being PAID to talk for god. Physical proof kind of helps with credibility. Try being responsible for YOUR OWN actions, instead if pushing your burdens on some faceless idol. (peace)

God is not real. Have you seen him? Has he talked to you? And no, saying "If you're real then have a car pass my house" doesn't count. I mean have you actually heard his voice? And no, I don't mean some baby-toucher priest being PAID to talk for god. Physical proof kind of helps with credibility. Try being responsible for YOUR OWN actions, instead if pushing your burdens on some faceless idol. (peace)

That would be your theory, don't call it fact, or people will start flaming like crazy.

These things might have been mentioned somewhere up there... I admit I only read the first two pages of posts.
As was pointed out often, atheism is not a conscious decision, tho things that happen in your life could definitely contribute to your non-belief. I've never been religious in any way, but at one time I would have said I was agnostic... not 100% sure that there was absolutely no chance of a "god", but I am sure of it now. And no I don't need proof of it any more than a christian needs their proof. You can't change your beliefs any more than you can change your race, you might want to believe, but if you don't there isn't a thing you can do about it unless you like to lie to yourself.
I would say logic does play a role in it all. There are too many questions that there are just no answer for in explaining (to yourself, your own intelligence). If you can accept that an all powerful being created everything you might not be thinking enough, I guess you could call it blind faith.
I'd ask any non-atheist this question: If god "created" all things, where did god come from? Could you actually believe that a "being" of any kind could exist always, never being "created" itself? And wouldn't whatever created that being be far more powerful than the being itself? (There is no right answer of course, and most atheists would laugh at an attempt to explain logically the existence of "god").

These things might have been mentioned somewhere up there... I admit I only read the first two pages of posts.
As was pointed out often, atheism is not a conscious decision, tho things that happen in your life could definitely contribute to your non-belief. I've never been religious in any way, but at one time I would have said I was agnostic... not 100% sure that there was absolutely no chance of a "god", but I am sure of it now. And no I don't need proof of it any more than a christian needs their proof. You can't change your beliefs any more than you can change your race, you might want to believe, but if you don't there isn't a thing you can do about it unless you like to lie to yourself.
I would say logic does play a role in it all. There are too many questions that there are just no answer for in explaining (to yourself, your own intelligence). If you can accept that an all powerful being created everything you might not be thinking enough, I guess you could call it blind faith.
I'd ask any non-atheist this question: If god "created" all things, where did god come from? Could you actually believe that a "being" of any kind could exist always, never being "created" itself? And wouldn't whatever created that being be far more powerful than the being itself? (There is no right answer of course, and most atheists would laugh at an attempt to explain logically the existence of "god").

we believe that God has always been there jsut like atheists believe that the universe has always existed. its that simple. any attempt to clarify it any more will only confuse both sides, because as I have stated before, you have a totally different way of viewing things than I do. what is an example for me is a convient rationalization for you. I could pose a question to atheists, asking them how they could possibly believe that life, much less intelligence evolved, and many thiests would laugh at any attempts to logically answer it. it goes both ways.

also, how can you be 100% sure that there is no God? have you seen every single part of the universe, at the same time, to show that there is no being that resides at any part within it? DO you knon everything there is no know about how the universe works? Or how even your own body works? There is no way to say with 100% certainty that God does, or that he does not exist. the best we can do is look at what we know, and guess at the rest of it. EVERYDAY we discover new things about the world and the universe that we live in, so how can you be totally certain that there is no God? Atheists continually ask for logical undeniable proof that God exists, and yet they never offer any evidence to the contrary. they will talk about the atrocities that occur here on earth and how if God did exist, he would not let this happen. But is this not evidence based on your views on morality and right and wrong? that is stuff that is as far from evidence as me saying that I believe God exists because he told me so.

[QUOTE=Mooms]it is also his choice not to reveal Himself to us like this, and a decision we have no right to question as God ALWAYS KNOWS BEST[QUOTE]

THAT is sick, to think that some high and mighty being should know better about my pains than me, "we have no right to question" THAT sentence is part of the foundation of dictatorships, when ppl stop questioning what the leaders does, it all goes to shit "We have no right to question "der Führer" and yes, ppl said that during the nazi reign

OK, firstly let's establish that God is not refered to as a "being," but instead as The Creator. It is through this belief that I can provide you with a response, unless you wish to argue otherwise. I disagree that it is "sick to think that some high and mighty CREATOR should know better about (your) pains" than you- does this not provide u with comfort? Let me give you an example to help explain: it will not be unfamiliar to you that there are many people around the world today that die as innocent vicitms- such as the recent victims of Sudan who are dying whilst being denied simple human requirements. Tell me that there is no God that will one day compensate for the suffering they have endured! Tell them that they have died in vain, and that there will never come a day that those who have created their pain and misery will never be put to justice! Please forgive my tone- but to deny God is simply to deny Justice itself. He is not, as you put it, a "dictator," but instead the All Knowing- who knows ur sufferings, ur times of happiness etc. And please do not compare loyalty to a mere human dictator such as Hitler to loyalty to God- who knows more than man can possibly encompass. When I said that we have no right to question Him, then I admit that I should have been a little clearer- off course it is human nature to question why we are here, why God has not forced us to worship him if he really exists, and why he does not reveal himself to us face-to-face. The extent of my statement was up to the point where there are some natural occurences for which questioning God may be useless as He knows that which we do not, and therefore our questions may frustratingly remain unanswered until a day when we are fully capable of understanding the reasons. Let me for example refer you to the creation of Adam (peace be upon him)- the first man- and please read this fully- when Adam was created then the Angels asked God why he was to create something which would be the cause of so much bloodshed amongst its own- and God's simple yet satisfying reply to this was: "I know that which you do not," to which the Angels replied "Glory be to You, we have no knowledge except that which You have taught us. Verily, it is You, the All-Knower, the All-Wise." It is at this point i wish to verify a few things- you may not believe in religion or in the Quran from which this quotation has been taken from (and which you cannot argue against until you have read the whole Quran- for how can you argue against that which you have not read?) But, you may realise that even God's Angels, let alone man, does not know everything! What lies beyond space for example? Only The Perfect Creator, God, knows the answer. Man thought that the earth was flat until really what can be seen as just recently! Man thought that atoms were the smallest matter until protons neutrons and electrons were dicovered! And who created this for man to discover? God. Somethingness cannot simply occur from nothingness- EXISTENCE, or God Himself had to exist so that creation could be created! (I hope that wasnt too confusing- re-read it a few times.)

"Despite ur request to hear reasons for becoming athiest i have to post a reply to ur friend's question- what has she ever done for God?"


If god exist, and is a being like christians say, he wouldt require anything of her, because he is so good, nice and friendly! :headbang:

In reply to this I would like to stress that God does not require U- but U require God. As I said before, He is the One to provide Justice when mankind fails to- therefore U need to firstly believe in Him before such Justice can be served. Again, I refer to a passage from the Quran to support my arguement in my earlier post: "Let them reflect on the food he eats: how We pour down the rain in torrents, and cleave the earth in fissures; We bring forth the corn, the grapes and fresh vegetation, the olive and the palm, the dense trees and green patures, for you and you cattle to delight in." (Surah 80:24-32) In light of this verse you may realise that it isnt man that controls the weather! we cannot make it rain or make the sun shine so that ultimately we can feed ourselves- it is God. Therefore- you need Him, in this life and the next when YOU YOURSELF shall expect Justice from Him- but I ask you- would u deserve it if you did not even believe in Him? God will indeed be "good, nice and friendly" but only if you believe in Him!

"Did He not provide guidance to mankind- hence the foundation for so many of the worlds religions. "


Provide guidence!!!! religion has brough death pain and missery, until ppl finally got their eyes of the cross (renaissance and all), the world was shit, there´s a reason its called "The dark age"! Religion, not just christianity, has been wrong more times than me, its just doesnt work anymore, religion is dead

Well I take from this that you accept that guidance has nonetheless been provided through the form of religion! There are, I admit, flaws in interpretations of the guidance given- but once the truth has been established, then the outcome is pure peace. Read the guidence given, indeed through the Quran, Bible and Torah and other religions, and judge yourself what brings the peace that you evidently seek- one that does not bring "death pain and misery."

Religion is not dead- not until you prove God's final scripture wrong- in my case, this is the Quran. :)

I vote monkey-fish, who's with me?

monkey fish...definitely :)

To the people on here that have said that they don't believe in God because if there is a God why does he let horrible things happen on Earth (murders, famine, war), I just wanted to point out that God gave people free will. He isn't directly responsible for peoples' actions.
First question: Is your god the omniscient creator of the universe?
Second question: Are you christian?
If so, I have further questions

*Both sides hate each other so very, very much and have no clue what the other is saying.*
Agreed.

I notice that all the Atheists keep bringing up "who created God?" I've questioned myself of that numerous times, and that's about my only Atheist element in me, aside from the numerous times I have asked for things like winning the lottery or making the sun not rise (I'm a very twisted being). Every time I have tried to reason it out, I always come to the conclusion that something already existed. There's no other comprehendable explanation. I don't understand, really; something had to have created itself, or be created by something much later in the future (and I don't even believe in time travel).

I write stories as a hobby. My greatest creation ever would have to be the world of Midgard. It spans trillions of years and provides theories of magic and several different periods of times that all begin like our current time, Technoa. I was most baffled when I had to come up with a Creation story. There is, of course, the false idol of the Creator, but he's not actually very important. There is a Magic Stone, not truly "magic," which had not existed at the time, but truly powerful. It is so powerful that it could exist when there was no universe to place it in. It created a Universe; no one knows why, it just did, and then it created massive worlds and denizens of these places. Another important theory is Cycles; this is the creation of the First Cycle; after the first one, equivalent to an entire Universe, Apocalypse reigned and the world was now uninhabitable; using great Magic, they teleported back to the beginning of the world and reinhabited it. I also have a semi-working theory of Magic, if you want to hear, only it lacks a Magic Stone to work, and includes the theory of Psychokinesis or psychic powers.

Now you have to think. There are two creation stories here; one that involves something so powerful it could exist regardless of why (a metaphorical God), and one that involves people from the future going back to recreate the Universe. Both of these are unlikely; one poses the question of how something that powerful could exist, being uncreatable by any single ordinary entity, and one poses the question of how Time Travel could even exist.

Maybe our world is a story. Thought, being an illusion (if you want, I'll explain), also brings up the theory that our world doesn't actually exist, being an illusion itself. But these theories make little sense; as is every other possible creation story you can think of. The universe is not comprehendable to the simple-mindedness of Humans.

By the way, if any of you actually roleplay on the forums (I know I won't meet many specific accounts, because half of these are puppets), Miratha is part of Midgard, and its leader, Mayor Kabapus, carries the Magic Stone, corrupted into the form of a Black Diamond. Beware of Godmodding.

Next Post: Miratha tries to associate the Gestapo and the Unrising Sun with the creation of the world.

this is a topic that will go on forever becuase people are coming from two totally opposite Points of View.

Someone who truly belives that there is a God will always believe that no matter how much someone else tries to tell them otherwise. the same as someoen who truly believes that there is no god will always believe this, no matter how much "evidence" is presented to him.

Why is this? becuase they interpret things very differently. a thiest wills see another human and wonder how anyone could ever think that something so complex, so obviously designed, could not have a creator. Somone who believes in chance will see a human and marvel at the wonders of evolution and how it created something so complex out of a series of random events. when the two meet, there will be only a very small chance that they will even grasp where the other side is coming from, let alone consider their opinion.

We (as christians) are often called ignorant becuase we continue to believe in a God even though there is "evidence" that points that there is no god. But we do not see that as evidence. when I sit in biology and the teacher is droning on about the workings of the common cell, I cannot comprehend how anyone could believe that it just happened to evolve like that. While the teacher in the next few lines states that all of its inner workings are jsut the product of chance and blind evolution.

here is a quote from a book that my brother found in a bookstore. its title is "God doesnt believe in atheists" by Ray Comfort. (who debated Ron Barrier in 2001 at the American athest inc convention)



as an atheist, you are more than likely shaking your head at the idiocy of this author for typing something like this becuase it is obvious to you why we cannot make milk like the cow does. That thought is why we will never come to an agreement with this issue.

If Christians are ignorant and unable to see reason, then so are atheists. Becuase Both sides cannot, or refuse, to see the logic that the other side uses. its a difference of our worldviews. Until both sides are willing to admit that the other may infact have a point, we are just merely pounding our idealologies against eachother. any reasons I come up with for the existance of God will be seen as ignorance by you, and any reasons you can come up with to prove that he doesnt exist, I will see as ignorance on your part.

Somone also mentioned earlier how she hates it that christians only seem to be attacking atheist's beliefs. the fact is, both sides attack eachother. Don't believe me, just please read any post on the subject anywhere. since we have fundemental differences of belief, we will always try to say why ours is better than the other, or why the other one does not make sense. Its a natural tendency to defend our beliefs by attacking the others. I meet very few atheist who admit that you can believe in God and still be intelligent, just like there are very few christians who will say that atheists can be decent intelligent people. Both sides need to stop polarizing the other side. there are morons on both sides, but both sides also have people of great intellect on them.

See, here is the problem. There is no evidence or logic involved in Christianity. You talk about logic...but you say "how can this NOT be the creation of a divine being". All that does is show a lack of imagnination. You speak of things as "obviously" designed. Says who? What is obvious to one is not to another. What I want is some EVIDENCE. I can present evidence to back up evolutionary theory, you can't produce evidence for creation simply because Christianity is based in faith and not evidence. Christianity is total bunk. I don't feel like that is an attack on anything. That is simply how it is. It is based on a book written by people who didn't see the events they describe and organized by the Romans. So, leave the religion out of this, that is a topic for a different thread. Now god or gods existing, that can be debated...

