NationStates Jolt Archive

Uh Hello? no longer being? That would freak me out abit. Think about it.
i've thought about it. not scared. why are you?

the only thing that scares me is that i will not use the time i have. i fear the idea of wasting my own existence, and that fear helps me remember to live fully and well. the fact that my life will eventually end does not frighten me, though i do feel a little sad that i won't have more time to experience the world (i like it here, you understand).

to be honest, the idea of living forever horrifies me. i would be very sad if that turned out to be the case, and i am glad there is no reason to believe it is. the idea that some unknown all-powerful being intends to pass sentence on me based on standards i cannot comprehend is equally horrifying, and i find no comfort in the thought of being judged by a Creator who would allow our world to get into its current state without intervening. i don't have high hopes for the judgment of a being who allows children to starve for the crime of being born in a poor country, and i don't have any confidence in a "Plan" that would include the suffering i have seen in my lifetime.

Uh Hello? no longer being? That would freak me out abit. Think about it.
Still not seeing the freak-out value here. I guess you haven't yet come to grips with your mortality....

That gives me a thought, actually. I guess the whole 'afterlife' thing in religion is a mechanism to avoid ever having to confront mortality.

I mean, I always assumed it was just so they could screw you in this life, with the promise that it will be better in the next... but, now it's got me thinking...

I fail to see why that would be scary? It's inevitable, and there is no suffering... I would assume you would just make the best use of the time you have available, maybe leave something behind for the next generation, and be prepared for it all to end when you die.

That doesn't scare me... Why would it scare you?

Suffering is obsolite when you dont exsist! if you dont exist you cant suffer! so why would it be a comfort that you cant suffer? you cant feel safe or feel pleasure or feel peace or rest if you dont exist. Dont you see? YOU do NOT exsist.

Suffering is obsolite when you dont exsist! if you dont exist you cant suffer! so why would it be a comfort that you cant suffer? you cant feel safe or feel pleasure or feel peace or rest if you dont exist. Dont you see? YOU do NOT exsist.

exactly. no suffering, no pleasure...totally neutral, nothingness. why fear that?

i've thought about it. not scared. why are you?

the only thing that scares me is that i will not use the time i have. i fear the idea of wasting my own existence, and that fear helps me remember to live fully and well. the fact that my life will eventually end does not frighten me, though i do feel a little sad that i won't have more time to experience the world (i like it here, you understand).

to be honest, the idea of living forever horrifies me. i would be very sad if that turned out to be the case, and i am glad there is no reason to believe it is. the idea that some unknown all-powerful being intends to pass sentence on me based on standards i cannot comprehend is equally horrifying, and i find no comfort in the thought of being judged by a Creator who would allow our world to get into its current state without intervening. i don't have high hopes for the judgment of a being who allows children to starve for the crime of being born in a poor country, and i don't have any confidence in a "Plan" that would include the suffering i have seen in my lifetime.

Whereas, I love the idea of living forever... imagine being able to live, love and learn till eternity.

But - I see no reason to believe it will happen, just because I want it to.

Suffering is obsolite when you dont exsist! if you dont exist you cant suffer! so why would it be a comfort that you cant suffer? you cant feel safe or feel pleasure or feel peace or rest if you dont exist. Dont you see? YOU do NOT exsist.

You are saying I don't exist?

Damn, my cover is blown.

And all this time, I have just been a cleverly disguised spam-robot, generating random posts.

The reason it is a comfort... it is a comfort NOW, that I will not suffer THEN.

I try to live my left as best I can, and when it ends, it's gone. No more joy, sure - but no more pain. Just an end. I can almost see it as a reward.

That gives me a thought, actually. I guess the whole 'afterlife' thing in religion is a mechanism to avoid ever having to confront mortality.

I mean, I always assumed it was just so they could screw you in this life, with the promise that it will be better in the next... but, now it's got me thinking...

Actually the exact opposite is true, the "whole afterlife" thing allows a person to reconize their mortality on earth, and live life always thinking of that fact and what comes after death.

Actually the exact opposite is true, the "whole afterlife" thing allows a person to reconize their mortality on earth, and live life always thinking of that fact and what comes after death.

But you never actually DEAL with mortality, surely?

Because you are always assured that there IS something after this... even if it is Hell.

I live my life thinking of the fact that I will be gone once I die. So - I live the best life I can... because this is the only shot I get.

jeezum poopy. get this: there's a whole lot of shit out there in the world that isn't god (yeah yeah. or god created everything so he's all that exists and we know he's real [and that he's male, apparently] because there is stuff, and he made stuff. worst reasoning ever)

point being, atheists are not a coherent group. they range from stalinists to anarchists to that guy who wants to be hella patritoic and all-american but doesn't wanna have to say "under god"

atheism is just "A belief that doesn't include god"

actually just means "away from" (A-) "a belief in god" (theism)

it's not a belief in the scientific method.

it's also not belief in nothing.

nihilism is the belief in nothing.

atheism is just not a belief in god (or gods)

i strongly believe in people, and their struggles, and their sort of spiritual ability to band together and seek change and fight oppression. never seen god help out in any of that, but i feel i have common cause with people who do see that (quakers, liberation theologists, the Catholic Workers).

and like a couple people have said, we die. everybody does it. it's gonna happen. i don't think we really know why it happens, but this obsession with the afterlife (which many religions don't have... most judaism for example) is ridiculous. it's like the first thought you have is "oh, so here's life. what's gonna happen when it's over?!"

you don't know unless you've somehow decided based on faith.
and life is way more damn important, when you're alive, than what happens after you're not.

either you're dead, or something else happens. let you know when i get there.

i've thought about it. not scared. why are you?
to be honest, the idea of living forever horrifies me. i would be very sad if that turned out to be the case, and i am glad there is no reason to believe it is. the idea that some unknown all-powerful being intends to pass sentence on me based on standards i cannot comprehend is equally horrifying,
But you can comprehend the standards...

and i find no comfort in the thought of being judged by a Creator who would allow our world to get into its current state without intervening. i don't have high hopes for the judgment of a being who allows children to starve for the crime of being born in a poor country, and i don't have any confidence in a "Plan" that would include the suffering i have seen in my lifetime.

Would you rather have a creator who would force you to do whatever he wanted, changing everything to fit his standards, giving you no free will? or one who allowed the world to take its own course, and giving its inhabitants the freedom to do what they wanted on the world for their lives, then giving the consequences for their actions after their death?

But you never actually DEAL with mortality, surely?

Because you are always assured that there IS something after this... even if it is Hell.

I live my life thinking of the fact that I will be gone once I die. So - I live the best life I can... because this is the only shot I get.

But if you are wrong...you will spend eternity in Hell.
did that thought ever occur to you? That you could be wrong about death, (since no one has ever experienced it and lived to tell about it) and will you will live forever, in one place or another. That thought, that you could be wrong, is scary..for anyone.

But you can comprehend the standards...


according to all the religious persons i have encountered, no i cannot. because when i try to judge God's standards of morality i am told that He has a Plan, and as a human my flawed reasoning cannot comprehend the whole of that Plan.


Would you rather have a creator who would force you to do whatever he wanted, changing everything to fit his standards, giving you no free will? or one who allowed the world to take its own course, and giving its inhabitants the freedom to do what they wanted on the world for their lives, then giving the consequences for their actions after their death?
so are you saying that an all-powerful being couldn't give us free will and utopia at the same time? that to have free will we must have suffering in the world, and the ALL-POWERFUL GOD cannot change that?

i can choose between chocolate and vanilla ice cream freely, and nobody is harmed by that choice. i can choose who to love, who to befriend, where to eat, how often to bathe, and make any other of a million choices without harming anybody. are you saying that an all-powerful God couldn't find a way to design humans with perfect motivation? he couldn't give us free choice and simply design us to be inclined to not hurt one another? that He is limited to either 1) Free will + Pain or 2) No free will + No pain?

or how about all the people who suffer and die through no choice of their own? what about children born into poverty who starve to death? what about people killed in tragic accidents or natural disasters? is God unable or unwilling to prevent these deaths?

if He's perfect and all-powerful then He should, by definition, be able to solve this problem.

But you can comprehend the standards...



Would you rather have a creator who would force you to do whatever he wanted, changing everything to fit his standards, giving you no free will? or one who allowed the world to take its own course, and giving its inhabitants the freedom to do what they wanted on the world for their lives, then giving the consequences for their actions after their death?

This type of contradiction is the reason we have people who are Aethists in the first place. There are those who have said, 'did god give your goodness or the choice of goodness.' and we take this straight back to Eden and the wonderful snake incident. Now that was the lord making us have free will, and we abused it totally. People wonder why he won't help us out, we never listened to him once, why should he bother trying again to fix the world?

If there is a god, and i'm not saying there is or isn't, he probably doesnt give a toos about the people of earth anymore. We haven't ever done anything for him, why should he do anything for us.

Of course, the opinions all change when you throw evolution into the works. But I'm not going into that....

But if you are wrong...you will spend eternity in Hell.
did that thought ever occur to you? That you could be wrong about death, (since no one has ever experienced it and lived to tell about it) and will you will live forever, in one place or another. That thought, that you could be wrong, is scary..for anyone.

That is kind of what the 'fear of mortality' is all about, I reckon. Weighing up what happens after this? There could be a hell... sure, but there's no evidence - so why believe it, why worry?

And why will I spend eternity in Hell? I was a christian for a decade and a half before the contradiction of the whole thing set me down the path of discovery... and I have been 'Saved'.

According the the faith I was 'Saved' in... once saved = always saved... so I can be an Atheist with impunity... does your 'faith' give you the same leeway?

The fact is... since my 'awakening' I believe that my being 'Saved' was mere conditioning. Sure I felt a lightening of my loads, a slipping-away of all my troubles... but who wouldn't? Knowing that you have given away all your responsibility... it's like going with your friend to steal candy, and they get caught, and don't turn you in... that same sense of 'lightening' the load.

Now, I look back on it, and realise how 'Wanting to Believe' shaped my observation of reality. Now, I shape my own observation of reality.

And, I hope that one day, you will too.

according to all the religious persons i have encountered, no i cannot. because when i try to judge God's standards of morality i am told that He has a Plan, and as a human my flawed reasoning cannot comprehend the whole of that Plan.


so are you saying that an all-powerful being couldn't give us free will and utopia at the same time? that to have free will we must have suffering in the world, and the ALL-POWERFUL GOD cannot change that?

i can choose between chocolate and vanilla ice cream freely, and nobody is harmed by that choice. i can choose who to love, who to befriend, where to eat, how often to bathe, and make any other of a million choices without harming anybody. are you saying that an all-powerful God couldn't find a way to design humans with perfect motivation? he couldn't give us free choice and simply design us to be inclined to not hurt one another? that He is limited to either 1) Free will + Pain or 2) No free will + No pain?

or how about all the people who suffer and die through no choice of their own? what about children born into poverty who starve to death? what about people killed in tragic accidents or natural disasters? is God unable or unwilling to prevent these deaths?

if He's perfect and all-powerful then He should, by definition, be able to solve this problem.

Man, I envy you.

I can't choose between chocolate or vanilla ice-cream.

Now if it were Cherry-Vanilla, it would be easy.

But if you are wrong...you will spend eternity in Hell.
did that thought ever occur to you? That you could be wrong about death, (since no one has ever experienced it and lived to tell about it) and will you will live forever, in one place or another. That thought, that you could be wrong, is scary..for anyone.
so you'd rather believe in a God who would send somebody to be tortured for eternity just because they don't worship Him correctly? how do you know you are worshipping correctly, anyway? there are countless religions with different views on how to worship, so you are running the same risk as any atheist when you choose only one path of worship...doesn't it scare you that you will burn forever in Hell for not being a Catholic? doesn't it scare you that you will burn forever in Hell because you have worn clothes of mixed fabric? doesn't it scare you that if you've EVER eaten meat on Friday you will burn forever, and you are potentially serving a God who would enforce such ridiculous and sadistic doctrine?

Man, I envy you.

I can't choose between chocolate or vanilla ice-cream.

Now if it were Cherry-Vanilla, it would be easy.
i said i can choose freely, not that the choice is an easy one. generally i just put a scoop of everything into a big bowl and go to town...now THAT'S the kind of free will i can get behind.

so you'd rather believe in a God who would send somebody to be tortured for eternity just because they don't worship Him correctly? how do you know you are worshipping correctly, anyway? there are countless religions with different views on how to worship, so you are running the same risk as any atheist when you choose only one path of worship...doesn't it scare you that you will burn forever in Hell for not being a Catholic? doesn't it scare you that you will burn forever in Hell because you have worn clothes of mixed fabric? doesn't it scare you that if you've EVER eaten meat on Friday you will burn forever, and you are potentially serving a God who would enforce such ridiculous and sadistic doctrine?