I, personally, am not an atheist. That would require me to believe there is no god(s). I do not believe in any god(s), but that doesn't mean there can't be any. There is a large difference there. I do NOT believe....to believe in either direction is to invoke faith in something I know nothing about, and that is not sensible nor logical.

To me, the question is moot...I see things and I interperate them. Whether or not there is or isn't a god(s), it makes no difference to me. I don't need one personally, and I do not see any need for one in this entire universe, so that is the end of the story for me.

Oh, and I've never heard of ANY proof either for or against the existence of God(s). How can proof be offered up on something based in faith?

One more thing: if you want to hear good explanations of evolution, feel free to telegram me...I'm a young evolutionary biologist, so I should be able to cover most of your questions.

First question: Is your god the omniscient creator of the universe?
Second question: Are you christian?
If so, I have further questions

1. I think I know what your asking so my answer would be yes.
2. Yes, I am Christian.

And about your further questions, just so you know, I am not a super-genius really religious Christian that will be able to answer everything you ask. I know enough to consider myself Christian.

1. I think I know what your asking so my answer would be yes.
2. Yes, I am Christian.

And about your further questions, just so you know, I am not a super-genius really religious Christian that will be able to answer everything you ask. I know enough to consider myself Christian.
That's ok. This won't hurt (me) a bit.

Since you believe your god to be the omniscient creator of the universe AND that we have free will, consider this:

1. God is omniscient
2. God created everything
3. God's creating everything was either coeval (simultaneous) with god's knowing everything, or came after (doesn't matter either way)
4. Thus, god's knowledge was put into effect via the creation (causal determinism), which negates free will, since god's knowledge is the script for the creation.

Further consider this:
If god allows each person free will and does not interfere, explain the 10x in Exodus where "god hardens the heart of pharaoh" against letting the Israelites go.

That IS active interference.

Further consider this:
If god allows each person free will and does not interfere, explain the 10x in Exodus where "god hardens the heart of pharaoh" against letting the Israelites go.

That IS active interference.

What about throwing Adam and Eve out of Paradise...that was interference.
What about giving Mary a kid? That's HUGE interference.
What about making Noah build a boat? Can we say interference?

Free will? In the bible? Which book YOU reading? Ha!

Oh, and can't you turn the determinism around? If God knew our actions, and created the universe...doesn't that mean our actions defined how God created the universe? Therefore, if we someone DO have free will...we created the universe. God was just a tool. So God isn't all powerful anymores...

*Brain hurts*

That's ok. This won't hurt (me) a bit.

Since you believe your god to be the omniscient creator of the universe AND that we have free will, consider this:

1. God is omniscient
2. God created everything
3. God's creating everything was either coeval (simultaneous) with god's knowing everything, or came after (doesn't matter either way)
4. Thus, god's knowledge was put into effect via the creation (causal determinism), which negates free will, since god's knowledge is the script for the creation.

Further consider this:
If god allows each person free will and does not interfere, explain the 10x in Exodus where "god hardens the heart of pharaoh" against letting the Israelites go.

That IS active interference.

Well, dang, I'm not sure how to put this...

God gives you free will to a certain degree, but he still kind of has things on Earth planned out. This probably seems like a bunch of bull to you, but it is really hard for me to explain. Where, by the way, did you get that particular quote about the pharaoh? Was it a specific quote? If it is I want to read up on it a little more in my Bible quick.

What about throwing Adam and Eve out of Paradise...that was interference.
What about giving Mary a kid? That's HUGE interference.
What about making Noah build a boat? Can we say interference?

Free will? In the bible? Which book YOU reading? Ha!

Oh, and can't you turn the determinism around? If God knew our actions, and created the universe...doesn't that mean our actions defined how God created the universe? Therefore, if we someone DO have free will...we created the universe. God was just a tool. So God isn't all powerful anymores...

*Brain hurts*

We have to have free will to some extent. Yeah, giving Mary a kid was interference, Noah's ark was an interference, but when was that last interference? Who has been spoken to directly by God in recent years? I'm sure we would have heard about it. And if we didn't have some free will I'm sure God wouldn't allow war and murder, he's too nice for that to happen.

We have to have free will to some extent. Yeah, giving Mary a kid was interference, Noah's ark was an interference, but when was that last interference? Who has been spoken to directly by God in recent years? I'm sure we would have heard about it. And if we didn't have some free will I'm sure God wouldn't allow war and murder, he's too nice for that to happen.

Um? Mohammed?
John Smith? (Mormons, some Smith guy...I can't remember which)
David Kiresh (the Waco guy, however you spell it)?
The homeless guy on the corner?
Most of the televangelists?
Serial killers?
Me? (hehehehehe. :P)

They all claim to talk to God. Well Mohammed (spelling?) talked to an archangel...but that's good enough for me.

Oh, as for the war thing...God DOES let it happen. He's all powerful remember? He could just stop us any number of ways. But he doesn't. Why? Because he's evil? Or because he isn't there? Take your pick. And don't say teaching a lesson...he let Satan into Eden. What is UP with that? Why was Satan allowed to survive even?

Of course, that is another issue...for God in Genesis is neither alone nor all knowing. But I don't want to go into that, because then I'll have to hear crap about the Trinity again. If I have to hear about a trinity, can we limit it to Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva at least?

Since you believe your god to be the omniscient creator of the universe AND that we have free will, consider this:

1. God is omniscient
2. God created everything
3. God's creating everything was either coeval (simultaneous) with god's knowing everything, or came after (doesn't matter either way)
4. Thus, god's knowledge was put into effect via the creation (causal determinism), which negates free will, since god's knowledge is the script for the creation.

Further consider this:
If god allows each person free will and does not interfere, explain the 10x in Exodus where "god hardens the heart of pharaoh" against letting the Israelites go.

That IS active interference.
Well, dang, I'm not sure how to put this...

God gives you free will to a certain degree, but he still kind of has things on Earth planned out. This probably seems like a bunch of bull to you, but it is really hard for me to explain.
Sorry, but if god knows everything and created everything, he can't give you free will, for that implies that there is something that god doesn't know, which contradicts the notion that god knows everything.

Where, by the way, did you get that particular quote about the pharaoh?
Ex 4:21, 7:3, 7:13, 9:12, 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10, 14:4, 14:8

All those are where god "hardens the heart of pharoah".

So wait, run this by me again. Why did you mis-spell atheist? And Hakartopia, if you don't believe... then why are you still using God's name with a capital letter? Not trying to make anyone mad, just wondering. Thanks!

See, here is the problem. There is no evidence or logic involved in Christianity. You talk about logic...but you say "how can this NOT be the creation of a divine being". All that does is show a lack of imagnination. You speak of things as "obviously" designed. Says who? What is obvious to one is not to another. What I want is some EVIDENCE. I can present evidence to back up evolutionary theory, you can't produce evidence for creation simply because Christianity is based in faith and not evidence. Christianity is total bunk. I don't feel like that is an attack on anything. That is simply how it is. It is based on a book written by people who didn't see the events they describe and organized by the Romans. So, leave the religion out of this, that is a topic for a different thread. Now god or gods existing, that can be debated...

I, personally, am not an atheist. That would require me to believe there is no god(s). I do not believe in any god(s), but that doesn't mean there can't be any. There is a large difference there. I do NOT believe....to believe in either direction is to invoke faith in something I know nothing about, and that is not sensible nor logical.

To me, the question is moot...I see things and I interperate them. Whether or not there is or isn't a god(s), it makes no difference to me. I don't need one personally, and I do not see any need for one in this entire universe, so that is the end of the story for me.

Oh, and I've never heard of ANY proof either for or against the existence of God(s). How can proof be offered up on something based in faith?

One more thing: if you want to hear good explanations of evolution, feel free to telegram me...I'm a young evolutionary biologist, so I should be able to cover most of your questions.
Sorry, I just get really worked up about this... "Interpret." Sorry.

I think you missed the point of one of my posts about Midgard. See, something either created itself or was created by something it created. It's the only thing that makes sense. Whether or not that is a God is up for questioning, but to say that there is nothing that created the universe is false, and whatever this is can be perceived as a God, because (as I said before) we can't understand anything more complicated.

I think it's wise to have no stance in religion; this means that when you die, no one will threaten to shove hot pokers up your ass for actively naysaying them (though, I hardly believe such a fate exists, even as a Christian; in my opinion, Jesus died not for the souls of all Christians, but for the souls of all). Even so, with the way I perceive things, I believe that the only explanation for my amazing luck is a God. That's why I'm not an atheist or open-minded to all religions (Introverted! Yay!).

Luckily, as a protestant, I can safely say that I do believe in Evolution. Creationism is most likely metaphorical and describes evolution in terms one might understand in a different time, IE. when the books were written; hey, if not all people understand evolution now, what makes you think someone would understand it before we discovered evolution?

I do believe in the possibility of Divine Intervention to change Evolution, but I cannot say either way.

In response to a different series of quotes, I have to say something about free will. You have free will in the form that you believe you can make a choice. However, thought processes are actually just brain chemicals being interpreted by your mind. It goes to the point where you think you are thinking, but you're actually not. You're not technically a sentient being, you just think you are.

This may sound unrealistic and kind of lame, but it's true. What do you do if you don't like it? Hey. I think, therefore I am. That's all I need to know to continue on with my life.

Sorry, but if god knows everything and created everything, he can't give you free will, for that implies that there is something that god doesn't know, which contradicts the notion that god knows everything.


Ex 4:21, 7:3, 7:13, 9:12, 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10, 14:4, 14:8

All those are where god "hardens the heart of pharoah".

Say you scrap the all-knowing thing. God DID give us free will because if he didn't give us free will there would have been no use for the Ten Commandments, or any other teachings in the Bible that tell you how you should live your life. Because if God wanted us to live a certain way he would have forced us to follow the Ten Commandments and live our lives perfectly. If God controlled us there wouldn't be murders and war and other crimes.

Sorry, but if god knows everything and created everything, he can't give you free will, for that implies that there is something that god doesn't know, which contradicts the notion that god knows everything.



You should start a thread about this. Then maybe some better informed and more religious Christians could give you their opinions. I'm probably wrong on that, but as I said before, I'm not a super-genius Christian and not really old enough to give a reliable answer.

Sorry, but if god knows everything and created everything, he can't give you free will, for that implies that there is something that god doesn't know, which contradicts the notion that god knows everything.


Ex 4:21, 7:3, 7:13, 9:12, 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10, 14:4, 14:8

All those are where god "hardens the heart of pharoah".
Say you scrap the all-knowing thing. God DID give us free will because if he didn't give us free will there would have been no use for the Ten Commandments, or any other teachings in the Bible that tell you how you should live your life.
Then god doesn't know everything, in which case he has limits. Of course, the xer god isn't supposed to have limits. It's an exagerration run amok.

It's your god. You get to deal with the mess.

Because if God wanted us to live a certain way he would have forced us to follow the Ten Commandments and live our lives perfectly. If God controlled us there wouldn't be murders and war and other crimes.
Then what about the times that god has controlled people? And why did god create evil in the first place?

Earlier, somone brought up the secular humanist page. Allow me to put my mind to that.

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.[2]
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

No, a perfect being may not have needs or wants. He has everything. But can a perfect being not also have personality? I'm a guy, and I want to be a father. Why? Because I want the joy of having a son or daughter. I can get it other places, but the experience would bring me happiness. Not saying it'd be easy, but I wouldn't pass it up. God just wanted to be a daddy. He likes having children to love and to boast about (Zephaniah - "He delights over you with singing.")

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
4. But the universe is not perfect.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

God created a perfect universe. It was called Eden. Everything was green, and a soft mist and morning dew watered everything. He also created life, men and angels. But, as I said before, He wants a loving relationship. Can love be forced on someone? Never! Love must be a choice. So, God allowed men and angels to choose either Him or themselves. If they chose Him, they were His sons, and they had a right to any inheritance He wants to give them. This is Heaven. If they choose themselves, they spend eternity without Him, as they asked for. This is hell - eternity without God. You choose it, you get it. Seriously, for all those asking why atheists or unbelievers go to hell: would it be all that wonderful for someone who denies God to spend every moment with Him for all eternity? Hell is a choice, pure and simple. But I digress.

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

I will present two "facts" (which are merely facts in my mind) to argue this. First, time is a creation of God. If you read my previous post, and my apologies for its ambiguity, then any God must be separate from the universe. If time is of the universe, as Einstein says, then God is outside it. Thus, it's unthinkable that a being outside of time could change. How could it? It has no time to. Second, what's to keep God from creating other universes? There could be trillions or more! He just goes on creating and creating...

Secular Humanism combats this by saying: "...creation is a temporal concept. This is built into the very definition of "create" as "to cause to come into being." X cannot cause Y to come into being unless X existed temporally prior to Y. Thus, if indeed there was no time prior to the existence of the universe, then it is logically impossible for the universe to have been created. In that case, there could not possibly be a creator of the universe. And, furthermore, if indeed God does not exist within time, then he could not have been the creator of the universe, because, by the very concept of creation, if the universe was created at all, then its creator must have existed temporally prior to it. " Human beings cannot think of something without time. God may certainly be outside of it and free from it. I can build a dollhouse without going inside it. All I have to do is touch it. And if a piece of me does happen to enter it to effect it, then rational parts of me are still separate. A hand is not a head. And I do not suddenly change size to fit the dollhouse. I still follow my world's rules without conforming. I am still separate.

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is omniscient.
3. An immutable being cannot know different things at different times.
4. To be omniscient, a being would need to know propositions about the past and future.
5. But what is past and what is future keep changing.
6. Thus, in order to know propositions about the past and future, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 5).
7. It follows that, to be omniscient, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 4 and 6).
8. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be omniscient (from 3 and 7).
9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8).

Again, God exists apart from time. He does not need to know different things at different times. He can know all things at all times. Example: a spool of movie film is unrolled before me, and I stand at a distance. I can see every piece of this film. I can see the beginning and end and everything in between, and I can understand how it all links together. God stands apart from the universe looking at the sum of space and time. He can clearly see events and how they fit. You don't have to be inside time to understand time. In fact, to be inside time means you cannot ever understand time. To see the big picture, you must be able to really see the big picture. A person in time can't comprehend time. A person outside of time can see it easily. Also, all time is set in stone. Every event is simply the outcome of previous events, and thus every event is inevitable. Past and future, therefore, do not change. They are constant, because they are what must be, and God can see it all.

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is all-loving,
3. An immutable being cannot be affected by events.
4. To be all-loving, it must be possible for a being to be affected by events.
5. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be all-loving (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

I think it is important that we define love. The warm, squishy feeling we get when we look at a girl or guy, that's not love. That's emotion. That joy we get when we're with someone we like, even that's not love. That's emotion. All human emotions are fleeting, short in time, and God is outside of time. Love is action. To quote the song, "Love is a Verb." If I love someone, I don't even have to like them. Loving is simply doing what is best for them. Now, I know what you're thinking. If God does what's best for us, then why does life suck? I have two responses. First, God is doing all He can without imposing on our will. He set limits for Himself. He cannot lie. He cannot build a rock he cannot lift. And He cannot act against our own wills. He knows what we're going to do, but He loves us enough not to stop it. When consequences come, He allows them to come. Poor Example: A friend of mine, about the age of 12, tried to smoke a cigarette, with total knowledge of his mom. He inhales. He gags. Mom says "You're not going to do that again, are you?" Of course, some points take much more hammering down than others. How many times must one say "no" to a toddler before they get the picture? 15 years worth, of course. But when the child reaches the life that matters, they will get it, and be better for it. Which takes me to another point. This life we're in is not the important life. The next one is. This one lasts for 70 (more or less) years. The next one just lasts. And lasts. And lasts. It's the most important thing, not the here and now. But what we do now effects the coming life. This doesn't make the pain or experiences any less real, but it shows they do have a purpose, every one of them. They teach us what we need to know to make it in what lies ahead, in this life or the next. You can learn from anything as long as you're willing to try. Therefore, God, in loving us purely, won't run us like AI programs with peramiters, but instead let's us discover the truth. And He speaks to us. I can never describe it, because the spiritual makes a poor physical analogy. But in those times in my life where I became someone else, broke down and cried, let loose, hyperventilated, ceased to think and feel and act and simply watched, and changed people, not bodies, but real souls: I've seen, heard, and felt God act in lives, I know He speaks. I hope you get to see it too. After that, I have no doubt of His perfect love.
And now, in all this, I forgot my second point. I shall touch on it when it returns to me.

"...when the nature of love is contemplated, it is seen that 4 must also be true. The concept of love that is relevant here is that of agape, which is the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the sake of others. If events were to call for some sacrifice on God's part, then, to be loving in the relevant sense, he must go ahead and perform the sacrifice. Since that requires being affected, the truth of premise 4 is assured." Agape is much more than sacrifice, though sacrifice is a huge part of it. But to answer that, I refer you to Jesus. God in Flesh. Fully God and fully man. I can't even begin to explain to you the divine physics of that one, only to say that God entered our dollhouse and followed its rules. He became one of us, and "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." He gave up His deity, but He got it back. I will further this point later.

1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
2. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
3. To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
4. To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
5. Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

I don't like the word omnipresent. It suggests pantheism, the idea that God hides in every rock and tree. Certainly proof of God is all around. All of creation sings of it, smells of it. To answer this, first I turn to the idea of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a piece of God that He puts inside of us. It's like a little God living in our bodies. I've heard him speak. Yes, I mean audibly. He speaks in a number of ways. And if we have the Spirit, God truly is always with us. Second, God works miracles often. To quote C.S. Lewis again (Note: I don't think he's right because he's smart, I think he's smart because he's right. I simply agree with most, not all, but most, of the things he says. It's like quoting Einstein.): "'Nothing almost sees miracles but misery'. Miracles and martyrdom tend to bunch about the same areas of history - areas we have naturally no wish to frequent. Do not, I earnestly advise you, demand an ocular proof unless you are already perfectly certain that it is not forthcoming." The whole sum of "The Lord works in mysterious ways" is that he does not work in ways you would expect. You ask for a lightning strike at your feet on a sunny day. He may very well give you a lightning strike in a thunderstorm that turns you into a paraplegiac. How can that be loving? If it betters your soul, the part of you that actually lasts, what does it matter what happens to your body. Again, this doesn't make the pain any less real, but it gives a purpose, and it's not an excuse, it's a reason. I have a feeling that when we die, our spirits will understand how small our body really was. But I again digress. These miracles are God's touching our universe, moving the furniture in our dollhouse, and every one has a reason. Again, God is with us. But to say that God is a vapor that is present in every cubic inch of the universe seems folly to me. In that definition, then, I deny that God is omnipresent. May He smack some sense into me if I'm wrong, but it seems good and just to me now. Omnipresence in this form is not an attribute of the divine.

1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. If something is transcendent, then it cannot exist and perform actions within time.
4. But a person (or personal being) must exist and perform actions within time.
5. Therefore, something that is transcendent cannot be a person (or personal being) (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

Note: I've just noticed how poor my dollhouse analogy is. I have a relation to it in that we are both made up of atoms. But that's all an analogy is. To get any closer, I would have to describe the very thing I'm trying not to describe. This is as close as I can get.

Number three seems totally foolish to my eyes. Why can't a transcendant being perform actions in the universe? I am separate from the dollhouse, the things that effect me are outside of it, but I can still touch it and shake it. It's still there. And if I'm God, can't I find away for the spirit to move the physical? And since I've created it, doesn't it have to answer my call? God is Creator; He is also Master. The world answers to Him. He says "Let there be light," and there is. I don't see the problem with a transcendant being dealing with what he created. Can a computer programmer not alter the code in his comp? Can he not input further commands? This paradox doesn't seem so paradoxical to me.

"Closely related to the concept of personhood is the concept of being free, which is property (h) on our list. An argument similar to 6, above, one which might be called the "Transcendent-vs.-Free Argument," could be constructed, pitting property (c) against property (h). In its corresponding premise 4, the point would be made that, in order for a being to be free, it must exist and perform actions within time. "
Why is time so transcendant. God can act in his Heaven and in earth. Again, I don't see why this is so strange. Anyone care to enlighten me?

1. If God exists, then he is nonphysical.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. A person (or personal being) needs to be physical.
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).

A personal being needs to have personality. Personality is the essence of the person. The body is not the man, the soul is. The body is the machine he operates. I love Lewis' picture of giants around the chessboard. The pieces are our bodies. The giants are us. We're bigger than we seem. A person does not have to be physical. The persons we've seen are, because everything in this universe is physical. But what if personality originates separate from the universe, just as God? In that case, personality is an implant into our world, and need not be physical at all. In my dollhouse, what if I could breathe life into Barbie? Besides being annoying, she would have personality not from her body, which was present already, but from my breath, the piece of me that I put into her. God is personality. Our personalities are copies of His. Our lives are just the spirit that is present in our bodies. As I said before, we are dual beings. There are two parts of us. Just as we are large, we are also more like Him than we think. We reason. We feel. We love. We live. This is the truth of God. Every other trait we ascribe to Him is simply a reflection of this crucial fact of His life.

1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).

Again, I flatly deny this definition of omnipresence. God isn't a vapor in space. He is something non-physical. This aside, I don't understand a word of this. Where do we get point 3 from? Anybody? I just don't get it.

1. If God exists, then he is omniscient.
2. If God exists, then he is free.
3. An omniscient being must know exactly what actions he will and will not do in the future.
4. If one knows that he will do an action, then it is impossible for him not to do it, and if one knows that he will not do an action, then it is impossible for him to do it.
5. Thus, whatever an omniscient being does, he must do, and whatever he does not do, he cannot do (from 3 and 4).
6. To be free requires having options open, which means having the ability to act contrary to the way one actually acts.
7. So, if one is free, then he does not have to do what he actually does, and he is able to do things that he does not actually do (from 6).
8. Hence, it is impossible for an omniscient being to be free (from 5 and 7).
9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8).

But God is outside of time, and therefore there is no future. He just does. Eternity is like a present that never ends, with no past or future. It's just an ongoing chance to do and do and do. This ambiguous point aside, and I know it won't make sense to many of you, but it's truth, even if we imagine God inside time, if He knows what He's going to do in the future, then He's going to do what He wants to do. He's still free to make the choice, and He will enjoy making it. He wouldn't have chosen anything else. But this point is moot, because time does not have any hold on a separate God.

1. If God exists, then he is an all-just judge.
2. If God exists, then he is an all-merciful judge.
3. An all-just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves.
4. An all-merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he/she deserves.
5. It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves.
6. Hence, it is impossible for an all-just judge to be an all-merciful judge (from 3-5).
7. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 6).

Again, I will get into semantics. I deny the definitions of mercy and justice presented here. They are both beyond penalty and law. It's not letter we're looking at, it's Spirit. Justice and righteousness are the same, they are simply doing what is right. Being just is doing what you should do. Therefore, a judge, in sentencing a man to death for committing first-degree rape and murder, would be doing the right thing, assuming the character of the offender was such that he would continue to do harm. But if the offender was sure not to, then the judge would grant mercy, but this would also be the right thing to do. And since God is omniscient, he knows whether or not someone will do something again. Therefore, the mercy presented in the second scenario IS justice, because it is doing what is best for all. Therefore, God, in being perfectly just, can also be perfectly merciful when he negates the penalty or lessens it. He is doing what he should do. God is a judge. He will make right decision, because He is, out of necessity, just and merciful.

If I remember correctly, Hell was a "paradise" created by Satan to match Heaven; the idea was that those who did not agree with God and scorned his love would, instead, be able to go to a different "paradise." Of course, according to Dante's Inferno, Hell is not much of a paradise. There is torture and kings with ass' ears. Originally, this was a fate that all sinners had to go to, but, luckily, Jesus died for our sins. Many, particularly Catholics, maintain that only faithful, extremist Christians go to Heaven. Personally, I do not believe this is true. If Jesus died for all of us, then he's not going to go and change that, is he?

Once again, it's a protestant idea, but it's one I support.

By the way, Seraiah; good post.

To go further with the idea of hell, I even deny the torture it represents, the idea of the volcano. Hell must suck, but mostly from the knowledge that you've missed out on the gifts that God was giving to the people who wanted to be His children. I can't even imagine what hell is. The closest I can think of is a conscious nothingness, a void of space that is always there. But what is more hellish than that?

To go further with the idea of hell, I even deny the torture it represents, the idea of the volcano. Hell must suck, but mostly from the knowledge that you've missed out on the gifts that God was giving to the people who wanted to be His children. I can't even imagine what hell is. The closest I can think of is a conscious nothingness, a void of space that is always there. But what is more hellish than that?
One might say torture, but all the pains in the world cannot amount to the infinite nothingness and boredom. In addition, if you yourself become nothingness, then you are in complete lack of control. You can only think. It'll drive you insane.

I was in a forum yesterday where the topic was “Why do atheists constantly attack Christians?”
There was one person there who believed that a person should be judged on their beliefs. But i personally don’t agree with this. It’s how a person acts on behalf of these beliefs, which we should be taking into account. Just because a person chooses not to believe in GOD does not make them a bad person.
Late last year i was unfortunate enough to lose my baby sister at birth. My father, who was a strong catholic, has since stopped believing in GOD, claiming, “If GOD loves us, why does he let bad things happen to good people?”
I don’t know what i believe, there are so many possibilities, I have yet to choose one that’s right for me. But becoming an atheist is a big thing, and shouldn’t be done lightly. Just because things don’t always go your way, doesn’t mean GOD does not exist. All I know is that everything happens for a reason, be good or bad. And we must learn to accept this.

Earlier, somone brought up the secular humanist page. Allow me to put my mind to that.

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.[2]
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

No, a perfect being may not have needs or wants. He has everything. But can a perfect being not also have personality?
No.

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
4. But the universe is not perfect.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

God created a perfect universe. It was called Eden. Everything was green, and a soft mist and morning dew watered everything. He also created life, men and angels. But, as I said before, He wants a loving relationship.
Perfect beings cannot want.

Can love be forced on someone? Never! Love must be a choice. So, God allowed men and angels to choose either Him or themselves. If they chose Him, they were His sons, and they had a right to any inheritance He wants to give them. This is Heaven. If they choose themselves, they spend eternity without Him, as they asked for. This is hell - eternity without God. You choose it, you get it. Seriously, for all those asking why atheists or unbelievers go to hell: would it be all that wonderful for someone who denies God to spend every moment with Him for all eternity? Hell is a choice, pure and simple. But I digress.
Yes, you do. And you seem to think that eternity is a real thing. How silly.

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

I will present two "facts" (which are merely facts in my mind) to argue this. First, time is a creation of God.
To create is to act in time.

Secular Humanism combats this by saying: "...creation is a temporal concept.
Which is correct.

And your analogy is flawed because you are comparing apples to oranges. Creation is a temporal concept. You cannot have something existing and doing things apart from time and apart from the universe. That is ontologically specious and meaningless.

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is omniscient.
3. An immutable being cannot know different things at different times.
4. To be omniscient, a being would need to know propositions about the past and future.
5. But what is past and what is future keep changing.
6. Thus, in order to know propositions about the past and future, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 5).
7. It follows that, to be omniscient, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 4 and 6).
8. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be omniscient (from 3 and 7).
9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8).

Again, God exists apart from time.
Impossible.

He does not need to know different things at different times. He can know all things at all times.
Then free will is illusory.

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is all-loving,
3. An immutable being cannot be affected by events.
4. To be all-loving, it must be possible for a being to be affected by events.
5. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be all-loving (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

I think it is important that we define love. The warm, squishy feeling we get when we look at a girl or guy, that's not love. That's emotion.
...which is what love is. Try again.