My favourite part is the idea that people choose god, because they are scared of the alternative...

Isn't 'belief' then somewhat close to just straight 'fear'?

Isn't 'belief' then somewhat close to just straight 'fear'?

In many of the world's faiths, the answer is yes. That why I gradually migrated to atheism from my Southern Baptist roots. I was tired of being told to be scared.

I know many people find faith freeing and that belief in a god or other things frees them to be happy. I, on the other hand, found a great deal of freedom in the concept that death is the end. That there is nothing beyond that. It seems so comforting to believe that all that matters is what I do in the here and now. I won't be remembered. I won't live on. I'll have done what I wanted to do and I'll have lived as fully as possible. Without fear, without remorse, and fully responsible for my decisions.

And if I'm wrong, I'm willing to be wrong. If I really want to drive fast, the fact I could get a speeding ticket will not deter me. If I really don't believe in God, the threat of hell will not change my mind. Better to be free in hell, than a slave to fear in heaven.

The end? you no longer exsist? Can you even imagine that? YOU yourself are gone...nothing remains of you or your being, you are not "sleeping" in your coffin or something, but you~your brain, your feelings, your thoughts~ are no more.you are just gone. If that is what death is, I think you should be very scared.
does the thought that you didnt exist before you were conceived make you break out into a cold sweat too?
we exist for a fininte amount of time, from conception to death. i didnt exist before, i wont exist after, seems right to me.

You could say I'm an atheist, but I have to disagree with what the others seem to have posted. Death is... a mystery. I'll cross that bridge when I get there, and maybe I'll find some answers to all my questions.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'll have to believe that we all die and decompose. Even Christians.

The body decomposes, not the spirit.



I'm not buying into anything. If someone presents a decent argument, or the tiniest scrap of evidence, I am willing to embrace a new worldview. There is no evidence, so I chose to not believe what amounts to wishful thinking.

Its called faith, billions of people, now and before cant be wrong can they?

No. There isn't, really. Xfiles fans like to think there is. Christians like to think there is, because then they don't sound quite so crazy when they talk about 'demons walking the earth' and snakes that talk.

You don't believe in talking snakes? Not a Christian, then?

This is about Eve and the serpent right, who knows, Satan can make himself appear to be anything, why he chose the guise of a snake could have been just one out of convience to be in the tree of life at the right time, the bible never said it was an apple she picked either.
Maybe being a serpent reflected his true nature in some way.

Or do you pick and chose which bits of the Bible you want to believe?

No I believe all of it, naturally being just a human I cant comprehend all of the stuff I read.

Demons everywhere? Give me a break...

They are everywhere, I myself get harrassed by them sometimes,usually at night for not giving in to the world.

I have never seen or experienced anything 'ghostly' that couldn't be explained by my knowledge of science. That you cannot explain it says more about your science than about the existence of ghosts.

So using your science then explain the persistant belief of people in them all over the world for thousands of years if they dont exist.

How can there be ghosts AND Heaven/Hell?

I believe Ghosts are spirits that are meant to go to heaven but decide to stay here instead.
Why?
It could be any reason from being unhappy with how or why they died, or a rejection of God and his goodness or maybe just not wanting to leave the earth yet.

The body decomposes, not the spirit.

The body decomposes, that is true. I do not see this 'spirit'. I see no evidence for anything that continues after death - but then, I'm not desperately looking for a promise of immortality, either.

Its called faith, billions of people, now and before cant be wrong can they?

Yes. And they have been over and over.
Unless you believe that the world really does float on the back of four elephants, or is on the shoulders of a big giant guy, or that gods live on Mount Olympus, or that humans didn't know fire till Prometheus stole it from the gods, or that the world is flat, or that the sky is solid, and serves the purpose of keeping out water...


No I dont, they sound too satanic, so I guess not believing in them makes me more of a Christian then.


The book of Genesis quite clearly depicts a talking snake (there is also a talking donkey somewhere, I seem to remember...). So you just choose not to believe that bit.

As an aside - the talking snake is another of those elements that turns up a thousand years earlier in the Gilgamesh epics...

No I believe all of it, naturally being only human I cant comprehend all I read.


Excellent - you are arguing from the moral standpoint that there is a book that you can't understand. So - if I have trouble with my Quantum Mechanics textbook, that means electrons are god?

They are everywhere, I myself get regularly harrassed by them, most of the time at night for not giving in to the world.


They medicate people for that. You really should look into it. If you are conjuring up goblins that torture you at night, you have some serious issues.

So using your science then explain the persistant belief of people in them all over the world for thousands of years if they dont exist.

People fear death. It's that simple. We externalise what we fear - we feed it. I don't fear death - so I guess I don't have the same mental abberation that generates 'supernatural' episodes in others. And, also - if I find something I can't explain... I look for an explanation - I don't just assume that god/ghosts/the bogeyman did it.

I believe Ghosts are spirits that are meant to go to heaven but decide to stay here instead.
Why?
It could be any reason from being unhappy with how or why they died, or a rejection of God and his goodness or maybe just not wanting to leave the earth.


So now we get the choice of where to go? Show me the scriptural support.

This is about Eve and the serpent right, who knows, Satan can make himself appear to be anything, why he chose the guise of a snake could have been just one out of convience to be in the tree of life at the right time, the bible never said it was an apple she picked either.
Maybe being a serpent reflected his true nature in some way.



You are imposing your own belief over the top of scripture. The book of Genesis clearly says it was a snake. God cursed him: "upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life", which seems like it would be something of a handicap to an angel - but would fit in with the concept of an actual snake. Although, of course, since we are no longer blood sacrificing savages, we are now aware that snakes don't actually 'eat' dust.

Strange that god didn't know that really... but then again, he apparently thinks crickets have four legs, and that bats are a bird.

More likely the form of the serpent is derived from our hunter-gatherer ancestry - where food would be found at oases in the wilderness (hence a "Garden of Eden") and where the biggest threat to life would likely be the venomous snakes that would dwell near water.

But, you're right - a big ghost guy, who's archnemesis just happens to like dressing up as animals, contested over two naked imbeciles that didn't know how to 'couple', but were still expected to fill the whole world. That's a much more PLAUSIBLE scenario.

Why would I be afraid of nothing? That's what death is.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]The body decomposes, that is true. I do not see this 'spirit'. I see no evidence for anything that continues after death - but then, I'm not desperately looking for a promise of immortality, either.

The Spirit is invisible, elecrograms have picked up the human aura as an array of different colours depending on the persons mood at the time, by mood I mean if he/she has been depressed for along time the aura is a dark colour, happy vibrant people however practically glow, this I believe is part of the spirit.
In not desperately looking either, I just choose to believe.

Yes. And they have been over and over.
Unless you believe that the world really does float on the back of four elephants, or is on the shoulders of a big giant guy, or that gods live on Mount Olympus, or that humans didn't know fire till Prometheus stole it from the gods, or that the world is flat, or that the sky is solid, and serves the purpose of keeping out water...

What people choose to believe in whether its not correct or not isnt the main issue in having faith.

The book of Genesis quite clearly depicts a talking snake (there is also a talking donkey somewhere, I seem to remember...). So you just choose not to believe that bit.

The Donkey of Balam, God can do anything, so why is it hard to believe he could give the ability to speak somehow to a donkey?
And yes I believe that bit.

Excellent - you are arguing from the moral standpoint that there is a book that you can't understand. So - if I have trouble with my Quantum Mechanics textbook, that means electrons are god?

Electrons are just electrons.

They medicate people for that. You really should look into it. If you are conjuring up goblins that torture you at night, you have some serious issues.

More insults, try playing the ball, these demons leave when I say some prayers.

People fear death. It's that simple. We externalise what we fear - we feed it. I don't fear death - so I guess I don't have the same mental abberation that generates 'supernatural' episodes in others. And, also - if I find something I can't explain... I look for an explanation - I don't just assume that god/ghosts/the bogeyman did it.

Im religous and I dont fear death either, you look for scientific explanations for stuff you cant explain because it unnerves you to accept its spiritual.

So now we get the choice of where to go? Show me the scriptural support.

Theres a good example in Parables, about the man who begged God from Hell to be allowed back to warn his self indulgent relatives what awaited them if they didnt change.
He went back and warned them but they still didnt listen..

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]You are imposing your own belief over the top of scripture. The book of Genesis clearly says it was a snake. God cursed him: "upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life", which seems like it would be something of a handicap to an angel - but would fit in with the concept of an actual snake. Although, of course, since we are no longer blood sacrificing savages, we are now aware that snakes don't actually 'eat' dust.

It says it was a serpent.
Eating dust was a figure of speech not meant to be taken literally.
Scripture you dont even believe in, but you have the nerve to tell me Im imposing my belief over it?

More likely the form of the serpent is derived from our hunter-gatherer ancestry - where food would be found at oases in the wilderness (hence a "Garden of Eden") and where the biggest threat to life would likely be the venomous snakes that would dwell near water.

True, but is this really that important?

But, you're right - a big ghost guy, who's archnemesis just happens to like dressing up as animals, contested over two naked imbeciles that didn't know how to 'couple', but were still expected to fill the whole world. That's a much more PLAUSIBLE scenario.


Well its alot better than evolution, we came from the apes, but there are still apes around.
Maybe Von Daikens theorys would appeal to you.

But, you're right - a big ghost guy, who's archnemesis just happens to like dressing up as animals, contested over two naked imbeciles that didn't know how to 'couple', but were still expected to fill the whole world. That's a much more PLAUSIBLE scenario.


Well its alot better than evolution, we came from the apes, but there are still apes around.
Maybe Von Daikens theorys would appeal to you.
what is it about the concept of COMMON ANCESTOR that is so impossible for you people to understand? it's really really really basic stuff, people, you should have covered it in freshman bio.

hint: just because you don't understand evolution doesn't disprove it.

[QUOTE=Bottle]what is it about the concept of COMMON ANCESTOR that is so impossible for you people to understand? it's really really really basic stuff, people, you should have covered it in freshman bio.

Oh dont get me wrong I believe in evolution as well, I just dont believe in the modern teaching that God has no place in it.

hint: just because you don't understand evolution doesn't disprove it.

Well I could say the same to you about the Bible.

[QUOTE=Bottle]what is it about the concept of COMMON ANCESTOR that is so impossible for you people to understand? it's really really really basic stuff, people, you should have covered it in freshman bio.

Oh dont get me wrong I believe in evolution as well, I just dont believe in the modern teaching that God has no place in it.

if what you posted is what you think evolution is, then you don't believe in the scientific theory of evolution; you believe in some garbled nonsense that you call "evolution."

hint: just because you don't understand evolution doesn't disprove it.

Well I could say the same to you about the Bible.
you could say it to me, but you would look pretty silly since i minored in theology and wrote a total of over 100 pages in researched essays on the New Testament.

The central theme of this argument seems to be whether or not we have a spirit, and if we do, what happens to it when people die. Personally, I don't really believe in the whole 21 grams concept, but at the same time my beliefs are pretty animistic - in that I believe in the existance of spirits outside of the borders of monotheism or polytheism (and i don't take Tylor's evolutionist approach to this either).

People probably already know this, but Blaise Pascal produced a well known wager to prove that believing in God (the Christian heaven and hell type who would punish the deviant and non-believers in hell, and reward the good believers in heaven), was a rational and rewarding belief. To prove it, he drew up a matrix and assigned values for the cost of believing or not believing and the reward that one would get if God actually exists.
eg.

To believe in God = -10 (a cost, as it is a slight lack of freedom during life.)
To not believe in God = +10 (lack of church restraints on fornication etc.)

Then:
If God exists and you believe, then the reward = +infinity. (heaven for eternity)
If God exists and you don't believe then the reward = -infinity (hell for eternity)

or:
God doesn't exist and you believe = 0 (endless nothing)
God exists and you don't believe = 0 (endless nothing)

Pascal assumed for this that God was 0.5 probable (though it doesn't matter as infinite values override probablity here), and by utilisation maxismisation theory: if God didn't exist, the theist incurs a slightly duller life than the atheist, and ends up with -10 and the athiest revices a net utility of +10. However, if God does exist, the theist recieves infinity - 10 and the athiest recieves -infinity +10. He drew the conclusion that it is only rational to believe in God, and to not was puely a waste.

This of course is what theists are trying to say here, however, it would be sensible to note that this argument has so many counter arguments, that arguing belief in God through utility means is totally prone to rebuttal.