1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
2. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
3. To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
4. To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
5. Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

I don't like the word omnipresent.
Too bad. That's part of the xer god. Deal.

1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. If something is transcendent, then it cannot exist and perform actions within time.
4. But a person (or personal being) must exist and perform actions within time.
5. Therefore, something that is transcendent cannot be a person (or personal being) (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

Note: I've just noticed how poor my dollhouse analogy is. I have a relation to it in that we are both made up of atoms. But that's all an analogy is. To get any closer, I would have to describe the very thing I'm trying not to describe. This is as close as I can get.

Number three seems totally foolish to my eyes. Why can't a transcendant being perform actions in the universe?
Because it's not part of the universe. If it interacts with the universe, it becomes part of the universe. The dollhouse and you are still in the universe, so your analogy is horridly flawed.

1. If God exists, then he is nonphysical.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. A person (or personal being) needs to be physical.
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).

A personal being needs to have personality. Personality is the essence of the person. The body is not the man, the soul is.
The body houses the "soul" (if there were such a thing, which there isn't).

1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).

Again, I flatly deny this definition of omnipresence.
That's tough. Like it or not, that is the definition.

How can a being be everywhere? That's the point of #3.

1. If God exists, then he is omniscient.
2. If God exists, then he is free.
3. An omniscient being must know exactly what actions he will and will not do in the future.
4. If one knows that he will do an action, then it is impossible for him not to do it, and if one knows that he will not do an action, then it is impossible for him to do it.
5. Thus, whatever an omniscient being does, he must do, and whatever he does not do, he cannot do (from 3 and 4).
6. To be free requires having options open, which means having the ability to act contrary to the way one actually acts.
7. So, if one is free, then he does not have to do what he actually does, and he is able to do things that he does not actually do (from 6).
8. Hence, it is impossible for an omniscient being to be free (from 5 and 7).
9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8).

But God is outside of time,
...hence, doesn't exist.

and therefore there is no future. He just does. Eternity is like a present that never ends, with no past or future.
Eternity IS NOT A PLACE.

1. If God exists, then he is an all-just judge.
2. If God exists, then he is an all-merciful judge.
3. An all-just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves.
4. An all-merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he/she deserves.
5. It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves.
6. Hence, it is impossible for an all-just judge to be an all-merciful judge (from 3-5).
7. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 6).

Again, I will get into semantics. I deny the definitions of mercy and justice presented here.
Tough. Those are the correct definitions.

Did you have anything that wasn't crap apologia?

And what is your definition of crap, sir? Anything that does not agree with Naturalism?

There is nothing stopping anything from being separate from the universe, and time is part of the universe. All scientists agree with that. Therefore, if something is separate from the universe, then something is separate from time. Yet, your only defense that I've seen so far of your belief in the superiority of the universe as it is is "Because I said so."

You say I'm wrong. Can you prove it? Can you take the philosophy and tell me why God must follow time, why he must be omnipresent as the argument begs, and that eternity is a figment of man's flawed imagination? Or shall you continue to repeat your incessant "No"'s to the entire class?

The following is a subjective opinion, I will not act as if it's fact: The appearance of the entirety of your last post is that you want everything to fit exactly with the secular humanist's approach because it's the only defense you've got. To suggest something different, subtely or radically, from its approach to the definition of God is dangerous to you because it's unexplored ground. I will not go so far as to affirm that this is your opinion. Perhaps you could enlighten me on your true intent.

But as it stands, there is nothing, besides your own emotion, keeping my theories from becoming facts. Though you and many others would probably say the same about me, question me on specifics, as I have done. Why must God be subject to time? Why must He be omnipresent by S.H.'s definition? Why is love simply chemical emotion and not a way of life? Answer me this, if you please.

Now that my initial anger has subsided, I will reply to this.

First, why can't a perfect being have personality?

Second, as human beings, we can only think in concept of time. But time is past, present, and future. To define these three, present is now, past is what was once "now", and future is what will soon be "now." We cannot act in the past; it has already been acted in. And we cannot act in the future, since it is not yet here to use. The present, then, is all the time we can truly detect. And, as I said, eternity, which has no reason not to exist, is an eternal present, with constant use. God, therefore, can act because He is unhindered by the barriers of beginning and end, was and will be. He is, in a constant moment of action. But, again, there's no reason why God can't be in time.

Third, contrary to popular opinion, knowledge does not equal power. To know something is coming does not destroy free will, because every action is a must be. We do everything because we want to, because we think it's the best action of the moment. Therefore, even with foreknowledge, I purely believe that we would still choose the same thing. If Bush had known what would have happened to us before we went into Iraq, he still would have pressed for it, and so would most of the country, because that scenario is not yet played out, and we dont' know all the consequences. This makes the entire freedom point moot, because we're still free to act in the way we desire.

Fourth, why isn't love anything more than chemicals?

Fifth, why must we use omnipresent in its present definition, and don't say "because that's what it is." Think outside the box.

Perfect beings can have personalities. Just look at me.

[/arrogance]

Fourth, why isn't love anything more than chemicals?

the same reason all emotions are nothing more than chemicals. well, actually they are both chemical and electrical, but we'll not nitpick. how is it anything else? if we remove those chemicals or the structures in the brain that receive them then a person will not feel love; if we add the necessary chemicals the person will feel love, even if there is no stimulus presented to evoke those feelings.

why does that pose a problem for you? why do you think love is less significant if that is the case? personally, i think love is much more amazing and significant if it is "nothing more than chemicals" than it is if some mystical force implanted it in us.

But, as far as I can see it, Love is not an emotion. Love is action and choice, just like playing football. You can choose to pass kindness and patience to someone, or to deflect the extra point. And it's not a mystical force, either. God is Love, but this is because God carries out the actions of love, not because He has a perpetual infatuation. And I can't see the significance of chemicals acting when true, action-oriented love can shake mountains from their foundations.

Example: when a guy meets a gal, the two will fall "in love"; that is, the chemical emotions will set in. Don't get me wrong, I value these emotions, but not as much as what follows. The two marry, and a few years pass. The initial emotion dies away, and the reality of the promise sets in. This is where the action-love enters into play. The two continue to act in the interests of the other and of the two combined, simply because they desire to, not only to fulfill a promise, but because of a deeper urge, the desire to perform these actions to someone else. The first love causes the marriage to happen. The second causes it to last. The first emotion lives in the moment. The second action extends it into eternity. This is love.

But, as far as I can see it, Love is not an emotion. Love is action and choice, just like playing football. You can choose to pass kindness and patience to someone, or to deflect the extra point. And it's not a mystical force, either. God is Love, but this is because God carries out the actions of love, not because He has a perpetual infatuation. And I can't see the significance of chemicals acting when true, action-oriented love can shake mountains from their foundations.

Example: when a guy meets a gal, the two will fall "in love"; that is, the chemical emotions will set in. Don't get me wrong, I value these emotions, but not as much as what follows. The two marry, and a few years pass. The initial emotion dies away, and the reality of the promise sets in. This is where the action-love enters into play. The two continue to act in the interests of the other and of the two combined, simply because they desire to, not only to fulfill a promise, but because of a deeper urge, the desire to perform these actions to someone else. The first love causes the marriage to happen. The second causes it to last. The first emotion lives in the moment. The second action extends it into eternity. This is love.

the problem is that you, like most people, are misunderstanding the distinction between infatuation and love. they are chemically distinct, and the solid, consistent relationships you describe are what are chemically identified as love.

infatuation is an attraction and initial bonding process that is cued by very different chemicals, paths, and reactions than the longer-term phenomenon of love. these paths sometimes opperate concurrently, making the transition between them virtually impossible to pinpoint.

if you (or anybody else) would like more information about the chemical nature of love or infatuation then please feel free to TM me; i don't want to go into more detail here because i don't want to hijack the discussion, but i would be glad to continue in another thread if you like.

A response to some of the atheist arguments uttered here:

First, regarding free will, I warn that this is a very complex bit of theology, but I'll give my take on it, which is by no means the last word on the matter.

Take a look at Romans 9, 15-23:

"For he says to Moses: 'I will show mercy to whom I will,
I will take pity on whom I will.'

So it depends not upon a person's will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "This is why I have raised you up, to show my powerful through you that my name may be proclaimed throughout the earth." Consequently, he has mercy upon whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills.

You will say to me then, 'Why then does he still find fault? For who can oppose his will?' But who indeed are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Will what is made say to its maker, "Why have you created me so?" Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose, and another for an ignoble one? What if God, wishing to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction? This was to make known the riches of his glorry to the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared previously for glory,"

In short, why did God make man? Why does God allow evil? Why does God intervene in the world, and in the hearts of men? Well, the simplest answer is, "For the greater glory of God."

God hardened the Pharaoh's heart because he (the Pharaoh) was not righteous, nor were his people, and God aimed to demonstrate His wrath before those who obstinately rejected Him, and reward with mercy those who remained faithful to Him. However, simply because he hardened the Pharaoh's heart does not mean that the Pharaoh was a puppet--in fact, we may very well imagine the Pharaoh as having been made obstinate at the time of his birth, and God, being beyond time, knew that this action would eventually lead to the actions there were committed at the time of the exodus.

Now, as God is beyond time, that raises the question as to whether our free will does indeed exist, since apparently we cannot deviate from what God already knows will happen. However, I think this is an improper way to define free will. Free will is not the capacity to deviate from God's plan, as to do so would require a will greater than God's--definitionally impossible. Free will is not infinite will, and thus we cannot surprise God with any of our choices, but we are allowed to make choices nonetheless.

Perhaps one way to think of this is as a tic-tac-toe game. Let's suppose that I developed a gun that could reset a person's memory 2 minutes, resulting in them being the exact same person they were 2 minutes before (far-fetched, perhaps, but potentially not beyond the eventual capacity of human technology). Next, let's suppose that I set them against one another in a game of tic-tac-toe (lasting 2 minutes) and recorded their moves. Now let's suppose that I reset their memories, and they went back to work playing the game of tic-tac-toe. Supposing that my memory gun functions as I describe it, they will play exactly the same game of tic-tac-toe. Within the parameters of the experiment, it is impossible for them to deviate from it, and I already know, from the very start of the game, what the board will look like when the game is over and every stage in between. Nonetheless, each player, on his turn, still has a choice to make, and the significance of that choice is not diminished by the inevitability of the conclusion.

Now, I'm sure this doesn't explain the matter perfectly, and I bet if anyone responds to this post, they'll come up with any number of objections to it. The fact is, I doubt that human beings are meant to understand free will perfectly. The key is understanding the distinction between infinite will, which can overpower God's will by acting in a way that catches him by surprise, and free will, which involves the ability to make choices within the context of our own time and our own lives.

Now, back to the problem of evil, namely, why God allows evil to exist. Again, the short answer is, "For the greater glory of God," but I'll elaborate. First of all, the existence of evil is a manifestation of free will, which was described above. Because the choices people can make are real choices, the potential for making evil choices exists. Were free will not to exist, then we would not have real choices, and thus there would not be any good choices either. Moreover, with the amount of wickedness in the world, and the strength of wicked influences, the value of a good choice is made that much greater, and the glory that we bring to God by returning to Him, despite the sinfulness of the world in which we have been placed, is therefore magnified.

Now, beyond a certain point, we cannot go any further in explaining why this is the best way to bring glory to God. It is the best way because God decided it is the best way, and He alone has perfect knowledge of good and evil, because He is Goodness and Greatness and Glory in their purest forms.

I want to talk some about faith, because I think this is really the crux of the problem. First, a definition of faith, as I have not been satisfied with any of the explanations of faith given so far.

Faith is the process of accepting as knowledge that which neither contradicts reason nor is able to be proved by reason.

Reason we shall define as the process whereby human beings attempt to reach logical conclusions based on evidence, i.e., what we observe.

Now, as defined here, we immediately see that faith abounds everywhere. To be without faith is humanly impossible. Among the things that human beings invariably place faith in is, in fact, reason itself. Now, the reason of human beings is not always perfect (note the word "attempt" in the definition), but I doubt that there is a human being alive (or at least conscious and alive) who does not believe that he can come to some sort of conclusions based on what he observes. This may be as simple as encountering a flower, then seeing it, touching it, and smelling it, until the person comes to the reasonable conclusion that he has indeed encountered a flower, or a very clever imitation of one.

The only way, however, to accept the validity of our reason is through faith. We cannot use reason to prove the validity of reason--to do so would require accepting the validity of reason as a means of proving the validity of reason, which is obviously circular. Yet all of us accept reason blindly, on faith. Moreover, we also accept various items of importance to the process of reason, including the validity of our memories and the validity of our senses. Those of us who go through life genuinely doubting all of these things will very quickly find ourselves dead, as we would be required to doubt that, simply because we remember (or think we remember) hearing evidence that a pedestrian hit by a speeding semi-truck will be in grave danger, we cannot trust any of the factors involved in leading us to this conclusion, so let's go ahead.

My first point, therefore, is that faith in God is neither beyond reason nor dependent upon reason. It is parallel to it. We accept God's existence for the exact same reasons and through the exact same process as we accept the validity of reason itself--because life without God is as unthinkable as life without reason, and because the existence of God, like the validity of reason, cannot be proven by reason itself. More on this later.

Now, because our belief in reason and our belief in God are parallel, that means that if a contradiction exists between them, we are forced (by the rules of logic) to reject one or both of them, or at least to modify one or the other. In fact, however, they strengthen one another far more than they weaken one another. The validity of our capacity to reason is strengthened by the notion that our Creator loves us and made us in His image, and consequently that he gave us at least some capacity to comprehend the things around us, just as he has an infinite capacity to comprehend all things. An atheist, however, has no reason to trust his senses, or his memory, or his capacity to reason beyond the initial faith that he has put into them.