[QUOTE=Bottle]if what you posted is what you think evolution is, then you don't believe in the scientific theory of evolution; you believe in some garbled nonsense that you call "evolution."

So you dont believe God created evolution, that it just somehow..happenned?


you could say it to me, but you would look pretty silly since i minored in theology and wrote a total of over 100 pages in researched essays on the New Testament.

So that makes you an expert on the Bibles message, a hundred researched pages on something I believe in but you dont.

Pascal assumed for this that God was 0.5 probable (though it doesn't matter as infinite values override probablity here), and by utilisation maxismisation theory: if God didn't exist, the theist incurs a slightly duller life than the atheist, and ends up with -10 and the athiest revices a net utility of +10. However, if God does exist, the theist recieves infinity - 10 and the athiest recieves -infinity +10. He drew the conclusion that it is only rational to believe in God, and to not was puely a waste.


It also influences other peoples lives by living your own through Christian values, whether he exists or not, you have made other people happy.

It also influences other peoples lives by living your own through Christian values, whether he exists or not, you have made other people happy.

I'm not agreeing with Pascal on that point really, I think he even saw that a little debatable and I see what you mean about 'christian values', although some instances of what counted as Christian values have proved pretty tragic.

All the athiests, and some of the non-atheists, should read, or at least look into, a book called 'The Case For a Creator' by Lee Strobel. Lee Strobel was an atheist who, by looking at science and modern theories/evidence, came back to believing in not just any god, but a loving and very living God.

I believe Ghosts are spirits that are meant to go to heaven but decide to stay here instead.
Why?
It could be any reason from being unhappy with how or why they died, or a rejection of God and his goodness or maybe just not wanting to leave the earth yet.

AHA! So you can get to heaven even if you DON'T accept God? My goodness, well then, this whole issue is totally moot. Either there's a God and we go to heaven if we're good, hell if we're bad, or we just stay dead.

Honestly, I always thought one of the main theories was "If you don't accept God, you get automatic hell status". I guess I was just wrong.

Or could it be another case of that pesky foot-in-mouth syndrome? :D

[QUOTE=Shaed]
Honestly, I always thought one of the main theories was "If you don't accept God, you get automatic hell status". I guess I was just wrong.

Not accepting doesnt mean disbelieving, which is the reason I think these tortured souls dont go straight to hell, their good people who know God exists but reject him out of anger or sorrow.

All the athiests, and some of the non-atheists, should read, or at least look into, a book called 'The Case For a Creator' by Lee Strobel. Lee Strobel was an atheist who, by looking at science and modern theories/evidence, came back to believing in not just any god, but a loving and very living God.

Which is what I believe, God is something so more advanced in Knowlege and wisdom that he makes our most brilliant scientists and philosphers and all their knowledge and theorys childish in comparison.
The bible says God is everywhere, well maybe he is, maybe as one theory goes, our universe is just one small cell in his body, he is so big, how insignificant then would that make our great scientists and skeptical atheists feel if it was true.

Which is what I believe, God is something so more advanced in Knowlege and wisdom that he makes our most brilliant scientists and philosphers and all their knowledge and theorys childish in comparison.
The bible says God is everywhere, well maybe he is, maybe as one theory goes, our universe is just one small cell in his body, he is so big, how insignificant then would that make our great scientists and skeptical atheists feel if it was true.
roflmao. maybe God is so very far beyond our brilliant minds, but his followers sure as hell aren't good representatives of His genuis.

The Spirit is invisible, elecrograms have picked up the human aura as an array of different colours depending on the persons mood at the time, by mood I mean if he/she has been depressed for along time the aura is a dark colour, happy vibrant people however practically glow, this I believe is part of the spirit.
In not desperately looking either, I just choose to believe.


So now you claim that the 'aura' is the spirit? I am interested... so, do leaves have spirits, too?


What people choose to believe in whether its not correct or not isnt the main issue in having faith.


Surely that is the whole point? What you believe IS your faith? If you believe something is true, you have faith? Or am I misreading you... if I am, try typing that differently...


The Donkey of Balam, God can do anything, so why is it hard to believe he could give the ability to speak somehow to a donkey?
And yes I believe that bit.


Or a snake. Maybe god made the snake talk. So, in fact, it was HE who made Eve betray his commandment.

You realise, of course, an ass doesn't have the right 'mechanisms' to enable it to speak.

How is it you believe that the donkey was 'made' to talk, yet you require a demon to justify a talking snake.


Electrons are just electrons.


And you neatly avoid the issue that you have admitted you argue from a point of lack-of-understanding.

And why are electrons just electrons? You implied earlier that the aura was evidence of the 'spirit', and that is electromagnetic. By that token... a whole load of electrons should be equivalent to god.


More insults, try playing the ball, these demons leave when I say some prayers.


I was being serious. If you are having night terrors... especially ones you can 'bargain' with, I have concerns for your state of mind.

My mother in law is Bible Belt Southern Baptist as they come, and she doesn't get 'spiritual midnight callers'.

Either your faith is weak, or you should seek some kind of advice. Seriously.


Im religous and I dont fear death either, you look for scientific explanations for stuff you cant explain because it unnerves you to accept its spiritual.


No - I look for scientific explanation for stuff I can't explain, so that I can explain it. And science has yet to fail me.

You look for spiritual answers for stuff you can't explain, so that you don't have to explain it. I consider that a cop-out.



Theres a good example in Parables, about the man who begged God from Hell to be allowed back to warn his self indulgent relatives what awaited them if they didnt change.
He went back and warned them but they still didnt listen..

So there IS a way back out of hell... I am reeling from consistency.

[QUOTE=Shaed]
Honestly, I always thought one of the main theories was "If you don't accept God, you get automatic hell status". I guess I was just wrong.

Not accepting doesnt mean disbelieving, which is the reason I think these tortured souls dont go straight to hell, their good people who know God exists but reject him out of anger or sorrow.

Which, I am afraid, only goes to prove that you do not know your scripture:

John 3:17: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved".

John 3:18: "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God".

John 20:31: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name".

Why is it that creationists seem to have no grasp of science, and yet atheists seem to know the bible better than the creationists?

It says it was a serpent.
Eating dust was a figure of speech not meant to be taken literally.
Scripture you dont even believe in, but you have the nerve to tell me Im imposing my belief over it?


A serpent is a snake.

\Ser"pent\, n. [F., fr. L. serpens, -entis (sc. bestia),
fr. serpens, p. pr. of serpere to creep; akin to Gr. ???,
Skr. sarp, and perhaps to L. repere, E. reptile. Cf.
{Herpes}.]
1. (Zo["o]l.) Any reptile of the order Ophidia; a snake,
especially a large snake. See Illust. under {Ophidia}.

Note: The serpents are mostly long and slender, and move
partly by bending the body into undulations or folds
and pressing them against objects, and partly by using
the free edges of their ventral scales to cling to
rough surfaces. Many species glide swiftly over the
ground, some burrow in the earth, others live in trees.
A few are entirely aquatic, and swim rapidly. See
{Ophidia}, and {Fang}.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/serpent

The bible says "Eat Dust" - who are you to tell me that you know more about the intention of god than those who wrote the text?

Scripture I DID believe in. As I have already said, I am a 'recovering' christian.
And, apparently, I know the scripture better than you do, so I figure my 'expert-christian' credentials still stand.


True, but is this really that important?


What, that the whole creation myth could be no more than a documented descent from hunter-gatherer culture to domestication/irrigation culture?
Obviously not important to you, makes quite a big difference to my view of the story.


Well its alot better than evolution, we came from the apes, but there are still apes around.
Maybe Von Daikens theorys would appeal to you.

You really don't understand evolution, do you?

And, to me... a scientific explanation that makes logical sense, is far preferable to a fairytale story, littered with elementalism, bigotry and phallus-worship.

But, maybe that's just me.

roflmao. maybe God is so very far beyond our brilliant minds, but his followers sure as hell aren't good representatives of His genuis.

Well at least I can recognise his genius.

*yawns* how did we digress to evolution?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]So now you claim that the 'aura' is the spirit? I am interested... so, do leaves have spirits, too?


I didnt claim it was the whole spirit, just an indication of its existance. Leaves.. I doupt it.


Surely that is the whole point? What you believe IS your faith? If you believe something is true, you have faith? Or am I misreading you... if I am, try typing that differently...

I dont think the important issue of faith is just based on Knowelege, as some of our proud little bible scholars in here think, I think its a mixture of courage, suffering and humility which in the end produces wisdom.

Or a snake. Maybe god made the snake talk. So, in fact, it was HE who made Eve betray his commandment.

Who knows, but Eve had the free will all the same to not accept Satans temptation of knowlege.

You realise, of course, an ass doesn't have the right 'mechanisms' to enable it to speak.

Yes, maybe Gods a good ventriloquist.

How is it you believe that the donkey was 'made' to talk, yet you require a demon to justify a talking snake.

The serpent wasnt a demon, it was Satan.

And why are electrons just electrons? You implied earlier that the aura was evidence of the 'spirit', and that is electromagnetic. By that token... a whole load of electrons should be equivalent to god.

Possibly, but Id say it would be alot more to it than just that.

I was being serious. If you are having night terrors... especially ones you can 'bargain' with, I have concerns for your state of mind.

Dont under estimate the power of prayer, its not something you use to bargain with.

My mother in law is Bible Belt Southern Baptist as they come, and she doesn't get 'spiritual midnight callers'.

There probably scared of her.

Either your faith is weak, or you should seek some kind of advice. Seriously.

My faith is weak but with Gods help it will be stronger I hope.


No - I look for scientific explanation for stuff I can't explain, so that I can explain it. And science has yet to fail me.

So why cant it explain the supernatural.

You look for spiritual answers for stuff you can't explain, so that you don't have to explain it. I consider that a cop-out.

No I consider it as an acknoweledgement of things science cant explain yet either, so I dont dismiss it as nonexistant like you would, because that would be true ignorance.



So there IS a way back out of hell... I am reeling from consistency.


Theres no way back for good, he was allowed to go briefly to warn his friends and relatives of what awaited them if they didnt change their ways.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Which, I am afraid, only goes to prove that you do not know your scripture:

John 3:17: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved".

John 3:18: "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God".

John 20:31: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name".

None of the above quotes are even relevant to my point of Ghosts being what they are for the reasons I previously stated.

Try to understand that the Ghosts or lost souls although not in Heaven are in no way damned for eternity to be without God, like someone would be if they went to Hell.

God does not reject man, man rejects God, thus sentencing him/herself to hell.


Why is it that creationists seem to have no grasp of science, and yet atheists seem to know the bible better than the creationists?

Thats a very unintelligent statement to make, Im sure there are alot more Christians in the world who know and more importantly understand the Bibles message better than an Athiest would, which makes me wonder why do you guys bother studying something you dont even believe in?

My opinion of death:
You die when your brain ceases to function. It ceases to function due to damage from either injury or depravation of essential resources like air. Since your brain is essentially the blueprint for who you are, it's destruction is your permenent and irreversable immolation. No life beyond death, no second chances, check and mate.

well, considering the bible and shakespeare are the most popular texts to allude to in the english language, it tends to help if one has a decent grasp of them. I don't believe in God, but I've read the bible, if for no reason other than it being important and rather interesting. I spent 13 years at anglican schools, going to chapel twice or three times a week, and even an atheist learns about Jesus, God and the bible after that.

Well at least I can recognise his genius.
dude, put down the shovel.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]A serpent is a snake.

Oh really is it, thanks for stating the obvious, Im not argueing that, Im just saying thats what its referred to as in the Book of creation.


The bible says "Eat Dust" - who are you to tell me that you know more about the intention of god than those who wrote the text?

Its a figure of speech as if a snake is really going to eat dust, your just splitting hairs here.

Scripture I DID believe in. As I have already said, I am a 'recovering' christian.
And, apparently, I know the scripture better than you do, so I figure my 'expert-christian' credentials still stand.

Please by the sounds of it you never really were a Christian, I guess thats something you would probably view as a compliment right?




What, that the whole creation myth could be no more than a documented descent from hunter-gatherer culture to domestication/irrigation culture?
Obviously not important to you, makes quite a big difference to my view of the story.


0ne passage in the Bible states that one of our days is as a thousand years to God and vica verca, maybe that will help you understand Creation better.
Do you think God created evolution?


You really don't understand evolution, do you?

Most of Darwins theorys have already been disproved, therefore they have lttle meaning for me, so I cant see it mattering much whether I understand it or not.

And, to me... a scientific explanation that makes logical sense, is far preferable to a fairytale story, littered with elementalism, bigotry and phallus-worship.

Well I like the 'fairytale' better than what you prefer to believe in.

Bigotry is everywhere and always has been, its part of what God sent Jesus down to fix, you know love your brother and neighbor, it doesnt say dont love them if they have a different colour skin from you does it?

If so, can you produce the passage from the Bible of where it does?

The Roman were phallic worshippers, is that what your referring to in the Bible?

As for the elementism you will have to go into a bit more detail.

dude, put down the shovel.

Your so pettyminded its beyond even pathetic.

My opinion of death:
You die when your brain ceases to function. It ceases to function due to damage from either injury or depravation of essential resources like air. Since your brain is essentially the blueprint for who you are, it's destruction is your permenent and irreversable immolation. No life beyond death, no second chances, check and mate.

For you, this will probably come true.
Sad.

For you, this will probably come true.
Sad.
if he's right, it will happen to you as well. only you can make that a sad fact; for those of us who can face our own mortality, it is not sad at all. what is sad to us is the fact that people like you are unable to experience the fullness of your own existence because you cannot come to terms with its inevitable end.

Why do so many people insist that atheists be portrayed merely as antithetical to Christianity? Atheists reject Hinduism and Islam and Christianity and Buddhism and every other organized religion because they do not accept the idea that a divine higher power controls our destiny.

On the other hand, if some of us choose to believe in a higher power, we can do so thoughtfully instead of with our eyes closed. Blind faith is part of the brainwashing tactics of organized groups who want to control large numbers of people for political or economic gain. Why must faith be blind?

Faith should be eyes wide open, our minds free to explore all of the amazing miracles in the world around us, and to appreciate the inherent order in the explanations for these miracles. Every miracle has an explanation; some are too complex for us to yet comprehend.

For all those people who think evolution is false and that "electrons are just electrons" I suggest that the next time you or someone you know needs treatment for cancer you take the advice of Christian Scientists and stay away from hospitals and scientific care. Just pray and see what happens. And stop taking tylenol or aspirin for your headaches -- to you, these are just mere chemical reactions that don't really "do" anything. You should simply pray for that sinus congestion to disappear.

Obviously, even for those who believe in a God, there is a plan that goes beyond what is written in the Bible or any other ancient scripture. There sure as hell isn't any mention of DNA in the good book, but you can be sure that if you've got certain genes you're going to have kids with certain illnesses.

Stop confining yourselves to simplistic explanations and realize that science is part of God's creation too. And scientific discoveries are here to help us, not swindle us like many organized religious groups do. That's why it's important for all of us to be aware of science. What if only a few people in the world understood science, and then decided to use it to their advantage? All you people who dismiss science out of hand would then be up a creek without a paddle. Good luck. We're all supposed to have access to this wealth of information.

By the way, electrons are what allow us to type these messages into a machine made of metal and plastic and transmit our ideas and thoughts to people we don't even know, thousands of miles away. Stop using science if you don't believe in it, hypocrites!

And there are no "elecrograms" (sic) that demonstrate the colour of people's auras that have any scientific validity. That's shit science. In fact, there is no such thing as an electrogram. It has to be an electro-something-gram, as in electro-encephelogram (EEG) or electro-cardiogram (ECG), etc.

And for all those who want to refer to Christian scriptures for a foundation, I hope you know that the canonical gospels were compiled by a handful of people in the 2nd century who deliberately excluded other writings that they personally didn't want to be disseminated among early Christians, after a lot of fighting with others who knew the children of the first disciples. Some of those texts were written by the Apostles themselves and copies of them were re-discovered in 1945 in Egypt at a place called Nag Hammadi. The most important of these was the Gospel of Thomas which is the ONLY gospel that contains a concise collection of sayings of Jesus Christ. 25 years of intense scholarship indicate that the parables and instructions in Thomas are the closest recordings of what Jesus most likely said to his disciples, though some parts of the other gospels have parallel sayings (esp. Luke and Matthew). But by tradition, the Gospel of John is closest in theme to Thomas, and the message of the two matches up best. All the other gospels contain contradictions because they were written by individuals who were telling a story about Jesus. Only the Gospel of Thomas has a list of precise things that Jesus stated, some of which are also found in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John; only without all of the cultural and political context included in them.

Atheists, non-religious people, Unitarians, and open-minded members of organized religion have the advantage of knowing about BOTH science and scripture because they are willing to read and learn without automatically categorizing one way of thinking as "evil" or "wrong." They read it all and come to their own conclusions. Members of a particular religion who are fundamentalist in their thinking start out by assuming science to be wrong and misguided, and so they are biased before they even start reading. They have their minds made up for them, before they have a chance to see all sides of the story on balance.

well, considering the bible and shakespeare are the most popular texts to allude to in the english language, it tends to help if one has a decent grasp of them. I don't believe in God, but I've read the bible, if for no reason other than it being important and rather interesting. I spent 13 years at anglican schools, going to chapel twice or three times a week, and even an atheist learns about Jesus, God and the bible after that.

Theres a big difference between studying something and dismissing it as nonsense or learning from it and believing it to be Gods word.

What do you consider about the Bible as important?

I can't say that I have been a part of this whole thread, nor can I say that I have taken the time to read any of it. But what I have caught is somewhat disturbing. I am not trying to preach, I am trying to stop the preaching. When a person is comfortable with who they are and their personal place in this universe, then they are enlightened. Whether you find your enlightenment within the pages of an ancient text, on an infomercial late at night, in an act of community service, in sacrificing live animals, or in the acceptance of the finite nature of reality is your own business, and I am happy for any of you who can truthfully claim to be happy. But this is no place, nor is there a place, where it is alright to condemn others for what they believe in.

if he's right, it will happen to you as well. only you can make that a sad fact; for those of us who can face our own mortality, it is not sad at all. what is sad to us is the fact that people like you are unable to experience the fullness of your own existence because you cannot come to terms with its inevitable end.

Well thats a pretty ignorant statement to make, that depends alot I guess on what you consider to be the 'fullness of existance', can I hazard a guess and say breaking all the ten comandments set out in the Bible and feeling guilt free about it?
And like somone else said in this thread, if your right and Im wrong then neither of us will be the wiser, on the other hand if Im right and your wrong, then you havent got much to look forward to.

And believe me Ive been in enough scary situations already to face my own mortality.

I can't say that I have been a part of this whole thread, nor can I say that I have taken the time to read any of it. But what I have caught is somewhat disturbing. I am not trying to preach, I am trying to stop the preaching. When a person is comfortable with who they are and their personal place in this universe, then they are enlightened. Whether you find your enlightenment within the pages of an ancient text, on an infomercial late at night, in an act of community service, in sacrificing live animals, or in the acceptance of the finite nature of reality is your own business, and I am happy for any of you who can truthfully claim to be happy. But this is no place, nor is there a place, where it is alright to condemn others for what they believe in.

Im not condemning anyone whos an Athiest, there doing that to themselves already.

I can't say that I have been a part of this whole thread, nor can I say that I have taken the time to read any of it. But what I have caught is somewhat disturbing. I am not trying to preach, I am trying to stop the preaching. When a person is comfortable with who they are and their personal place in this universe, then they are enlightened. Whether you find your enlightenment within the pages of an ancient text, on an infomercial late at night, in an act of community service, in sacrificing live animals, or in the acceptance of the finite nature of reality is your own business, and I am happy for any of you who can truthfully claim to be happy. But this is no place, nor is there a place, where it is alright to condemn others for what they believe in.

Ultimately, this is the most important comment in this otherwise long-winded thread.

Also, Terminalia, why do you assume that SpakSpakSpak breaks the 10 commandments just because he is an atheist? Most atheists follow all of the commandments, especially "Thou shalt not worship false idols." It's rude to assume people are "immoral" because they believe differently than you.

Chill out.

Finally, everyone has lots to look forward to. I'm looking forward to tomorrow and the next day after that. What comes after death is for me to find out when that time arrives, and to be at peace with myself until then. I will show love to all those around me, and hope to make a positive difference in the world. So don't be so rude and dismissive of other people. Being rude is not what you'd expect from a so-called Christian like you. Either you lead a life full of joy and love or you don't even believe what you claim to believe.

[QUOTE=Rosh-Jetha]Why do so many people insist that atheists be portrayed merely as antithetical to Christianity? Atheists reject Hinduism and Islam and Christianity and Buddhism and every other organized religion because they do not accept the idea that a divine higher power controls our destiny.

Nowhere near with the same vigour and hatred they do with Christianity.

Blind faith is part of the brainwashing tactics of organized groups who want to control large numbers of people for political or economic gain.

The organised groups that use a persons religon are not really part of the faith, but your right they do use it.

Why must faith be blind?

Because thats what makes it strong.


Faith should be eyes wide open, our minds free to explore all of the amazing miracles in the world around us, and to appreciate the inherent order in the explanations for these miracles.

It wouldnt be faith then.

Every miracle has an explanation;

One that doesnt involve God right?

some are too complex for us to yet comprehend.

True.


For all those people who think evolution is false and that "electrons are just electrons" I suggest that the next time you or someone you know needs treatment for cancer you take the advice of Christian Scientists and stay away from hospitals and scientific care. Just pray and see what happens. And stop taking tylenol or aspirin for your headaches -- to you, these are just mere chemical reactions that don't really "do" anything. You should simply pray for that sinus congestion to disappear.

You pray for other people not yourself, when I prayed for the demons to leave me alone it was to send them to Gods peace only, so in effect I was praying for them, and believe me they go.
I dont agree with Christian Scientists on not using whats available, would Jesus have shut down hospitals 2000 years ago in Judea if they had the technology we do now to help people, of course not.
On saying that I think there would be quite a few things that have developed lately he would not like one bit.

Obviously, even for those who believe in a God, there is a plan that goes beyond what is written in the Bible
Like what?

There sure as hell isn't any mention of DNA in the good book, but you can be sure that if you've got certain genes you're going to have kids with certain illnesses.

As if people 2000 years go or more would have known or comprehended what DNA was.

Stop confining yourselves to simplistic explanations and realize that science is part of God's creation too.

I dont think it really matters what bearing on your belief a simple or complex view on things really has, and yes Science is part of Gods creation, how could it not be.

And scientific discoveries are here to help us, not swindle us like many organized religious groups do.

Didnt Scientists discover the Atom bomb, was that in the name of religon?

That's why it's important for all of us to be aware of science. What if only a few people in the world understood science, and then decided to use it to their advantage? All you people who dismiss science out of hand would then be up a creek without a paddle. Good luck. We're all supposed to have access to this wealth of information.

Wealth or curse?

By the way, electrons are what allow us to type these messages into a machine made of metal and plastic and transmit our ideas and thoughts to people we don't even know, thousands of miles away. Stop using science if you don't believe in it, hypocrites!

Oh Ok Ill stop using my car and sleeping in my house, I dont believe in them either.

And there are no "elecrograms" (sic) that demonstrate the colour of people's auras that have any scientific validity. That's shit science.

And that doesnt even make sense.

In fact, there is no such thing as an electrogram. It has to be an electro-something-gram, as in electro-encephelogram (EEG) or electro-cardiogram (ECG), etc.

Whatever it is, it measured and showed the energy surrounding the human body and observed different colours on various people, I think this is something that goes beyond mere static electricity.

And for all those who want to refer to Christian scriptures for a foundation, I hope you know that the canonical gospels were compiled by a handful of people in the 2nd century who deliberately excluded other writings that they personally didn't want to be disseminated among early Christians, after a lot of fighting with others who knew the children of the first disciples. Some of those texts were written by the Apostles themselves and copies of them were re-discovered in 1945 in Egypt at a place called Nag Hammadi. The most important of these was the Gospel of Thomas which is the ONLY gospel that contains a concise collection of sayings of Jesus Christ. 25 years of intense scholarship indicate that the parables and instructions in Thomas are the closest recordings of what Jesus most likely said to his disciples, though some parts of the other gospels have parallel sayings (esp. Luke and Matthew). But by tradition, the Gospel of John is closest in theme to Thomas, and the message of the two matches up best. All the other gospels contain contradictions because they were written by individuals who were telling a story about Jesus. Only the Gospel of Thomas has a list of precise things that Jesus stated, some of which are also found in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John; only without all of the cultural and political context included in them.

There were only 4 gospels in the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they were written during and after by these men who personally knew Jesus as his disciples.

Can you tell me more about the percise things Jesus said Thomas recorded, which contradicts Matthew Mark and Luke?
Also you seem to be saying alot of what the New testament has now isnt exactly true and that alot of parts were left out, example, something important you left out- The Dead sea scrolls, and the 'Gospel of Thomas' do you really believe this to be atrue account, how do you know this isnt a fabrication also?