As for the ways that reason strengthens our faith in the Creator, that is a more complex subject. First, there's a good deal of evidence in the physical sciences pointing to a creator of the universe, though this is not my field, there are Christians within the field who have pointed out certain problems with atheistic theories of the universe. For example, there are holes in the theory of evolution (irreducibly complex systems and gaps in the fossil record appear to be the biggest)--though I still believe that the notion is possible that God has acted through evolution, in some way. There are also some curiosities of physics, for example, magnetism is extraordinarily more powerful than gravity (10^38 or thereabouts, I believe). If this number were a good deal different--I think the number I heard was 10^33--then the existence of planets would be impossible.

I can think of four questions that immediately come to mind as to human beings appeared on the planet: first, how could a planet form by random processes that is so well suited to sustain life, second, how life actually appearing spontaneously on that planet from random chemicals, third, how this life evolved to develop systems in a gradual manner, when many biological systems of humans and other mammals are so sophisticated that to evolve incrementally from lesser species would be incredibly improbable, and fourth, why the laws of physics are such that any of these steps was even possible in the first place.

Second, and of greater importance, is the evidence of scripture. I suggest taking a look at my post here for an overview of the evidence behind the reliability of the New Testament:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=348812&page=4&pp=15

Non-Christians are required to argue that the claims in the New Testament are lies, despite the fact that the early Christian community from which the New Testament comes had no need to craft lies--if they didn't believe in their religion, they had no reason to practice it, since doing so resulted only in persecution, and if they did believe in it, then writing documents that are lies would run entirely contrary to the purpose of it. They must, in other words, be mad, despite their apparent capacity to carry on normally and live good lives. A peculiar form of madness, indeed.

Now, of course, atheists and other non-Christians can attack these claims ad infinitum, but I think the most reasonable conclusion to reach is that, at worst, there is inconclusive evidence to either negate or confirm the notions that the universe was created and that the New Testament is the truth. At best, the evidence suggests that it is highly probable that both are true.

Now, back to a final point: why we need God. I think the strongest way that our faith in reason supports our faith in God is the internal consistency of our worldview and particularly, our morality. I hold that the only moral system consistent with atheism is nihilism: the belief that nothing is of value, and nothing is good or bad (whose greatest philosopher was probably Nietzsche, whom, I may note, went mad).

For Christians, the questions of right and wrong and how to live our lives are answered by the Bible. This is because God is, as I stated before, Goodness in its purest form, and consequently, it is inherent to reality that whatever He actions that He says we ought to commit are good actions, and actions that He says we ought to avoid are wicked actions.

For atheists, the problem is not so simple. If there is no God, then who is to make pronouncements on good and evil? The terms effectively carry no weight. I may say that someone has wronged me, or even someone else, but what I really mean is that I don't like what he did. Now, I could try (as philosophers have done over the centuries) to rely upon logic to prove that certain actions are good or bad, but this is merely a more sophisticated mechanism for hiding the fact that good and evil are in the eye of the beholder.

Now, the atheist has two concerns that lead him to make pronouncements as to what he regards as good and bad (i.e., what he does and does not like): self-interest and conscience. However, the atheist is in a situation where he recognizes that his conscience is merely a construct of his mind (or perhaps a construct that the society around him has placed within him) and that it sometimes runs contrary to self-interest. Therefore, he is forced to reject conscience, and come to the conclusion of nihilism, believing that nothing matters except pleasing oneself and nothing is forbidden. I think many of the monsters of history have come to this conclusion (serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer admitted that this is what led him to commit his killings--the thrill of murder combined with his faith in the inexistence of God led him to the entirely logical conclusion that there was no reason why he should abide by the commonly accepted standard that a man should not kill for the pleasure of it. His only unreasonable belief was that he could get away with these killings indefinitely, though he might have calculated the risk and regarded it well worth it.)

Now, if you are an atheist and have not reached this conclusion, I hold that your faith in the inexistence of God is not consistent with your faith in your capacity to reason, and one or both of them must be rejected. If you have reached this conclusion, then I pray that you will see the emptyness of such a life, and the richness and fullness of a life where we have purpose and hope, and, failing that, that you are stopped before inflicting too much pain and suffering on those around you.

And what is your definition of crap, sir? Anything that does not agree with Naturalism?
No. Anything that relies on mysticism.

There is nothing stopping anything from being separate from the universe,
Then you can provide the ontology for such a thing. Do so. Now.

I'm waiting.

You say I'm wrong. Can you prove it? Can you take the philosophy and tell me why God must follow time,
Ontology.

why he must be omnipresent as the argument begs,
That's the definition.

and that eternity is a figment of man's flawed imagination?
Eternity is just a temporal concept and not a physical place.

Don't you know anything?

The following is a subjective opinion, I will not act as if it's fact: The appearance of the entirety of your last post is that you want everything to fit exactly with the secular humanist's approach because it's the only defense you've got.
You're right: it's not fact. Good thing that you're not acting as if it is, because you'd get your intellectual ass kicked.

But as it stands, there is nothing, besides your own emotion, keeping my theories from becoming facts.
No. What keeps your crap from being facts is that your ideas bear no relation to reality.

Though you and many others would probably say the same about me, question me on specifics, as I have done. Why must God be subject to time?
Because beings are.

Why must He be omnipresent by S.H.'s definition?
Because that is the definition. You tried to redefine it.

Why is love simply chemical emotion and not a way of life?
Because love is an emotion.

Now that my initial anger has subsided, I will reply to this.

First, why can't a perfect being have personality?
Doesn't need it.

Second, as human beings, we can only think in concept of time.
Now we come to an ad hom fallacy where you try to claim that humans are "limited" and "we just can't understand the infinite", right?

But time is past, present, and future. To define these three, present is now, past is what was once "now", and future is what will soon be "now." We cannot act in the past; it has already been acted in. And we cannot act in the future, since it is not yet here to use. The present, then, is all the time we can truly detect. And, as I said, eternity, which has no reason not to exist,
ETERNITY IS NOT A FUCKING PLACE, MORON.

is an eternal present, with constant use. God, therefore, can act because He is unhindered by the barriers of beginning and end, was and will be. He is, in a constant moment of action. But, again, there's no reason why God can't be in time.
Massive question begging.


Third, contrary to popular opinion, knowledge does not equal power. To know something is coming does not destroy free will,
It does when you couple it with creating everything. Why did you dishonestly omit that?

Fourth, why isn't love anything more than chemicals?
Strawman.

Fifth, why must we use omnipresent in its present definition, and don't say "because that's what it is."
Because that's what it is. Like it or not.

A response to some of the atheist arguments uttered here:

First, regarding free will, I warn that this is a very complex bit of theology, but I'll give my take on it, which is by no means the last word on the matter.

Take a look at Romans 9, 15-23:

"For he says to Moses: 'I will show mercy to whom I will,
I will take pity on whom I will.'

So it depends not upon a person's will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "This is why I have raised you up, to show my powerful through you that my name may be proclaimed throughout the earth." Consequently, he has mercy upon whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills.
...meaning free will is a joke. Thank you.

Now, as God is beyond time,
Ontologically meaningless.

Now, back to the problem of evil, namely, why God allows evil to exist. Again, the short answer is, "For the greater glory of God,"
...which means that god is sado-narcissistic.

I want to talk some about faith, because I think this is really the crux of the problem. First, a definition of faith, as I have not been satisfied with any of the explanations of faith given so far.

Faith is the process of accepting as knowledge that which neither contradicts reason nor is able to be proved by reason.
Nope. That is not faith. Faith is belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. You can attempt to call faith an epistemic process, but it certainly is not.

Reason we shall define as the process whereby human beings attempt to reach logical conclusions based on evidence, i.e., what we observe.

Now, as defined here, we immediately see that faith abounds everywhere.
No, it's not.

To be without faith is humanly impossible.
Yet I am without faith. How do you explain that?

Among the things that human beings invariably place faith in is, in fact, reason itself.
Nope. Reason is quite capable of vindicating itself.

Now, the reason of human beings is not always perfect (note the word "attempt" in the definition),
REASONING, not reason. Learn the difference.

The only way, however, to accept the validity of our reason is through faith.
False. Reason vindicates itself well.

My first point, therefore, is that faith in God is neither beyond reason nor dependent upon reason. It is parallel to it.
No. Faith is the attempt to claim as true that which you desire to be. It's not parallel to reason. It's an attempt to undercut it.

As for the ways that reason strengthens our faith in the Creator, that is a more complex subject. First, there's a good deal of evidence in the physical sciences pointing to a creator of the universe,
No, there isn't.

though this is not my field, there are Christians within the field who have pointed out certain problems with atheistic theories of the universe.
No, they haven't.

For example, there are holes in the theory of evolution (irreducibly complex systems
Behe's bullshit has been refuted.

and gaps in the fossil record appear to be the biggest)
No, we should expect to find gaps. Not everything gets fossilized.

Perhaps you should educate yourself.

--though I still believe that the notion is possible that God has acted through evolution, in some way. There are also some curiosities of physics, for example, magnetism is extraordinarily more powerful than gravity (10^38 or thereabouts, I believe). If this number were a good deal different--I think the number I heard was 10^33--then the existence of planets would be impossible.
So what?

I can think of four questions that immediately come to mind as to human beings appeared on the planet: first, how could a planet form by random processes that is so well suited to sustain life,
How could god just randomly come to be?

second, how life actually appearing spontaneously on that planet from random chemicals,
How could god just spontanously come to be from randomness?

third, how this life evolved to develop systems in a gradual manner, when many biological systems of humans and other mammals are so sophisticated that to evolve incrementally from lesser species would be incredibly improbable,
Utterly false.

and fourth, why the laws of physics are such that any of these steps was even possible in the first place.
Because they are.

Second, and of greater importance, is the evidence of scripture. I suggest taking a look at my post here for an overview of the evidence behind the reliability of the New Testament:
The NT is horribly unreliable. Try again.

Non-Christians are required to argue that the claims in the New Testament are lies, despite the fact that the early Christian community from which the New Testament comes had no need to craft lies
So where's the evidence for that earthquake when jesus died? NOWHERE! Where's the evidence for the eclipse? NOWHERE! Where's the evidence for a resurrection? NOWHERE!

Try again.

Now, back to a final point: why we need God. I think the strongest way that our faith in reason supports our faith in God is the internal consistency of our worldview and particularly, our morality.
Morality has nothing to do with god.

I hold that the only moral system consistent with atheism is nihilism: the belief that nothing is of value, and nothing is good or bad (whose greatest philosopher was probably Nietzsche, whom, I may note, went mad).
Ah. So you're trying a strawman ad hominem attack. Very nice.

You would do well to note that you have no clue as to what you're talking about, and you'd best just shut the fuck up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Here's something for you to chew on: the Euthyphran dilemma as regards the notion of morality given by god. Think you can do it?

Here's something else for you to learn about: contractarianism. It's a moral code. Nothing to do with any god.

Do try and educate yourself.

http://members.aol.com/plweiss1/aquinas.htm

not saying either way, it's just an interesting view.

Athiesm is like a natural default, until the point where you get brainwashed by some evangelism.

*sigh* The old "theists are brainwashed" charge. While the belief in atheism (not athiesm) is the choice for "freethinkers". :rolleyes:

Since there is no proof for the existence of God, and there isn't even any circumstantial evidence in nature to point towards his existence, it most likely isn't a particularly good reason.

Most likely? Then there can be good reasons for believing in God?

[QUOTE=Nimzonia]Often it's an emotional reason rather than a rational one - people want there to be a God, rather than them weighing up the possibilities and deciding that the existence of God is more likely than not.[\QUOTE]

On the other hand, there are plenty of people who disbelieve in God's existence because they don't want to believe in God, often because doing so would mean drastically changing their lifestyle and beliefs.

If she is an atheist, why should you stop her? You said in one of your other posts that you tried to convince her not to... but what gives you a right to impress YOUR religion on her? And don't start in on the 'witnessing' platform - since I have noticed that many christians become VERY upset if you 'witness' back to them.

How is "witnessing" "impressing" his (her?) beliefs on the friend? The friend still has the ability to decide to reject any arguments he (she?) may make. Now, if the friend said "That's it, I've made my decision. I don't want to discuss it any more.", at that point, I would agree that the matter should be dropped, but until then....

On the other hand, there are plenty of people who disbelieve in God's existence because they don't want to believe in God, often because doing so would mean drastically changing their lifestyleSure, there are Atheists like that, but unless you want me to judge Christianity by the crusaders who murdered the Middle East, you should leave that argument be.

I think the belief in God is a purly emotional one, a belief someone needs to have in order to do good works or lead a virtuous and beneign life or to give their life a purpose... my mom says she has faith because a world without god is untenable to her and there would be no point in living... ok, fine. But I see loads of points to life without relying on the probably mistaken faith that I'll have some eternal reward for my behavior here.

I simply see no reason to believe in God that doesn't involve control (eg organized religion, donating tithes, the crusades), an easy explanation for something (eg creation), or a filling of some void in ones life (eg no reason to do good if no god).

How is "witnessing" "impressing" his (her?) beliefs on the friend? The friend still has the ability to decide to reject any arguments he (she?) may make. Now, if the friend said "That's it, I've made my decision. I don't want to discuss it any more.", at that point, I would agree that the matter should be dropped, but until then....A discussion of religion and why you are Christain would be fine. Telling someone they're wrong and they'd be ever so much better off being the same thing is not so great. I go to a university in the middle of the bible belt and get waylaid about my beliefs all the time - it leaves a very distasteful feeling for religion in me.

You can't create something from nothing. There are RULES that everything, yes, even a God, would have to follow.

Which rules would He have to follow? If He is transcendent above the natural order, why would He have to follow natural laws?

There are things, horrible atrocities, that have happened that, if God existed, would have never allowed to happen. The Holocast, etc. Then there is the Devil. If God is allpowerful, then why allow a demon of pure evil to exist? Why allow humans to fall into temptation? Why not just go down to hell and deal out a good dose of smiting? That'd solve everything, seeing how the Devil is actually only a demonized form of Pan, with Posideon's trident by his side.

1) A universe in which love exists is better than a universe in which love does not and cannot exist.
2) In order for love to exist, there must be free will, because love that is coerced is not love at all.
3) Wherever free will exists, there is a possibility that there will be those who misuse it.
4) But for God to stop all misuses of free will, He would have to stop all proper uses of it as well.
5) Therefore, if God wants the best possible world (one which includes the possibility of love), He also has to allow a certain amount of misuse of free will.
And the Devil portrayed as Pan with Posideon's trident may be the popular image of him, but it is not the biblical one.

So I believe that it is only a matter of time before modern religions are thrown on the pile along with those of ancient Greece and Rome.

You seem to place quite a bit of faith in this belief of yours....

You seem to place quite a bit of faith in this belief of yours....
As a matter of fact, I agree with UF. Some reason your religion is more valid than the Greeks thought their mythology was?

There was a time when religion ruled the world...

... It's known as the Dark Ages.

And who happened to name it this? Those who were opposed to religion... so this is basically an argument based on authority.

And who happened to name it this? Those who were opposed to religion... so this is basically an argument based on authority.

Well the 'Dark Ages' as they are so proudly called now a days, was a term coined in the renaissance by those lovely renaissance people to make the renaissance seem like even a greater period of time. It wasn't those without faith who made the phrase, just snotty intellectuals (who can spell :( ). In reality, the 'Dark Ages' had it's scientific breakthroughs that believe it or not were usually funded by the Church. Although the term 'Dark Ages' wasn't created by thos opposed to religion, it is still somewhat ignorantly used.

Again, I know my spelling sucks.

if wicked actions are necessary for His plan, and His plan is all-good, then why are those actions wicked? they bring about the Good, and all-powerful God would surely have found a Good way to bring it about if that were possible. it is unfair of us to punish somebody for taking an action that was necessary to bring about the Good, especially if God himself could not find any alternative.

The action itself was not necessary, but the possibilty that it could happen was. Bit of a difference between the two. God gave people the ability to choose between good and evil, and that they choose evil is their fault, not His, since they could have chosen good.

Im an agnostic and have found that it is the perfect belief system because it isnt one at all. its in the middle. no one can prove that there isnt or is a god, so there is no reason to argue about it. to the atheists out ther i do have 2 quotes that u will love from a famous atheist.
"Christianity is precisley the religon par excellence, because it exhibits and manifests to the fullest extent, the very nature and essence of every religious system, which is the impoverishment, enslavement, and annihilation of humanity for the benefit of divinity"

" The idea of god implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind both in theory and in practice"
- Mikhail Bakunin
Author of "God and the State"

I have faith that this is going nowhere. :p

See, it's impossible to be have faithless.

And Hakartopia, if you don't believe... then why are you still using God's name with a capital letter? Not trying to make anyone mad, just wondering. Thanks!

Because that is His name. I also use Sauron the Deceiver's name with a capital letter, even if I do not believe in his excistence.

The action itself was not necessary, but the possibilty that it could happen was. Bit of a difference between the two. God gave people the ability to choose between good and evil, and that they choose evil is their fault, not His, since they could have chosen good.

And if someone used his free will to rape, kill and eat little children, does God shrug and say "Well, It's His Free Will."?

If something is not verifiable then it's not logical.

This statement is not verifiable. Therefore, by your own admission, it is not logical :p ;)

Okay, I was skimming through these posts and its fairly heated. I'm rather impressed with the passion, and I'd love to saty, but as is I have only a few minutes, so here goes.
The world has been really messed up by people claiming to do things for religious reasons and people have been manipulated and abused because of it. (I am speaking on the warped islamic laws some places in the middle east have that are not supported at all in the text of the koran, and the whole jihad (dont have time to look up if the spellings right) phenomenon that can become manipulated.) Basically I refuse to believe in a God because if I do I will not realize that I need to do things I believe are right and try and help the world, and do them myself. If there is a God, wouldn't He/She/It be happier (or them as the case may be) that I tried to live the best I could, be the best I could, and even if I did go searching for God, there's hundreds of organizations, what if I picked the wrong one. The proof of an actual God is almost non-existant, it just seems a way to explain the un-explainable in a safe, keep living your lives as you are way. I mean, what would have happened if the french serfs didnt believe in God during the bourbon era? The upper class would ahve been dead as the peasants would be looking for reward in this life and not the next.
On the other hand, some of the most brilliant people in the world believe in God, and there are scientists who dedicate their whole lives to find proof of His/ Her.... or what ever it/they are real. Thats how strong their faith is, and to me, well, thats worth something. I have to wonder if there is something like God if they do truly belioeve that enough to do that stuff. Also, for the time the bible was written, the views expressed have endured, which is astounding considering how many social customs have changed. I personally am antheist, but does that mean I don't believe in the possibility? No, I just think most organzations mess up, and therefore I'm not going to be a part of them. I will live my life the best I can, and whatever happens afterwards or during it, well, I will know I did my best and I am happy. Thanks for listenign, feel free to tg me if you have soemthign to say. Hope you all have a great evening and keep the personal comments miminal.

Quote from Blaise Pascal:

"Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists."

I am a theist. And please, I would tear apart anyone's argument in favor of strict evolution...this includes you, BAAWA

Okay, I was skimming through these posts and its fairly heated. I'm rather impressed with the passion, and I'd love to saty, but as is I have only a few minutes, so here goes.
The world has been really messed up by people claiming to do things for religious reasons and people have been manipulated and abused because of it. (I am speaking on the warped islamic laws some places in the middle east have that are not supported at all in the text of the koran, and the whole jihad (dont have time to look up if the spellings right) phenomenon that can become manipulated.) Basically I refuse to believe in a God because if I do I will not realize that I need to do things I believe are right and try and help the world, and do them myself. If there is a God, wouldn't He/She/It be happier (or them as the case may be) that I tried to live the best I could, be the best I could, and even if I did go searching for God, there's hundreds of organizations, what if I picked the wrong one. The proof of an actual God is almost non-existant, it just seems a way to explain the un-explainable in a safe, keep living your lives as you are way. I mean, what would have happened if the french serfs didnt believe in God during the bourbon era? The upper class would ahve been dead as the peasants would be looking for reward in this life and not the next.
On the other hand, some of the most brilliant people in the world believe in God, and there are scientists who dedicate their whole lives to find proof of His/ Her.... or what ever it/they are real. Thats how strong their faith is, and to me, well, thats worth something. I have to wonder if there is something like God if they do truly belioeve that enough to do that stuff. Also, for the time the bible was written, the views expressed have endured, which is astounding considering how many social customs have changed. I personally am antheist, but does that mean I don't believe in the possibility? No, I just think most organzations mess up, and therefore I'm not going to be a part of them. I will live my life the best I can, and whatever happens afterwards or during it, well, I will know I did my best and I am happy. Thanks for listenign, feel free to tg me if you have soemthign to say. Hope you all have a great evening and keep the personal comments miminal.

Holy crap! You sound like...like...Martin Luther!

Some quotes:

I am more afraid of my own heart than of the pope and all his cardinals. I have within me the great pope, Self.

If I am not allowed to laugh in heaven, I don't want to go there.

War is the greatest plague that can afflict humanity, it destroys religion, it destroys states, it destroys families. Any scourge is preferable to it.

Quote from Blaise Pascal:

"Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists."

I am a theist. And please, I would tear apart anyone's argument in favor of strict evolution...this includes you, BAAWA

Oh look, it's Pascals Little Wager again, how cute.

Quote from Blaise Pascal:

"Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists."

I am a theist. And please, I would tear apart anyone's argument in favor of strict evolution...this includes you, BAAWA

I agree with Pascal's Wager but your friend has to look at this God isn't for this life. This life is for God. Man was intended to walk with God, his sin prevented this. God restored it but to receive it man must live the life God lived when He became man. The bible goes into more detail on this part but to make a long story short, this life is about getting to a place where God can give you Himself in heaven.

People keep expecting God to do something for them in this life but Jesus clearly said those who get their reward here will not have a reward waiting them when they get to heaven. As for me, give me death now so that life awaits.

My friend is thinking of becoming athiest because her logic is "What has God ever done for me?" I was just wondering what other reasons people have for being athiest.

You know what is sad about that?

Its the number one reason for people becoming atheist. Even though it explicitly tells you in the bible God isn't going to give you handouts. And 'Not to test your God'. What does she expect God to do? Make her the owner of Microsoft or something?

Unfortunately I can hear the roars of the resident Atheists on these boards, they won't be far away by now. Soon they will post a damning counter attack such as.

"HAHAH YOU IDIOT YOU BELIEVE IN A GOD AND THERE IS NO PRROF AND ALSO YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO ATTACK WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN, ALTHOUGH THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT ATHEISTS ARGUE AGAINST WHEN RELIGIOUS BIGOTS DO IT!!!! SEE???? WE'RE COMPLETE HYPOCRITES AND WILL NOT TOLERATE YOO IF YOU ARE RELIGIOUS!!!!!!!!!! (and we also try to turn this into a 'liberal' issue, when it clearly is set-aside from Politics).

I just think it's sad if religious people only act morally because their deity threatens them with ethernal misery. Is there really nothing else to it?

I do what's right because I think it's right, not because I have been promised some green garden in my afterlife.

What would happen if God was proved non-existing? Would you just become immoral criminals?

You know what is sad about that?

Its the number one reason for people becoming atheist. Even though it explicitly tells you in the bible God isn't going to give you handouts. And 'Not to test your God'. What does she expect God to do? Make her the owner of Microsoft or something?

Unfortunately I can hear the roars of the resident Atheists on these boards, they won't be far away by now. Soon they will post a damning counter attack such as.

"HAHAH YOU IDIOT YOU BELIEVE IN A GOD AND THERE IS NO PRROF AND ALSO YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO ATTACK WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN, ALTHOUGH THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT ATHEISTS ARGUE AGAINST WHEN RELIGIOUS BIGOTS DO IT!!!! SEE???? WE'RE COMPLETE HYPOCRITES AND WILL NOT TOLERATE YOO IF YOU ARE RELIGIOUS!!!!!!!!!! (and we also try to turn this into a 'liberal' issue, when it clearly is set-aside from Politics).


Hahaha. Oh wait, you're being serious.

I just think it's sad if religious people only act morally because their deity threatens them with ethernal misery. Is there really nothing else to it?

I do what's right because I think it's right, not because I have been promised some green garden in my afterlife.


Well, that all depends...this sounds like a catholic's system....

Supposedly, according to protestant beliefs, if you have faith, you are supposed to naturally act morally


What would happen if God was proved non-existing? Would you just become immoral criminals?

So what? we are all worm food then...

Oh look, it's Pascals Little Wager again, how cute.

Brilliant counter point

Hahaha. Oh wait, you're being serious.

You know as well as what I do, there are just as many Atheist flamebaiters on these forums as religious flamebaiters.

You know as well as what I do, there are just as many Atheist flamebaiters on these forums as religious flamebaiters.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean thats all of them.

TFM: Pascal's Wager has been debunked, made fun off, quartered and paraded down the streets often enough. I don't intent to do it again.

I have read every single post and followed every single aside (notably the very interesting Euthyphro dilemma, Pascal's Wager, quarks, the ontological arguments, and that singular friar).

It is an interesting observation to make that there are two types of people contributing to this thread: The lazy ones who don't care or don't know how to give an answer to the abtrusely layered arguments presented above them (me in my current state) and the ardent follower in their parrhesia of presentation (although I am acutely aligned toward the nontheistic state of being).

I have nothing more to say at this moment since I have read this... long... post in lieu of completing my hw. Which is a bad thing.

TFM: Pascal's Wager has been debunked, made fun off, quartered and paraded down the streets often enough. I don't intent to do it again.

Debunked? That's like debunking the way I like the color blue. You can do better than that I hope.

Because beings are.

All material beings may be subject to time, but how do you know that non-material beings are?

Debunked? That's like debunking the way I like the color blue. You can do better than that I hope.

Yes debunked. It has nothing to do with the way you like any colour whatsoever, and I can do better, but wont.
Try using the search function, and you'll find all sorts of posts about Pascal's Wager.

Sure, there are Atheists like that, but unless you want me to judge Christianity by the crusaders who murdered the Middle East, you should leave that argument be.

I never said ALL atheists were like, just said that there were some. Therefore, I am NOT judging all atheists by those few.

And if someone used his free will to rape, kill and eat little children, does God shrug and say "Well, It's His Free Will."?

No, God says they will reap the wages of such misdeeds, but according to His timeline, not man's.

I just think it's sad if religious people only act morally because their deity threatens them with ethernal misery. Is there really nothing else to it? [emphasis added]

Who said that's the only reason religious people act morally? Couldn't it be possible that we do so because we've come to realize that it's simply a better way to act? That it's simply right?

Yes debunked. It has nothing to do with the way you like any colour whatsoever, and I can do better, but wont.
Try using the search function, and you'll find all sorts of posts about Pascal's Wager.

That's a nice way of saying you can't - there is nothing to debunk

No, God says they will reap the wages of such misdeeds, but according to His timeline, not man's.

But the children didn't choose. What about their free will?

That's a nice way of saying you can't - there is nothing to debunk

If you're too lazy to find the posts yourself and instead expect me to rehash the countess arguments again, I can't help you.

If you're too lazy to find the posts yourself and instead expect me to rehash the countess arguments again, I can't help you.

No....let's try this again...

If I say I beleive in UFOs...and am not hurt by doing so...and I don't hurt anyone else...and believe that when I die I will be better off for doing so...