Atheists, non-religious people, Unitarians, and open-minded members of organized religion have the advantage of knowing about BOTH science and scripture because they are willing to read and learn without automatically categorizing one way of thinking as "evil" or "wrong."


'Open minded' an agreeable sounding PC bandage for Churches who follow or have fallen into perversion.

I dont see the relevance of comparing Science and Scripture, and some ways of thinking can be wrong and very evil.

They read it all and come to their own conclusions. Members of a particular religion who are fundamentalist in their thinking start out by assuming science to be wrong and misguided, and so they are biased before they even start reading. They have their minds made up for them, before they have a chance to see all sides of the story on balance.

Rubbish, belief in God has got nothing to do with Science, which can be used for good purposes or bad.

[QUOTE=Rosh-Jetha]Ultimately, this is the most important comment in this otherwise long-winded thread.

Yeah right hes straight out of Jerry Springer.

Also, Terminalia, why do you assume that SpakSpakSpak breaks the 10 commandments just because he is an atheist? Most atheists follow all of the commandments, especially "Thou shalt not worship false idols." It's rude to assume people are "immoral" because they believe differently than you.


Well you could be assuming that he doesnt, when someone says they should be free to experience all the joys life has to offer that usually covers alot of sins as well as good things.

Chill out.

Im chill, Im chill.. :rolleyes:

Finally, everyone has lots to look forward to. I'm looking forward to tomorrow and the next day after that. What comes after death is for me to find out when that time arrives, and to be at peace with myself until then. I will show love to all those around me, and hope to make a positive difference in the world. So don't be so rude and dismissive of other people. Being rude is not what you'd expect from a so-called Christian like you. Either you lead a life full of joy and love or you don't even believe what you claim to believe.

Another Jerry Springer :rolleyes:

Please Ive been told by one member on this thread in capital letters to shut the fuck up, why dont you take your homage of love and understanding to them as well?
Living a life full of joy and love is great, but you cant be nice to everyone.

I feel like diving right on in!

Nowhere near with the same vigour and hatred they do with Christianity.
Christianity butts itself into other people's buisness. You butt, they butt. Get used to it.

Because thats what makes it strong.
Then throw away your bible. It's weakening your faith.

It wouldnt be faith then.
Explain

Didnt Scientists discover the Atom bomb, was that in the name of religon?
Now, that's hardly fair. It's a fact that science will always be the military's whore. But I do recall that the crusades, the inquisition, and the most recent terrorist attacks have been in the name of religion.

Wealth or curse?
Wealth. Knowledge is power, giving knowledge is spreading out the power so nobody has too much of it. In fact, I want you to explain how it's a "curse."

'Open minded' an agreeable sounding PC bandage for Churches who follow or have fallen into perversion.
That's right-you, and only you, know the word of God. If those other "christians" don't agree, they're going to hell. I have a friend for you to meet, a mister Jack Chick.

Amen Terminalia :-D

About killing in the name of religion . . . .
The Orthodox Muslims (true muslims) say killing for faith is wrong, so did Christ when he said "whoever draws the sword, dies by the sword" Anyone can claim they are Christian and kill, and the west suffered many errors forced from wars and putting the Pope in charge to defend the entire west from invaders. In fact, the Orthodox Christians even think killing for faith is wrong. (I can't say that about the crusades or the early protestants - apparently our free will allows us to be heretics) but I can say that God made it clear that we should not kill anyone unless we are defending ourselves from someone trying to kill us.

I like how people just hear or see one thing and believe it to be true, don't people ever look deep into things? How about do people ever try things, . . .like praying or believing? I guess they would rather talk instead of try. . . . heh, hope you enjoy talking a lot . . .

I figured I would make a few points...

Atheism, though it is the exceptance of death, has a lower suicide rate then any other religion.

Many people of a religious following wish for immortality...though if we were given an unlimited supply of time it would become worthless...if you had 5 minutes left ever with your family a certain amount of worth is distributed to that time, if that time was lengthened to many years that exact same amount of worth would be spread out more...it's like spreading the same amount of butter on a normal piece of toast and an enormous piece of toast...

When one fears something they often become anxious and lose control...if you were about to meet your favorite musician you would greatly dread the chance of coming off as a moron, the fear will cause anxiety and you will begin to lose control of things...one's fear of death is exactly the same, if you fear death it will only be your demise, if you accept death and let it take you when it gets to you then you will be much more calm and relaxed...

I'm not calling religion wrong or anything...I personally don't feel I have a need to follow it but if it helps you in some way than I encourage you to continue with it.

Religion, although having many impurities, was once an excellent thing for the world. People could will away their insecurities, gather their own opinion on what they lived for, and aside from that it was excellent socially...however; lately religion has become exceedingly commercial and although a great deal of money goes to helping others it should not be mandatory help but rather out of the goodness of your heart.

I may be just waiting for death but I'm loving every moment I have until then, I cherish life and that's why I live it rather than waste my time trying to figure out how to delay something that can't (atleast with the world's current knowledge...) be stopped...

I also don't really follow the 'we have a purpose' stuff...it's a nice thought but there's so many other things that don't have a reason, so why would I believe there's a reason for me?

PS: I heard this from a Christian friend of mine...it may be a bit insulting I suppose but I thought it was amusing, and people need to learn to be more accepting...you can insult my beliefs if you want, I don't mind, as long as I get to insult yours back without you blowing up at me...

A Christian was talking to someone about Christianity when he said to the person 'You need to find Jesus'...the response was 'What, you lost him?! Next time use better nails' :p

Death is something that should be avoided but not feared. I try to postpone my death as much as possible, but when it becomes inevitable, let it come. In oblivion there are no feelings and therefore no complaints.

Religion is not something for you to just believe in, its truth. . . We are in an age where personal opinion is truth. If that were true, then this world would be extremely messed up. There will be another life, we all will be judged, and there is someone next to us right now as we speak. Everyone has a choice of just calling me weird or stupid or anything like that, but if i'm right, your screwed

I think everyone should be respectful of other's beliefs...Christians should respect an atheists right not to believe in a deity, atheists should respect a Christians right to worship however they want.

The problem comes about when people start trying to enforce their beliefs and ideals on others - and, I'm sorry to say, Christians are one of the worst offenders at this...from missionaries spreading the word to "heathen" masses in third world countries, to Christian right-wingers exerting pressure to get certain things banned and/or censored...there is a very good reason that Church and State should be seperated...

Religion is not something for you to just believe in, its truth. . . We are in an age where personal opinion is truth. If that were true, then this world would be extremely messed up. There will be another life, we all will be judged, and there is someone next to us right now as we speak. Everyone has a choice of just calling me weird or stupid or anything like that, but if i'm right, your screwed
If Jesus truly loves us, would he send an otherwise moral person like me to hell just for not believing the miniscule evidence in his existence? I don't think so.

Oh yeah, and since you asked - you're stupid.

Your knowledge is incomplete. . . . People fall short from the grace of God, if you don't try, how can Christ try? Oh also, have you ever looked for God? hmmmmm wierd how you haven't

I personally think that religion was just a way to answer the unexplained. It was created in the earliest days of mankind when they didn't know anything about anything. They needed a reason for everything, because they couldn't figure out why stuff happened. Why you could light a fire by rubbing two sticks together. Where everything came from. They needed answers, but they couldn't get them, so they created God. An all-powerful being who was the cause of everything. Everything existed because of god, and God was their answer to everything.

My apologies if a reply similar to mine has been posted, and I agree that people should respect others' beliefs. I have lots of christian friends, and I don't care what they believe in. So they believe in God and I don't. Big deal. Let them live their own lives and you won't have to get into pointless arguments.

Your knowledge is incomplete. . . . People fall short from the grace of God, if you don't try, how can Christ try? Oh also, have you ever looked for God? hmmmmm wierd how you haven't
Christ doesn't need to try (if he even exists). He's omnipotent. If he wants to do something, it takes him no effort.

As for looking for God... I was raised religiously (not Christian though, Jewish). But I already realized at a young age that it's all a bunch of nonsense.

I personally think that religion was just a way to answer the unexplained. It was created in the earliest days of mankind when they didn't know anything about anything. They needed a reason for everything, because they couldn't figure out why stuff happened. Why you could light a fire by rubbing two sticks together. Where everything came from. They needed answers, but they couldn't get them, so they created God. An all-powerful being who was the cause of everything. Everything existed because of god, and God was their answer to everything.

My apologies if a reply similar to mine has been posted, and I agree that people should respect others' beliefs. I have lots of christian friends, and I don't care what they believe in. So they believe in God and I don't. Big deal. Let them live their own lives and you won't have to get into pointless arguments.
Here's my opinion...

Religion had many excellent uses historically. However, everything it gave to us, we have a better version now. Let's look at what religion gave us:

1. An explanation about the origin and nature of the world. People are naturally curious to know why things happen, and when they can't figure it out, someone makes something up, and everybody is happy again. It happened many times, and the creation of God is just one of them. Nowadays, science can give us real explanations, so who needs superstition anymore?
2. Personal security. Many problems plague us, that we humans simply cannot solve, or anyway not completely. People do not like feeling helpless, so they feel better about such problems if they think that a benevolent God is watching and guiding them and that all their problems can be cured if they simply pray enough. However, even if I have a disease that is uncurable by modern medicine, I personally would far rather you spend your time researching a new cure than praying for me. Nonetheless, we cannot yet solve everything and probably never will, and even when scientists are researching a cure, there's probably not much that you personally can do about it - I think that this is one of the most important reasons why religion still exists.
3. Moral guidelines. Almost all religions have some laws about what its followers may or may not do. Nowadays, isn't that what governments are supposed to be for? Besides, religious morals simply do not correspond to those of modern society. May I remind you that the bible supports slavery, female oppression, and killing people for working on the wrong day?
4. Stories. I know, the story of how Lot's daughters got him drunk in order to commit incest with him probably isn't considered top-grade literature nowadays. But in its time, it was probably a fairly normal "fairy tale", whether it really happened or not. Nonetheless, I wouldn't read it to MY children, if I had any.

Conclusion: Religion had its time, and that time is now past.

(And that's just the good side of religion. Religion also has a bad side of intolerance for others' beliefs. In the olden days when religion essentially equalled territory, each God being believed in a certain geographical area, this didn't matter much, and was greatly outweighed by the good things mentioned above. In modern days, however, globalization has caused different cultures to mix geographically and be able to talk to each other over long distances, causing this intolerance to become more apparent, while again the good stuff has been weakened and is now outweighed by the problems.)

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.

Christianity is the dominating religion isnt it?

Athiesm is a religon! It has beliefs and a large number of people follow those beliefs

Athiesm isnt stupid because it is reality

Athiesm isnt just about not believing in god and everything the bible says, its about seeking the factual truth
Instead of trusting some book

The Bible is fiction

Athiesm is intelligent and has a point
Christianity is stupid and pointless

What we need to do is get the worlds most intelligent athiests and religious people and put them in a room for five years. Five years. One room. No doors.. one window.. but its just too high for them to see out of! They wont be let out of the room until everyone agrees that either there is a god or there isn't. If, in five years, they do not come to a conclusion then we shall blast them off into space.

Yeah, that'd be the day.

edit: I am - Ions and I have a twisted sense of humour. Come see me at the Plaza of Nations, B.C. August 30th at 9:30pm. Doors close at 10.

What we need to do is get the worlds most intelligent athiests and religious people and put them in a room for five years. Five years. One room. No doors.. one window.. but its just too high for them to see out of! They wont be let out of the room until everyone agrees that either there is a god or there isn't. If, in five years, they do not come to a conclusion then we shall blast them off into space.

Yeah, that'd be the day.
Do we get internet access? Because I'm not omniscient and must sometimes rely on googling up material to prove my point.

Here's something to think about: the bible (fuck capitilzing it), was written by man. Man makes the decisions what to write in it. Did you everthink that maybe they wrote what they wanted to people to abide by. The bible, could have been created as a process of conspiracy of mind control.

Ok now seriously, the bible is just a bunch of fairy tales.

Atheism is based on facts. Christianity, or any religion is based on believing on something because you're told to. Most Christians are Christians because there parents are Christians. I have never met a Christian who converted to Christianity from another religion. I have met countless Atheisms who converted because they woke up, matured, looked at facts and made a decision.

Religions forces control on people's thoughts. They tell you something and you have to believe it without any proof.

As for death, life just ends, you don't exist any more. Your mind doesn't exist any more, you don't think anymore.

One last thing, I see Christians "sinning" more than Atheists.

In all, Christians are bitches. I'll be narrowminded in this post, because all Christians are narrow minded in the first place.

Here's something to think about: the bible (fuck capitilzing it), was written by man. Man makes the decisions what to write in it. Did you everthink that maybe they wrote what they wanted to people to abide by. The bible, could have been created as a process of conspiracy of mind control.

Ok now seriously, the bible is just a bunch of fairy tales.

Atheism is based on facts. Christianity, or any religion is based on believing on something because you're told to. Most Christians are Christians because there parents are Christians. I have never met a Christian who converted to Christianity from another religion. I have met countless Atheisms who converted because they woke up, matured, looked at facts and made a decision.

Religions forces control on people's thoughts. They tell you something and you have to believe it without any proof.

As for death, life just ends, you don't exist any more. Your mind doesn't exist any more, you don't think anymore.

One last thing, I see Christians "sinning" more than Atheists.

In all, Christians are bitches. I'll be narrowminded in this post, because all Christians are narrow minded in the first place.


http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html

[QUOTE=Rotar]Here's something to think about: the bible (fuck capitilzing it), was written by man. Man makes the decisions what to write in it. Did you everthink that maybe they wrote what they wanted to people to abide by. The bible, could have been created as a process of conspiracy of mind control.

So the BIBLE is just a giant conspiracy to control people, are you sure your the one that doesnt believe in fairy tales?

Ok now seriously, the bible is just a bunch of fairy tales.

Really, even though all of the people in it have been recorded through census to have existed.

Atheism is based on facts.

All its based on is a narrow minded belief in their being no God, can you give me facts to prove his nonexistance?

I have never met a Christian who converted to Christianity from another religion.

I have, from Islam, just because you havent doesnt automatically mean that they dont.
Try if you can, to think outside of yourself.

I have met countless Atheisms who converted because they woke up, matured, looked at facts and made a decision.

But they might return to their faith one day when they really wake up.
And thats Atheists not Atheisms.

Religions forces control on people's thoughts. They tell you something and you have to believe it without any proof.

Speaking for Christianity, you dont have to believe at all, however the same cant be said for third world countrys presently under sufference of an Islamic Jihad.

As for death, life just ends, you don't exist any more. Your mind doesn't exist any more, you don't think anymore.

Who told you that a dead person?

One last thing, I see Christians "sinning" more than Atheists.

In what way, try and think of some specific details in your answer.

In all, Christians are bitches. I'll be narrowminded in this post, because all Christians are narrow minded in the first place.

Spoken like a true bigot.

Athiesm is intelligent and has a point
Christianity is stupid and pointless

If anythings stupid and pointless it would be what you just posted sorry.

[QUOTE=New Fubaria]I think everyone should be respectful of other's beliefs...Christians should respect an atheists right not to believe in a deity, atheists should respect a Christians right to worship however they want.

I do respect an Atheists right to believe in nothing, I just feel sorry for them, can I do that, is that OK?

The problem comes about when people start trying to enforce their beliefs and ideals on others - and, I'm sorry to say, Christians are one of the worst offenders at this...from missionaries spreading the word to "heathen" masses in third world countries,

If anything, Christian missionarys spend 90% of their time helping starving people in Third world countrys to food, clean water, medicene, helping dig ditches, build houses and giving them free education, the heathen masses as you call them are not forced to convert to Christianity for this, where as Islamic extremists in these same countrys are offering none of this help to the 'heathen masses' and killing them if they dont convert to Islam, perhaps you have a comment to make on that issue, hopefully with more insight.


to Christian right-wingers exerting pressure to get certain things banned and/or censored...there is a very good reason that Church and State should be seperated

Oh I see so now the Christians who dont condone homosexuality in Church or the State, and never have, are now considered to be 'right wing' Christians, funny because we never considered ourselves to be that way.

[QUOTE=Goed]
Christianity butts itself into other people's buisness. You butt, they butt. Get used to it.

I got used to it along time ago, and I suggest if thats OK with you, that you follow your own advice and get used to it as well.

Then throw away your bible. It's weakening your faith.

Your not very bright are you.


Explain

Yes sir!

The person always looking for an explanation to everything about Gods existance is never really satisfied or sure of what their looking for.
God could appear in person to you, would you really believe then?
I am happy to accept Christs teachings as relevant and real, and that is enough for me to believe in Gods existance.




Now, that's hardly fair. It's a fact that science will always be the military's whore. But I do recall that the crusades, the inquisition, and the most recent terrorist attacks have been in the name of religion.

WW I and II which killed more people between them than all other wars in history probably combined, were over conquest of other nations, not religon.


Wealth. Knowledge is power, giving knowledge is spreading out the power so nobody has too much of it. In fact, I want you to explain how it's a "curse."

Hiroshima ring any bells?


That's right-you, and only you, know the word of God. If those other "christians" don't agree, they're going to hell. I have a friend for you to meet, a mister Jack Chick.

Plenty of Christians agree with my viewpoint, its not mine alone, those other 'Christians' as you call them probably will go to Hell alot quicker than anyone, because they have twisted his word around to suit their own worldly comforts.

I do respect an Atheists right to believe in nothing, I just feel sorry for them, can I do that, is that OK?
Has it ever crossed your mind that I feel sorry for theists, too? I pity you for wasting time on an imaginary friend. I pity you for being so inherently immoral that you can't do the right thing without thinking God told you to. I pity you for being forced to close your eyes to scientific facts simply because some ancient book disagrees with them. Really, I pity you.

WW I and II which killed more people between them than all other wars in history probably combined, were over conquest of other nations, not religon.
The atom bomb was what ended the second one, remember? I don't agree with the US's choice of target, but fact is that it did end the war.

"Here lies an atheist: All Dressed up with no place to go" ;) :p

Has it ever crossed your mind that I feel sorry for theists, too? I pity you for wasting time on an imaginary friend. I pity you for being so inherently immoral that you can't do the right thing without thinking God told you to. I pity you for being forced to close your eyes to scientific facts simply because some ancient book disagrees with them. Really, I pity you.

Nowhere near, or even as close to the amount of pity I feel for you.

"Here lies an atheist: All Dressed up with no place to go" ;) :p
I have better things to do with my time to do than listen to a long boring sermon.

Nowhere near, or even as close to the amount of pity I feel for you.
Nope. I pity you more. And I also pity you for pitying me, because I rather enjoy my non-religious life.

(COMMENCE CHILDISH DO NOT/DO TOO ARGUMENT!)

The atom bomb was what ended the second one, remember? I don't agree with the US's choice of target, but fact is that it did end the war.

Yes Im quite aware it ended the second one, being born twenty four years after the event took place to the north of my country, it was talked about in general as I grew up by people around me, alot of them who experienced the second world war, it was seen alot more then on TV as well.

And in no way should the discovery of this horrible device of mass killing be laid soley at the US or Oppenheimers feet, Germany wasnt far off cracking it either.
My point being Knowlege of physics really accelerated around the world in the 20thC, so this horror was bound to be unearthed sooner or later by somebody.
Im just glad that Adolf Hitler in his madness during the 1930's, drove out the one people who could have helped him win the war in this fashion, the most brilliant scientists he had in Germany at the time, a group of Jewish scientists, Robert Oppenheimer being amongst them.
Strange that this could effect history so much, you would swear there was almost some divine plan behind it.

[QUOTE=Milostein]Nope. I pity you more. And I also pity you for pitying me, because I rather enjoy my non-religious life.

Good for you, I enjoy my religous life, and you really must pity me alot because the amount of pity I have for you knows no boundarys.

(COMMENCE CHILDISH DO NOT/DO TOO ARGUMENT!)

Yes I do feel like Im arguing with a child now that you mention it.
You chuck tantrums when your denied something dont you?

I have better things to do with my time to do than listen to a long boring sermon.

'Twas a Joke. A mere sprinkling of a light-hearted comment in a debate which is getting fairly fiery.

'Twas a Joke. A mere sprinkling of a light-hearted comment in a debate which is getting fairly fiery.
I know. I heard it before, actually. But I felt I needed to comment.

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.

no atheism is not a religion its a lack of religion the word atheist means without faith its that simple

additionaly if you think not beliveing in a religion is so stupid the would you care to explain why it makes far more sence simply working by the laws of physics than your average religion does
and yes i accept there is still more to understand about our world but at the minute it makes the most sence to asume there is no all powerfull entity however like any scientist i will accept any new evidence you can bring forwards


sorry about that but i dont like needless closedmindedness and the way i see it i dont need to feel anything about death because well when it happens i will hardly be around to care about it

it i dont need to feel anything about death because well when it happens i will hardly be around to care about it

You Atheists are sad sad people.

Im an athiest.

To me, death is the end.

Thats it.

No afterlife.....no paradise....nothing.
boring

boring

Very, he sounds absolutlely hopeless.

A basic tenant of physics is that you cannot get something from nothing. Conservation of energy, and all that.

There is something that animates the physical body, something that is lacking when we are in death. If that something cannot be made from nothing, then it must go somewhere after life or be converted to another form of energy. This something we call "person" or "soul".

That said, there are things that are made from nothing, that exist apart from the laws of physics that rule (objective) reality; and that is ideas and concepts that the mind creates subjectively. They have no physical substance, they are not measurable by science, but they do undoubtedly exist since they can be recognized, understood, manipulated and brought out into the physical world ("real-ized") through voice and hand (and other expressions of the body).

It is not necessary to believe in an afterlife, but preservation of the soul-energy in some form or another (whether intact or not) seems logical.

Very, he sounds absolutlely hopeless.

Ah, so now we evaluate our religion on who can sugar-coat death the most and say the happiest things?

If that's true, I think it'd be less hopeless for Jesus not to die on the cross- it'd be much less hopeless and more positive if he lived, no, and just said we were absolved from our sins.

A basic tenant of physics is that you cannot get something from nothing. Conservation of energy, and all that.

There is something that animates the physical body, something that is lacking when we are in death. If that something cannot be made from nothing, then it must go somewhere after life or be converted to another form of energy. This something we call "person" or "soul".

That said, there are things that are made from nothing, that exist apart from the laws of physics that rule (objective) reality; and that is ideas and concepts that the mind creates subjectively. They have no physical substance, they are not measurable by science, but they do undoubtedly exist since they can be recognized, understood, manipulated and brought out into the physical world ("real-ized") through voice and hand (and other expressions of the body).

It is not necessary to believe in an afterlife, but preservation of the soul-energy in some form or another (whether intact or not) seems logical.
um, no. the thing that animates the human body is easily explained by neuroscience, and it comes from chemical reactions and electrical interplay that do not continue after tissue death. the origin of these reactions is the chemical and electrical structure that is built by the DNA-guided process of human physiological development, and after death the energy does exactly what a loose electrical charge does: disapate.

you see, the energies that we identify as consciousness don't actually produce consciousness unless they are acting upon a certain set of structures. the energies that power our vision, for example, will not produce vision if the eyes are removed or the optical cortex is destroyed. it is the combination of the reactions and the structure which produces what we know as consciousness, and if either ceases to be present then consciousness ceases to be.

to say that the "soul" as a phenomenon seperate from the physical body is a logical conclusion doesn't not follow from any of the scientific information we have to date. the only way that is logical is if you define "soul" as a purely abstract concept (like "beauty" or "love"), in which case it is irrelevant anyway.

Ah, so now we evaluate our religion on who can sugar-coat death the most and say the happiest things?

If that's true, I think it'd be less hopeless for Jesus not to die on the cross- it'd be much less hopeless and more positive if he lived, no, and just said we were absolved from our sins.
me too; if the only criterion we use to evaluate religion is how happy it makes us, then Christianity looses by a mile.

Well, admittedly I haven't had time to read every single post here, but it appears there's something of a hard-headed debate about who's crazy or not.
I was raised as an Atheist (through choice, as unlike a lot of people I was given the choice of what I did and did not believe in this respect) and from this progressed onto some aspects of Satanism (it's basically like Atheism with a few tweaks, you worship yourself, as Satan in Satanism is the metaphorical enbodiment of the human ambition and spirit - the instinctive will to survive. This is on first glance egotistical, I know, yet in retrospect this makes you entirely responsible and accountable for your own actions, and these must then be logically justified, rather than simply using a non-existent personification to justify one's actions).