Why not? That is not debunkable.

Is it that difficult? Or can you not formulate an argument on your own?

No....let's try this again...

If I say I beleive in UFOs...and am not hurt by doing so...and I don't hurt anyone else...and believe that when I die I will be better off for doing so...

Why not? That is not debunkable.

Is it that difficult? Or can you not formulate an agrument on your own?

Look, I don't care what you belief in. You can belief in the toothfairy pony princess for all I care.
You put forward Pascal's Wager. I point out it's been debunked, and that mane examples of this debunkerry can be found all over this forum.
That's it. Finito. I never said you can't believe in anything you want.

Look, I don't care what you belief in. You can belief in the toothfairy pony princess for all I care.
You put forward Pascal's Wager. I point out it's been debunked, and that mane examples of this debunkerry can be found all over this forum.
That's it. Finito. I never said you can't believe in anything you want.


That is exactly what it means! Why not believe in something if it does no harm?

Please at least give me a link to one post by an internet-warrior on this forum that has "debunked" this thought. Note: I call it a thought, not a theory, not a law, but a thought.

Come on, lets... calm down a bit here.

To be honest this thread is becoming stupid - And I'm a bit scared by it. I never knew atheists were such a clannish group of people who were so forceful with thier beliefs, just as many Christians are (they seem to be undergoing a metamorphisis into religion), this has really dampened my opinions of many atheists as I believed them to have a little more self control than simply belittling what somebody believes in. After all, I was surprised at how much restraint the religious people showed after such tremendous flamebaiting by the atheists (that is to say - some atheists). But it also goes to say a number of Christians behave in this way as well - Just that I was surprised to see so many atheists displaying fundamentalist religious traits.

That is exactly what it means! Why not believe in something if it does no harm?

Please at least give me a link to one post by an internet-warrior on this forum that has "debunked" this thought. Note: I call it a thought, not a theory, not a law, but a thought.

Alright, alright, fine. This one looks nice

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=340200&page=14&pp=15

wow, you totally just posted that on another thread like 3 minutes ago. in that case i feel perfectly justified in cutting-and-pasting my other response to it, since you didn't bother to re-write...

you people always forget the rest of the wager (which, admittedly, Pascal forgot too):

if God does not exist:
1b) i lived a lie during the only life i will ever have, and failed to progress toward an understanding of the only existence i would ever know.
2b) i lived more fully and faced the reality of my life, and i lived in honesty with the world around me. i developed morality that did not require a supernatural parent-figure standing over me with a big stick, and i was good for the sake of decency rather than merely being good to get a reward or to avoid pissing off a figment of my own imagination.

if God does exist:
1b) since, statistically, it is likely that more than half of the believers chose the WRONG God to worship, i am better off than they are because at least i wasn't worshipping a false God. rather than gambling that my God is the right one, the way believers do, i respectfully decline to vote until i have more information. God recognizes my good sense and my use of the frontal cortex He gave me, and rewards me with the nicest room in heaven.
2b) if i lucked out and happened to believe in the right God, he immediately asks me why the hell i was so gullible and sends me back for another few lifetimes to learn better sense. okay, seriously, if i believed in the right God then that's super, and i do just as well as the atheists and agnostics. however, if i believed in the wrong God he is pissed as hell and sends me to burn or whatever because i was insulting him every time i prayed.

Please be so kind as to click on the link I provided to read most of the replies as well. Thanks.

http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

(a few reasons why god is impossible *the god of the bible that is*)

http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/atheist.html

http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/christian.html

I'm really beginning to despise atheists, they seem so narrow minded to me. Bunch of fucking arseholes who are no better than Bush and his narrow minded cronies.

Come on, lets... calm down a bit here.

To be honest this thread is becoming stupid - And I'm a bit scared by it. I never knew atheists were such a clannish group of people who were so forceful with thier beliefs, just as many Christians are (they seem to be undergoing a metamorphisis into religion), this has really dampened my opinions of many atheists as I believed them to have a little more self control than simply belittling what somebody believes in. After all, I was surprised at how much restraint the religious people showed after such tremendous flamebaiting by the atheists (that is to say - some atheists). But it also goes to say a number of Christians behave in this way as well - Just that I was surprised to see so many atheists displaying fundamentalist religious traits.


I agree. Followers of each and every religion (or non-religion) is capable of taking his or her beliefs in any direction. The college I graduated from, Beloit College, has a huge percentage of Wiccans and other polytheists, and some of them can get just as extreme. It's kind of amusing considering their #1 rule is Do No Harm.

To get back on the beginning topic, the atheiest I respect most doesn't believe in God because she hasn't felt any particular pull toward any faith or belief. She figures it's better to wait for some kind of a sign or feeling than to go to church without actually having any faith.

NWV - Some Atheists are narrow-minded and some Christians are narrow minded. Try not to judge the whole by the actions of a few. That's how we get stupid stereotypes :)

I am actually more of Agnostic than an Atheist, but I do have many strong Atheist beliefs. I am because I took a personal journey and found myself unable to believe in that kind of thing.

As for Pascal's Wager, I believe it's true. I mean, IF God does exist, and he isn't forgiving enough to accept me and my way of life or accept that I lived my life by my moral code which didn't conflict with the one he lead down for his followers. If he still deams me unfit and sentances me to an eternaty of torture... well, I think that would say a lot about him. However, if he does exist you're right, we lose out. I can't make myself believe in something I don't believe in though.

I think this thread might have gotten a little off topic, it was originally about why people are Atheists or not, not a discussion of religious ideals. I want to congratulate everyone who was able to argue and defend their points well without letting it personally affect them too much. Some people when discussing this subject take it personally and elevates it to personal attacks.

I agree. Followers of each and every religion (or non-religion) is capable of taking his or her beliefs in any direction. The college I graduated from, Beloit College, has a huge percentage of Wiccans and other polytheists, and some of them can get just as extreme. It's kind of amusing considering their #1 rule is Do No Harm.

To get back on the beginning topic, the atheiest I respect most doesn't believe in God because she hasn't felt any particular pull toward any faith or belief. She figures it's better to wait for some kind of a sign or feeling than to go to church without actually having any faith.

You're referring to the wiccan rede, I presume? The exact wording is "A'in it harm none, do what thou wilt." Though obviously there are light nuances and changes abound. However, the general message is the same: do what you want, as long as nothing is harmed by it.

NWV - Some Atheists are narrow-minded and some Christians are narrow minded. Try not to judge the whole by the actions of a few. That's how we get stupid stereotypes :)

I am actually more of Agnostic than an Atheist, but I do have many strong Atheist beliefs. I am because I took a personal journey and found myself unable to believe in that kind of thing.

As for Pascal's Wager, I believe it's true. I mean, IF God does exist, and he isn't forgiving enough to accept me and my way of life or accept that I lived my life by my moral code which didn't conflict with the one he lead down for his followers. If he still deams me unfit and sentances me to an eternaty of torture... well, I think that would say a lot about him. However, if he does exist you're right, we lose out. I can't make myself believe in something I don't believe in though.

I think this thread might have gotten a little off topic, it was originally about why people are Atheists or not, not a discussion of religious ideals. I want to congratulate everyone who was able to argue and defend their points well without letting it personally affect them too much. Some people when discussing this subject take it personally and elevates it to personal attacks.
Yeh, I totally agree with you. There just seems to be this growing, clannish, possibly even religious like sect of Atheists who have a very loud voice, and very ignorant ideas about people who are religious. Just the same as some 'Christians' like Bush.

You're referring to the wiccan rede, I presume? The exact wording is "A'in it harm none, do what thou wilt." Though obviously there are light nuances and changes abound. However, the general message is the same: do what you want, as long as nothing is harmed by it.


Yeah, that's pretty much the message. I just think a Wiccan (is Wiccan capitalized?) inquisitor is a good example of how faith can be bent by narrow-mindedness. Especially with Catholicism, you sometimes just have to cut away all the bullshit people cover the original message up with.

Has anyone here played Vampire: The Masquerade: Redemption? There's a really great quote on the subject, right before your crusader character is about to get eaten.

"Thou has lost thy faith years ago. Thou art a killer of men. And one does not kill when compelled by God, but when ordered by men."

Yeh, I totally agree with you. There just seems to be this growing, clannish, possibly even religious like sect of Atheists who have a very loud voice, and very ignorant ideas about people who are religious. Just the same as some 'Christians' like Bush.


Yeah. Bush is a Christian in name only. I'm fairly certain "thou shalt rape Alaska for petty gain" isn't anywhere in the bible.

is Wiccan capitalized?

Yes, it is the name of a religion after all.

I'm fairly certain "thou shalt rape Alaska for petty gain" isn't anywhere in the bible.

yeah but I'm fairly certain that "thou shaltn't rape Alaska for petty gain" isn't anywhere in the bible either. :P

yeah but I'm fairly certain that "thou shaltn't rape Alaska for petty gain" isn't anywhere in the bible either. :P

Good point.

First of all, there is no such thing as a true atheist unless you are completely and totally blind to any kind of logic. God cannot be formally "proven" or "disproven" as was said earlier. Therefore, atheism is the foolish feeling that you have proved there is no God, which is incredibly arrogant and in my opinion, stupid.
-R. S. of UC

Just a small reaction on this one. Study a bit of philosophy and you'll see how hard it is to prove things. One of the fundamental differences between 17th century science and modern science lies here. in the 17th century, experiments, if done under certain circumstances, gave data that was solid and correct in an absolute sense of the word. They also had a method back then. This scientific method was correct and worked like this: If you put correct data in the method, a theory with an absolute truth value had to come out. A good example is a quote from newton, i believe: "I don't invent my hypotheses" (i don't know the original latin version) He means that his hypothese just came into existance by using the scientific method on the data he has gathered.
In modern day science, data is never 100% correct as we gather data using theories we allready have. There is not one scientific method, not every method can be applied to every field of science and you have no garanty getting a true theory. theories themselves hold no absolute truth value as they are not based on a fundament of absolute data.

You can see how in the 17th century, a theory could have been proven to be 100% and how this is almost impossible in our days.

Therefor theories are judged using other criteria. An example:
We now have einstein's theory of relativity which is very exact and succesfully matches with the data we gather at the moment, but the theory is not very simple. On the other hand we have the mechanics of newton which is not as exact, but is very simple compared to einstein's theory. In most cases, engineers will use newton's theory allthough they themselves know it does not match with the data we gather, in other cases, for example when objects have a very high speed, they will use einstein's theory.

The theory "God(s) exist" can be judged too.
-It raises more questions about the nature and the origin of god
-It does not explain anything.
-We don't need the theory
-It does not fit with scientific theories as these are built with the premisse that god does not exist (otherwise you will have troubles with divine interventions when building experiments)
...
Add to this that I can show you how the theory once came into existence with the purpose of explaining the world around prehistoric men and how it has evolved over time, showing that it did not happen as any religion that makes use of a revelation says it happened

Anyway, the theory will receive a very bad judgement and therefore it will be rejected.

I simply reject it as it is a very bad theory in itself. This is not foolish at all.

The theory "God(s) exist" can be judged too.
-It raises more questions about the nature and the origin of god
-It does not explain anything.
-We don't need the theory
-It does not fit with scientific theories as these are built with the premisse that god does not exist (otherwise you will have troubles with divine interventions when building experiments)
...
Add to this that I can show you how the theory once came into existence with the purpose of explaining the world around prehistoric men and how it has evolved over time, showing that it did not happen as any religion that makes use of a revelation says it happened

Anyway, the theory will receive a very bad judgement and therefore it will be rejected.

I simply reject it as it is a very bad theory in itself. This is not foolish at all.

I agree... to an extent. The "theory" is a poor one. All I wish to bring to your attention is that some religiously-minded people are concerned with things other than theories. To them, spirituality is not a theory, but an experience or a journey of discovery. Is it wrong or foolish to examine the world outside of the realm of science? (I ask that question as a physics grad student, by the way. I appriciate science a great deal, and I don't see it conflicting with the absolute core of spirituality. Biased opinion? Probably.)

I agree... to an extent. The "theory" is a poor one. All I wish to bring to your attention is that some religiously-minded people are concerned with things other than theories. To them, spirituality is not a theory, but an experience or a journey of discovery. Is it wrong or foolish to examine the world outside of the realm of science? (I ask that question as a physics grad student, by the way. I appriciate science a great deal, and I don't see it conflicting with the absolute core of spirituality. Biased opinion? Probably.)

I can see what you mean, but i wrote a reaction to the following:

Originally Posted by The Right Arm of U C
First of all, there is no such thing as a true atheist unless you are completely and totally blind to any kind of logic. God cannot be formally "proven" or "disproven" as was said earlier. Therefore, atheism is the foolish feeling that you have proved there is no God, which is incredibly arrogant and in my opinion, stupid.
-R. S. of UC

When someone says i'm completely blind of any kind of logic because i can't "prove" god does not exist then i have to inform him about this little thing that is important to me: modern philosophy.

I can see what you mean, but i wrote a reaction to the following:

Originally Posted by The Right Arm of U C
First of all, there is no such thing as a true atheist unless you are completely and totally blind to any kind of logic. God cannot be formally "proven" or "disproven" as was said earlier. Therefore, atheism is the foolish feeling that you have proved there is no God, which is incredibly arrogant and in my opinion, stupid.
-R. S. of UC

When someone says i'm completely blind of any kind of logic because i can't "prove" god does not exist then i have to inform him about this little thing that is important to me: modern philosophy.


Right right. Sorry.

I just think it's sad if religious people only act morally because their deity threatens them with ethernal misery. Is there really nothing else to it?

I do what's right because I think it's right, not because I have been promised some green garden in my afterlife.

What would happen if God was proved non-existing? Would you just become immoral criminals?