From my perspective, I would say that fear of death is one of mankind's most primal instincts - And religion is one way to control that instinct, since religion is primarily a method of control and power over others. Human beings are naturally scared of death - for an early society to persuade people to do life-threatening things it was necessary to explain the mystery of death with something that was essentially made up, and people in power would then use that religious belief to further their own political agenda by telling people that this afterlife could be ensured by following their rules. Although giving people a sense of hope, the concept of an afterlife also gives an immense amount of control to people who would otherwise have to get off their arse and figure things out for real.
The problem we face now, is of course the fact that in the past century people have been figuring things out for real at an alarming rate - in a secular society Joe Public is somewhat more intelligent and discerning than the average peasant 300 years ago, science has already done far more than our religions could ever prove in a million years.
So why even bother with religion, right? I mean most people who haven't had this stuff pushed into their head while it was still soft wouldn't believe a word of it, even the major religions like Christianity have had to change the entire definition of their teachings in order to even vaguely keep up with the rate our society is evolving.
But more to the point, I think the reason so many 'sane' people still advocate traditional religion is that very subject - the fear of death. Which begs the question - why the hell should we fear it anyway? You see that's the problem, Atheists, or anyone else for that matter, should not have to fear death, yet the reason we have is because our society has lied to us in order to gain control over our lives. Now we have a conflict in views - IE; we don't get burned at the sodding stake for trying to disprove things - People are realising that there may indeed be no such thing as an afterlife, yet this makes them fear death even more than the prospect of eternal damnation!

In conclusion, I think the fear of death is a very rational and very sane thing, for the main reason that, deep down, we all know that there is very likely nothing after this remotely comparable to our current state of existence. But rather than lie to ourselves, making up our silly stories about afterlife, the eternal retention of our personalities, I would rather advocate a change in personal perspective - we should not have to view our deaths as such a scary thing, and should not have to advocate someone else's stories to alleviate that fear. Because the one threat fear really poses, is that it gets in the way of the more important thing - enjoying life ;)

um, no. the thing that animates the human body is easily explained by neuroscience, and it comes from chemical reactions and electrical interplay that do not continue after tissue death. the origin of these reactions is the chemical and electrical structure that is built by the DNA-guided process of human physiological development, and after death the energy does exactly what a loose electrical charge does: disapate.

you see, the energies that we identify as consciousness don't actually produce consciousness unless they are acting upon a certain set of structures. the energies that power our vision, for example, will not produce vision if the eyes are removed or the optical cortex is destroyed. it is the combination of the reactions and the structure which produces what we know as consciousness, and if either ceases to be present then consciousness ceases to be.

to say that the "soul" as a phenomenon seperate from the physical body is a logical conclusion doesn't not follow from any of the scientific information we have to date. the only way that is logical is if you define "soul" as a purely abstract concept (like "beauty" or "love"), in which case it is irrelevant anyway.
Not separate from the physical body; the body is a necessary container of soul-energy. Rather, subjective to the physical body, or more properly stated, subjective to the individual.

We are talking about the same thing, here. And yes, some people do abstract the soul apart from the body.

As to your last line about abstract concepts being irrelevant, without them you could never have made your response to me. You used the abstract tool of imagination to envision your response, you used the abstract tool of mind to deliver it to me... doesn't sound like these things are very irrelevant.

As to your last line about abstract concepts being irrelevant, without them you could never have made your response to me. You used the abstract tool of imagination to envision your response, you used the abstract tool of mind to deliver it to me... doesn't sound like these things are very irrelevant.
i did not say abstract concepts were useless, i said that saying the soul is an abstract concept like beauty or love is irrelevant to this discussion. if you want to say that then that's your right, but in that case who cares? then you are basically just calling our physiological processes "soul" because you feel like it, and then saying that because you've called them "soul" there now must be an afterlife because you also say that "soul" has the quality of enduring after death. it's all pure speculation, so if you are going to appeal to science you need to stick to it...if you want to make stuff up and theorize then don't try to pull science in because it doesn't support you.

you're free to make stuff up or use abstracts, i really don't care, i'm just saying that your appeal to science is a bad move because it flatly disproves your claims.

Very, he sounds absolutlely hopeless.
Don't be too hard on (him?), he is searching for meaning in all this. That's actually an admirable thing.

i did not say abstract concepts were useless, i said that saying the soul is an abstract concept like beauty or love is irrelevant to this discussion. if you want to say that then that's your right, but in that case who cares? then you are basically just calling our physiological processes "soul" because you feel like it, and then saying that because you've called them "soul" there now must be an afterlife because you also say that "soul" has the quality of enduring after death. it's all pure speculation, so if you are going to appeal to science you need to stick to it...if you want to make stuff up and theorize then don't try to pull science in because it doesn't support you.

you're free to make stuff up or use abstracts, i really don't care, i'm just saying that your appeal to science is a bad move because it flatly disproves your claims.
Whoa, touchy. Does the idea that religion is not a part of the physical world (which is what the religious folks on these boards have been saying over and over and over in these threads when they talk about "faith") and so not measurable by, or debunkable by, your science threaten you somehow? And yet everything you said supports my philosophy. Go figure.

This debate is not only about science --hence the religious posts throughout.

I am an aethiest, and I have to say that the prospect of Death scares me. I don't know what will happen. Wil it be like going to sleep? Will I simply stop existing? I don't know what will ahppen when I die, and I'm afraid. But I accept death as inevitable.

I think it's like an eternal sleep, yes. When you sleep, you are not bored, nor do you long to wake up. You are in a complete unfeeling void (barring dreams), ending only when your subconcious decides to reactivate your concious thought. When you die, your subconcious ceases to function too, so you are unable to wake up ever again.

[B][QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
I didnt claim it was the whole spirit, just an indication of its existance. Leaves.. I doupt it.


Just threw that in there... since I have seen leaf aura photographs.


I dont think the important issue of faith is just based on Knowelege, as some of our proud little bible scholars in here think, I think its a mixture of courage, suffering and humility which in the end produces wisdom.


I have courage and humility, and have definitely had suffering. But, I do not believe in 'god'. I also have the knowledge... by your equation I should have 'faith', but I don't seem to?

Who knows, but Eve had the free will all the same to not accept Satans temptation of knowlege.


This particular story has been so thoroughly refuted it's not even funny.

The serpent wasnt a demon, it was Satan.


So how come that 'omniscient' god fellow cursed the snake then? He couldn't see satan hiding behind the snake?

Ridiculous anyway, Job comes later, and HaSatan is quite clearly under the direct ordinance of 'god' at that point.

There probably scared of her.


First time we agree. Have you met her?


So why cant it explain the supernatural.



I can't EXPLAIN the supernatural because I have never encountered it. I have encountered what OTHERS said was supernatural, and always been able to explain it with science.

Thats a very unintelligent statement to make, Im sure there are alot more Christians in the world who know and more importantly understand the Bibles message better than an Athiest would, which makes me wonder why do you guys bother studying something you dont even believe in?

I imagine I am like most atheists. I have read the bible for the same reason I have read the Qu'ran, for the same reason I have researched Norse mythology and the religions of Mesopotamia and the Classical Empires. For the same reason I have read Gnostic texts, etc.

If there WERE to really be a god... I would want to know. So - I have looked in all the places you are supposed to find such things, and I have also pursued scientific practice to seek answers there.

I have studied it all... but that doesn't make me believe it.

Also, as a former 'christian', it kind of went with the territory, I thought, to be fairly well acquainted with the text I claimed to follow.

Ridiculous anyway, Job comes later, and HaSatan is quite clearly under the direct ordinance of 'god' at that point.
Under Judaism (this is the Old Testament), "the satan" is considered to be a loyal angel to God, who performs his duty to God by challenging the loyalty of Job, and God willingly accept and lets the satan try to disprove it. (Of course, that God would allow Job's life to be messed up like this counts against his being loving and merciful, and having to even perform a test counts against his omniscience.)

Under early Christianity, Satan (now seen as a proper name, possibly due to a mistranslation) was still seen as subservient to God, except that now is role is to identify and punish sinners - basically the prison warden of hell. He does this by God's will so that their souls will be saved. (How does torture save someone's soul? Don't ask me. I didn't make this up.)

It is only much later that the idea came of Satan being an enemy of God, intentionally trying to lure people to sinning and disrupting human activity. This was convenient to a lot of people, because now when something went wrong they could blame it on the interference of demons instead of themselves. (Did you know that at one time, a demon called Titivilus was blamed for spelling mistakes?)

Its a figure of speech as if a snake is really going to eat dust, your just splitting hairs here.


Just because YOU say it is a figure of speech, doesn't make it so. Are you saying that the Bible can be wrong? It is not the literal word of god?


Please by the sounds of it you never really were a Christian, I guess thats something you would probably view as a compliment right?



How do you decide something like that? Because I am an Atheist now, has no relation to my religion in my younger, more naive days.

What 'makes' someone a 'christian' then? And what is it you have that I didn't have?

0ne passage in the Bible states that one of our days is as a thousand years to God and vica verca, maybe that will help you understand Creation better.
Do you think God created evolution?


God v's evolution is a different thread - I'm trying to avoid it in this one.
Of course I don't think god created evolution - I don't believe in god.
I am willing to concede that, if there WERE a god, he would probably use evolution as a tool.


Most of Darwins theorys have already been disproved, therefore they have lttle meaning for me, so I cant see it mattering much whether I understand it or not.


That is so not true. Even YOU must know that that is not true.

Do you even know what Darwin theorised? Did you know that DArwin isn't the only person who has contributed knowledge to evolutionary principia?

Well I like the 'fairytale' better than what you prefer to believe in.

Bigotry is everywhere and always has been, its part of what God sent Jesus down to fix, you know love your brother and neighbor, it doesnt say dont love them if they have a different colour skin from you does it?

If so, can you produce the passage from the Bible of where it does?

The Roman were phallic worshippers, is that what your referring to in the Bible?

As for the elementism you will have to go into a bit more detail.

Well - there is a direct reference to killing all people of dark skin somewhere... let's see if I can recall it...

Genesis 9:22: (Where Noah wakes to find that he has been raped by Ham): "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without".

Ham being the 'father' of all the dark skinned races, such as the Cushites and the Canaanites.

Genesis 9:25: (Where Noah curses Ham's son Canaan, bacause of Ham's sin): And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren".

Genesis 9:27: (The curse is extended to all of Canaan's line): "God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant".

Deuteronomy 20:17: (God sanctions the extermination of the 'dark' skinned races): "But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the CANAANITES, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee".

As for elementalism... it's not hidden, it's really quite obvious. I don't really want to go any further off topic in this thread.

Same goes for the phallocentric content of the bible.

Well thats a pretty ignorant statement to make, that depends alot I guess on what you consider to be the 'fullness of existance', can I hazard a guess and say breaking all the ten comandments set out in the Bible and feeling guilt free about it?
And like somone else said in this thread, if your right and Im wrong then neither of us will be the wiser, on the other hand if Im right and your wrong, then you havent got much to look forward to.

And believe me Ive been in enough scary situations already to face my own mortality.

Ten commandments? Ten? Are you Jewish?

If not (assuming you knew anything about the religion you PROFESS to represent), you'd know that Gentiles are not bound by the Ten Commandments.

And for all those who want to refer to Christian scriptures for a foundation, I hope you know that the canonical gospels were compiled by a handful of people in the 2nd century who deliberately excluded other writings that they personally didn't want to be disseminated among early Christians, after a lot of fighting with others who knew the children of the first disciples. Some of those texts were written by the Apostles themselves and copies of them were re-discovered in 1945 in Egypt at a place called Nag Hammadi. The most important of these was the Gospel of Thomas which is the ONLY gospel that contains a concise collection of sayings of Jesus Christ. 25 years of intense scholarship indicate that the parables and instructions in Thomas are the closest recordings of what Jesus most likely said to his disciples, though some parts of the other gospels have parallel sayings (esp. Luke and Matthew). But by tradition, the Gospel of John is closest in theme to Thomas, and the message of the two matches up best. All the other gospels contain contradictions because they were written by individuals who were telling a story about Jesus. Only the Gospel of Thomas has a list of precise things that Jesus stated, some of which are also found in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John; only without all of the cultural and political context included in them.

Atheists, non-religious people, Unitarians, and open-minded members of organized religion have the advantage of knowing about BOTH science and scripture because they are willing to read and learn without automatically categorizing one way of thinking as "evil" or "wrong." They read it all and come to their own conclusions. Members of a particular religion who are fundamentalist in their thinking start out by assuming science to be wrong and misguided, and so they are biased before they even start reading. They have their minds made up for them, before they have a chance to see all sides of the story on balance.

Yes: to the Gospel of Thomas.
Yes: to the knowledge of both science and scripture.
Yes: to balance v's bias.

Ooh, I like you...

(Terminalia will hate you, though...)

Death is the nend...no afterlife, no hell or heaven, no reward or punishment, no nothing. Its liberating, and allows for a wider bush-hating platform. You should try it.