I agree, doing good should not be a chore for anyone. I am a Thiest, and I do good because I know that it is a positive thing to do. My beliefs do not require good works for salvation, so technically someone could be a corrupt miser and still call himself a christian. However we are called to help one another, not for salvation, but because it is the right thing to do. the whole "love thy neighbor as thyself" kind of explains it pretty well.

Quote from Blaise Pascal:

"Belief is a wise wager.
You know that Pascal's Wager has been Refuted To Death, right?

I am a theist. And please, I would tear apart anyone's argument in favor of strict evolution...this includes you, BAAWA
Come get you some.

Debunked? That's like debunking the way I like the color blue. You can do better than that I hope.
Pascal's Wager
Blaise Pascal's wager is cited many times as why we godless bastards should be Christian. The wager runs thus: Since reason is unable to decide if there is a god or not, we have to bet. The consequences of being an atheist and being wrong are worse than being an Roman Catholic and being wrong, so it's better to be Roman Catholic. Notice I didn't say "Christian" as to simply mean any flavor of the Christian religion. Blaise believed the choice was not simply between Christianity and atheism, but between the Roman Catholic sect of Christianity and atheism. So unless you're RCC--you can't use the wager to begin with. His wager suffers from other flaws, such as avoiding the wrong hell. That means that since you don't know really if there is a god or not, you also don't know which god, if any, exists. You could be worshipping the wrong god and thus really you should worship all gods to prevent you from going to some other god's Bad Place(TM) . There's also the flaw that it's not an argument, but a twist on mafia/gang tactics. It's intellectual extortion. "Believe or bad things might happen when you die." is a post-mortem threat in the same way as "Pay us or something bad might happen to your business." is a threat in reality. To use a threat in place of an argument means that you have no argument to begin with. As above a little bit, it's simply a repackaged argumentum ad baculum.
http://home.wi.rr.com/knightofbaawa/avscfaq.html#PASCAL

All material beings may be subject to time, but how do you know that non-material beings are?
Blatantly begs the question that there are such things as non-material beings. Try again.

No. Anything that relies on mysticism.

But there is no mysticism here. There is no relying on anything that can be proven through physics. I'm simply raising the idea of a being separate from the universe. I'd ask you where you got the hatred of the idea, but you would say "Because it's not true," and expect that to mean something. No, I can't describe the existence of something separate from the universe, because any analogy would be flawed. We can only think specifically about our experiences and senses, so anything separate can only be stated, not described. But just because something can't be described doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Imagine trying to explain to a colorblind person what blue is. They've never experienced it, so they can't comprehend it. Of course, this itself is a flawed analogy, because you would say that blue is simply perception of high-energy light, but that's what happens when you try to describe something you can't explain. It's simply indescribable. But that does not mean it doesn't exist. Open your mind, let yourself, for one moment, imagine that "What you see is what you get" might not be true. And if this brings out another insult, you're only screwing yourself, letting others see how flawed your mind is for degrading any thought process dissimilar to your own.

Secular Humanism was wrong, I'm sorry. Hate to disturb you like that, but there it is. That definition of omnipresence does not work, just like Copernicus' definition of a Heliocentric world was flawed until Kepler came along. Face it. It's screwed up. End of story.

The problem you're facing, man, is that you won't open your eyes to anything that's not you. I don't know what experience in your life did this to you, but you need to snap out of it. Face it, intelligent people in the world exist with ideas unlike yours. That doesn't make them wrong. It makes them different.

The universe might be more than you expect, pal.

No. Anything that relies on mysticism.
But there is no mysticism here.
Certainly is.

There is no relying on anything that can be proven through physics. I'm simply raising the idea of a being separate from the universe.
Then show the ontology for it! Don't just assert that it's possible. Show. Me. The. Ontology!

I'd ask you where you got the hatred of the idea, but you would say "Because it's not true," and expect that to mean something.
*laughs*

You're such a child.

No, I can't describe the existence of something separate from the universe, because any analogy would be flawed.
No, you can't do it because you haven't the ontology.

We can only think specifically about our experiences and senses, so anything separate can only be stated, not described. But just because something can't be described doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Imagine trying to explain to a colorblind person what blue is.
False analogy. The wavelength of blue can be shown on an oscilloscope. Try again.

Secular Humanism was wrong, I'm sorry. Hate to disturb you like that, but there it is.
And why do you assume that I am a secular humanist, hmmmm?

Your problem is that you've decided that you can just make up a story and thus because you've made it up, it is true. That's wrong. Sorry. hate to disturb you like that, but there it is.

I found a little something on a website called www.biblelife.org about free will. I'll just copy the important parts because it is kind of a pain to find.

Man's Free Will to do Good or Evil

The Bible continuously throughout scripture instructs mankind to make righteous decisions by free will. Many persons misinterpret a few verses to arrive at the false idea that mankind does not have a free will to do good or make righteous decisions. Below are some verses which strongly show that mankind has the responsibility to exercise their free will and is commanded by God to do so.

Deuteronomy 30:11 "For this commandment which I command you today [is] not [too] mysterious for you, nor [is] it far off. 12 "It [is] not in heaven, that you should say, `Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' 13 "Nor [is] it beyond the sea, that you should say, `Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' 14 "But the word [is] very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

Deuteronomy 30:15 "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 "in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. 17 "But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, 18 "I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong [your] days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess. 19 "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.

John 14:15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments.

John 15:7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.

Romans 2:10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

1 Corinthians 9:24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain [it]. 25 And everyone who competes [for] [the] [prize] is temperate in all things. Now they [do] [it] to obtain a perishable crown, but we [for] an imperishable [crown].

1 Timothy 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called and have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13 I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and [before] Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate, 14 that you keep [this] commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing.

2 Timothy 2:21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work.

1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.

Blatantly begs the question that there are such things as non-material beings. Try again.

And you're comparing apples to oranges by assuming that non-material beings, if they exist (clear enough this time?), must have the same properties (such as "timeness") as material beings.

Blatantly begs the question that there are such things as non-material beings. Try again.
And you're comparing apples to oranges by assuming that non-material beings, if they exist (clear enough this time?), must have the same properties (such as "timeness") as material beings.
Then you can provide me the ontology of a "non-material being".

Show.

Me.

The.

Ontology.

Then you can provide me the ontology of a "non-material being".

Show.

Me.

The.

Ontology.

All right. If a being is material, then it makes sense it would conform and draw it's existance from material elements and behave in ways (thus defining it's awareness and being) that are consistent with the laws that govern that material existance. However, if a being is "non-material", it is a fair statement to say that such a being, should it exist, would specifically not conform it's existance or draw that existance from the same material elements that a material being would nor would it behave in a way consistent with material governing laws.

The question is would a material being be able to conceptualize a non-material being and vice versa and would they be able to interact in a meaningful way.

Then you can provide me the ontology of a "non-material being".

Show.

Me.

The.

Ontology.
Ack! I've said this time and time again, and I don't even know what "time and time again" means! We cannot truly understand the Universe in its wholeness, and we definitely cannot understand something unfamiliar as a "non-material being." It doesn't make sense through common today's science, and as such we can not define it properly.

I think that'd be obvious when we tried to define an omnipotent and omniscient being in the first place.

Except for the fact that they ARE religions, and ancient ones at that...you'd be...um....

I'm going to go with STUPID here if that's okay with you?

Yeah, that's a stupid and bigoted thing to say. I'm trully hoping it was a joke...

Taoism is a Philosofy, a way of living, NOT a religion.
And you just ask any buddhist if they consider it to be a religion, and I promise you that they wont, or they are just some kinda cult-members.

Ack! I've said this time and time again, and I don't even know what "time and time again" means! We cannot truly understand the Universe in its wholeness, and we definitely cannot understand something unfamiliar as a "non-material being." It doesn't make sense through common today's science, and as such we can not define it properly.

I think that'd be obvious when we tried to define an omnipotent and omniscient being in the first place.

Surely a non-material being is a being that does not exist in the material universe?

That makes sense in modern science. That's no problem at all. It doesn't exist... that's about as logical as it gets, really.

Surely a non-material being is a being that does not exist in the material universe?

That makes sense in modern science. That's no problem at all. It doesn't exist... that's about as logical as it gets, really.
To say that modern science is perfect would be incorrect, though. And you can't go farther into that without going into complicated philosophy that no one agrees on, like now.

Ah well. Day?

Ack! I've said this time and time again, and I don't even know what "time and time again" means! We cannot truly understand the Universe in its wholeness, and we definitely cannot understand something unfamiliar as a "non-material being." It doesn't make sense through common today's science, and as such we can not define it properly.
Then no one should posit it. Positing something that you claim that you can't understand is theological lunacy and epistemic suicide.

All right. If a being is material, then it makes sense it would conform and draw it's existance from material elements and behave in ways (thus defining it's awareness and being) that are consistent with the laws that govern that material existance. However, if a being is "non-material", it is a fair statement to say that such a being, should it exist, would specifically not conform it's existance or draw that existance from the same material elements that a material being would nor would it behave in a way consistent with material governing laws.
But that tells no one anything about the ontology of such a thing.

The question is would a material being be able to conceptualize a non-material being and vice versa and would they be able to interact in a meaningful way.
Quite so.

To say that modern science is perfect would be incorrect, though. And you can't go farther into that without going into complicated philosophy that no one agrees on, like now.

Ah well. Day?

Modern science is not perfect, but it does have one major advantage over organised religion, and that is, it EVOLVES.

Sure, religion evolves too... sabbath schools, salvation army... the whole thing... but, if religions lost their fundamental basis... they cease to be:

Example: Jesus' body turns up in a grave in Palestine. It's got a sign on it saying "Hi! I'm Jesus.... I actually died, and never came back". Further investigation reveals more bodies, all bearing artifacts proclaiming the truth of Jesus' death. Christianity cannot survive that blow.

But: Example: A scientist discovers that atoms are not hard little balls of matter that form the most basic building blocks of reality. This should destroy science, if it operates like religion... but, instead, science GROWS from the removal of it's foundations.

Then no one should posit it. Positing something that you claim that you can't understand is theological lunacy and epistemic suicide.
Yeah, but I didn't post it. I stopped my in-depth arguments a while ago, and most of them had to do with both side's anal-retentiveness.

Modern science is not perfect, but it does have one major advantage over organised religion, and that is, it EVOLVES.

Sure, religion evolves too... sabbath schools, salvation army... the whole thing... but, if religions lost their fundamental basis... they cease to be:

Example: Jesus' body turns up in a grave in Palestine. It's got a sign on it saying "Hi! I'm Jesus.... I actually died, and never came back". Further investigation reveals more bodies, all bearing artifacts proclaiming the truth of Jesus' death. Christianity cannot survive that blow.

But: Example: A scientist discovers that atoms are not hard little balls of matter that form the most basic building blocks of reality. This should destroy science, if it operates like religion... but, instead, science GROWS from the removal of it's foundations.
I don't think you got my point. I mean, until we find Jesus' body with its little neat signs and such, we cannot pass true judgement because we don't have a clue what's going on.

But that tells no one anything about the ontology of such a thing.

It does indeed, only if it only says what it can't be.

God gave her life and then gave her all the food, oxygen, etc. that she needs to sustain life. It seems to me that God has done a lot for your friend, she's just too self-centered to realize it.

God will not begin to work in her life until she accepts Him in His rightful place in her life. Also, she needs to keep in mind that His plan for her may not be her plan for herself. I'm a perfect example of that. I was living my life the exact way I'd envisioned it, and I was miserable. I prayed, asking God what He wanted for me and told Him I'd accept His will for my life instead of my own, just show me what He wanted. And, 2 years later, my life is not at all what I'd envisioned, but I'm happier than I ever imagined I could be.
How do you know that god even exists? Maybe a trio of magical elves gave her life. Without evidence you just don't know do you?

How do you know that god even exists? Maybe a trio of magical elves gave her life. Without evidence you just don't know do you?
That's not really strengthening a real argument here. You've explained that God might exist, but you don't know.

I don't think you got my point. I mean, until we find Jesus' body with its little neat signs and such, we cannot pass true judgement because we don't have a clue what's going on.

So, to be rational about the whole thing... everyone should be atheistic until that evidence turns up, surely?

If there is no irrefutable evidence either way, why choose the option that is NOT explainable. Why choose the path that can ONLY be supported by th supernatural.

If nobody can prove the existence of ghosts, isn't it most likely that ghosts don't exist? Isn't it most likely that the continuing prevasion of ghost stories is because people attach supernatural significance to otherwise mundane activities?

But that tells no one anything about the ontology of such a thing.
It does indeed, only if it only says what it can't be.
Which, for ontology, tells us nothing.

I'm not an athiest myself. I'm agnostic. I used to be a christian but now I'm sick of my parents shoving religion down my throat. So I just asked myself 'what proof is there?' I found none, so I am no longer religious. But I also haven't found proof the other way. It just seems like a very unrealistic possibility. So I won't every bther with religion until I find concrete proof.

Modern science is not perfect, but it does have one major advantage over organised religion, and that is, it EVOLVES.

Sure, religion evolves too... sabbath schools, salvation army... the whole thing... but, if religions lost their fundamental basis... they cease to be:

Well, the same is true for science, actually. If you show that fundamental senses and the information they provide us can not be trusted, then science collapses.

Additionally, you're using a specific to prove a general. Sure, if a body was found and it had that little placard on it (for the sake of argument, at least), it would cast serious doubt on the Christian faith. However, it wouldn't cast the least bit of doubt on religion as a whole.

The same is true for science. Use evolutionary theory as an example. Lamarckian inheritance was surplanted by Darwinian inheritance. In effect, Lamarckian inheritance was found to be incorrect, however this doesn't nullify the idea of evolution completely, just that specific concept.

So too with religion. Removing the fundamental basis of one specific religious identity may be enough to capsize that particular identity, but it doesn't sink the whole concept.