Well thats a pretty ignorant statement to make, that depends alot I guess on what you consider to be the 'fullness of existance', can I hazard a guess and say breaking all the ten comandments set out in the Bible and feeling guilt free about it?
And like somone else said in this thread, if your right and Im wrong then neither of us will be the wiser, on the other hand if Im right and your wrong, then you havent got much to look forward to.

And believe me Ive been in enough scary situations already to face my own mortality.


whoa! whoa! whoa! hold up just a minute there. what do you mean with braking all ten comandments a feeling guilt free about it? are you implying that atheists are inmoral bastards that feel no regreat in lying, stealing or killing? if you pardon the savagery of my toungue, I may venture to say that christians feel even less regret at doing those things, as long as its to people who are not christians themselves...or black...or gay...or hipanic...or......

I dont agree with Christian Scientists on not using whats available, would Jesus have shut down hospitals 2000 years ago in Judea if they had the technology we do now to help people, of course not.
On saying that I think there would be quite a few things that have developed lately he would not like one bit.


And yet, Eve was a clone, Lazarus was artifically recuscitated, and Mary was artificially inseminated.


As if people 2000 years go or more would have known or comprehended what DNA was.


Surely, if the book is the 'word of god', it doesn't matter what people knew?


Didnt Scientists discover the Atom bomb, was that in the name of religon?


No. A scientist came up with a theory that implied that an atom could be forced to yeild a very large amount of energy.

Logically, if one atom can yeild a big 'flash', many atoms can be made to make even bigger flashes.

Politicians asked if this technology (which at that point was being considered as an inexhaustable power supply) could be used as a weapon. The rest is history.


Whatever it is, it measured and showed the energy surrounding the human body and observed different colours on various people, I think this is something that goes beyond mere static electricity.


I think you mean Kirlian Photography?

The Kirlian Photograph is caused by producing a high voltage field near an object in contact with a film emulsion. The colours are only produced if colour film is used, obviously - and there is no evidence that the colour is caused by the 'irradiated' body, rather than than field interface with emulsion.

It has been scientifically proved that Kirlian Photography is measuring the electromagnetic field of a body - usually of a living, or recently deceased, organism.

So, sorry Terminalia, but you are wrong (again).


There were only 4 gospels in the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they were written during and after by these men who personally knew Jesus as his disciples.


Wrong again. There are only 4 gospel books ACCEPTED during the final canonisation of the bible. The Book of Thomas, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, etc. are all excised.


Rubbish, belief in God has got nothing to do with Science, which can be used for good purposes or bad.

And so can belief in god.

And so can belief in god.


ouch. touche, my good man

Really, even though all of the people in it have been recorded through census to have existed.


That's just a plain lie, isn't it? Where was the census with Noah's name in it? Adam? Eve? Seth?

What about Melchizedek... and who were listed as his parents?


All its based on is a narrow minded belief in their being no God, can you give me facts to prove his nonexistance?


You assert the existence of god. The burden of proof is on you.

All atheists assert is that they don't believe in a god - that isn't a 'position' on the issue, it is the lack of a position.

We've discussed this before. The onus is on you. You STILL have yet to produce evidence.

I do respect an Atheists right to believe in nothing, I just feel sorry for them, can I do that, is that OK?


Since I was once as you are, I feel sorry for you too. Go right ahead.



If anything, Christian missionarys spend 90% of their time helping starving people in Third world countrys to food, clean water, medicene, helping dig ditches, build houses and giving them free education, the heathen masses as you call them are not forced to convert to Christianity for this, where as Islamic extremists in these same countrys are offering none of this help to the 'heathen masses' and killing them if they dont convert to Islam, perhaps you have a comment to make on that issue, hopefully with more insight.


1) You might want to look into the spread of Syphillis before you start talking about what missionaries do.

2) If the heathen are not being coerced into conversion, why do the reservation missions preach and hold revival?

3) Some Islamic extremists may be killing those that don't convert - that doesn't mean it is the intention of their faith. Unless you think that everytime some buttoned-down christian goes awol and shoots up a restaurant because "God Told Me To Do It", that he is a representative of your personal belief?


Oh I see so now the Christians who dont condone homosexuality in Church or the State, and never have, are now considered to be 'right wing' Christians, funny because we never considered ourselves to be that way.

Since american christians choose to live in america, as citizens, they are bound by the same constitution and laws as everybody else. Homosexuals are entitled to the RIGHT of equality.

And, how does being christian endow YOU with the right to make the moral decision for someone else? Why shouldn't homosexuals marry each other? It's not like they are going to force YOU in to marrying them..

funny because we never considered ourselves to be that way...

And the Nazi's thought THEY were good guys...

so now the most pupular hobbie is provig terminalia wrong. Interesting

And yet, Eve was a clone, Lazarus was artifically recuscitated, and Mary was artificially inseminated.
God created us in his image, didn't he? So if he can do something, why shouldn't we?

No. A scientist came up with a theory that implied that an atom could be forced to yeild a very large amount of energy.

Logically, if one atom can yeild a big 'flash', many atoms can be made to make even bigger flashes.

Politicians asked if this technology (which at that point was being considered as an inexhaustable power supply) could be used as a weapon. The rest is history.
Actually, Albert Einstein sent a letter to the government suggesting the possibility of the atom bomb to end the war. (He regretted doing so later.)

Not separate from the physical body; the body is a necessary container of soul-energy. Rather, subjective to the physical body, or more properly stated, subjective to the individual.

We are talking about the same thing, here. And yes, some people do abstract the soul apart from the body.

As to your last line about abstract concepts being irrelevant, without them you could never have made your response to me. You used the abstract tool of imagination to envision your response, you used the abstract tool of mind to deliver it to me... doesn't sound like these things are very irrelevant.

There's this little concept called 'proof'... just wondering if you'd heard of it?

Also, imagination isn't an abstract, it is the logical reaction of a processor to a stimulus, based on the chemical encoding of prior stimuli.

Actually, Albert Einstein sent a letter to the government suggesting the possibility of the atom bomb to end the war. (He regretted doing so later.)

Not quite...

1) Einstein said that he had never considered the idea of Uranium chain-reactions until they were pointed out to him

2) Einstein promoted peace, even though he recanted his 'absolute pacifism' stance after Hitler came to power.

3) The letter sent to Roosevelt was written by Szilard and Wigner, and Einstein was just a co-signature, to ensure it reached the president.

4) The content of that letter was stating a fear that Germany (having recently split the Uranium atom), would use Uranium chain-reactions as a weapon.

5) The Briggs Commitee was set up to study uranium chain reactions.

6) Szilard and Sachs drafted a letter to Roosevelt, telling him to speed up research - once again, Einstein provided a signature, but did not write the letter.

7) America began research in earnest, after the British government issued a report saying they could have a Uranium chain-reaction device in operation by 1943.

8) FRD decides to progress the pace to create an 'atom' weapon.

9) Even at this late stage, Vannevar Bush refused to include Einstein in the deliberations or process, except to get him to answer 'theoretical questions' about the seraration of fissionable material.

10) As you said, once he saw the results, Einstein regretted the use his theories had been put too.

you doosh-bags.. yes, i spelled it "doosh" because its more fun that way... Atheism is as much a faith as any other - its opposite in the sense that instead of a belief, its an intense disbelief..

I am an atheist - I believe very intensely that there is no 'god'. However, I don't begrudge others their faith. I believe existence is relative to the individual's acceptance/perceptions. If you believe in god - and to the point where your concept/belief of god has a very tangible affect on your life - who am I to tell you he doesn't exist?

I am wary of religion's hereditary characteristics though... Fortunately, my family left the cult we were in after my father's death - My mother eventually became a Wiccan who married a practicing half-indian who in turn converted to islam. I think every religion has a lot to offer - you can decide how you want the story of your existence told.






i have a lot of inner-conflict about whether or not faith is a strength or a weakness... Its hard to take objectively a subject like religion.

There's this little concept called 'proof'... just wondering if you'd heard of it?
Scientific proof is irrelevant to the existence things perceived subjectively.

Also, imagination isn't an abstract, it is the logical reaction of a processor to a stimulus, based on the chemical encoding of prior stimuli.
That is a nice use of imagination, yes. Imagination is referred to metaphorically as a "realm" and a "plane" in the sense of an area of "mind". It's conscious use by a subject as a mental tool has nothing to do with chemical encoding --or are you going to consciously stimulate certain chemicals in your brain to tell me otherwise?

Atheism is as much a faith as any other - its opposite in the sense that instead of a belief, its an intense disbelief..

I am an atheist - I believe very intensely that there is no 'god'.
Not all atheists disbelieve intensely. Perhaps they are not being true to their faith?

Not all atheists disbelieve intensely. Perhaps they are not being true to their faith?
If they don't disbelieve intensely, then they're agnostic.

you doosh-bags.. yes, i spelled it "doosh" because its more fun that way... Atheism is as much a faith as any other - its opposite in the sense that instead of a belief, its an intense disbelief..

i have a lot of inner-conflict about whether or not faith is a strength or a weakness... Its hard to take objectively a subject like religion.

Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition

"Atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god".


Atheism is not the "Intense disbelief"... it is just a lack of belief.

If they don't disbelieve intensely, then they're agnostic.

Maybe they dont beleive in god but dont feel the need to go around shouting at christians on message boards?

Scientific proof is irrelevant to the existence things perceived subjectively.


That is a nice use of imagination, yes. Imagination is referred to metaphorically as a "realm" and a "plane" in the sense of an area of "mind". It's conscious use by a subject as a mental tool has nothing to do with chemical encoding --or are you going to consciously stimulate certain chemicals in your brain to tell me otherwise?

Scientific proof is only irrelevant when the things perceived subjectively CANNOT be verified in any other fashion.

You admit that you are using metaphor. Your concept cannot be supported without use of metaphor.

And the conscious use of 'imagination' must be something 'to do' with chemical encoding, because otherwise you would have no access to memory, no frame of reference.

I argue that imagination is purely a response to stimulus - and that the imagination is shaped by memories, which are chemical 'codes'. The stimulus may be a conscious endeavour - you may kick-start the thought - but it is still just electrons following patterns created by your accumulated experience.

At it's most free-form, some of these association patterns may get more and more spurious - due to the way memories are 'indexed' - but it's still just electrons.

If they don't disbelieve intensely, then they're agnostic.

The Oxford English Dictionary: Agnostic: as someone who "holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable

Scientific proof is only irrelevant when the things perceived subjectively CANNOT be verified in any other fashion.
Things created subjectively and only perceived subjectively can never be verified (thoughts, feelings, concepts like, as you said, beauty, hope, horror...). For instance, if I perceive a brilliant scheme but don't let on, there is no way science can tell that I have a brilliant scheme. (I did see a 'Mysteries' show the other night about the U.S. government having a mind-reading device, but frankly I was a bit skeptical, especially as it came on the heels of a UFO story.) Yet they are no less important to the individual than things that can be objectively verified.

In terms of "soul-energy" or whatever you want to call it that animates the flesh, it may have an electrical component, like memories, but there is another side to this that is the only one important to the individual and that is how it is perceived by the subject. We don't percieve memories as electricity, we perceive them as flashes of images/feelings with associated thoughts.

You admit that you are using metaphor. Your concept cannot be supported without use of metaphor.
Yes, metaphor is a wonderful way to express subjective concepts that are, admittedly, difficult, if not impossible, to explain. Things like "soul", "god", "heaven", "hell"... I think we have some basis for understanding here, now.[/QUOTE]

And the conscious use of 'imagination' must be something 'to do' with chemical encoding, because otherwise you would have no access to memory, no frame of reference.

I argue that imagination is purely a response to stimulus - and that the imagination is shaped by memories, which are chemical 'codes'. The stimulus may be a conscious endeavour - you may kick-start the thought - but it is still just electrons following patterns created by your accumulated experience.

At it's most free-form, some of these association patterns may get more and more spurious - due to the way memories are 'indexed' - but it's still just electrons.
But that failes entirely to describe the actual process an individual experiences when they remember something. The subjective experience of it does not involve any conscious manipulation of chemicals, and usually no conscious effort either.

Ah, so now we evaluate our religion on who can sugar-coat death the most and say the happiest things?

If that's true, I think it'd be less hopeless for Jesus not to die on the cross- it'd be much less hopeless and more positive if he lived, no, and just said we were absolved from our sins.


He did live, Christianity talks alot about his reserrection from the grave.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Just threw that in there... since I have seen leaf aura photographs.

So have I but I dont think this neccesitates the leaves having souls.



I have courage and humility, and have definitely had suffering. But, I do not believe in 'god'. I also have the knowledge... by your equation I should have 'faith', but I don't seem to?

Well I dont know about the humility, maybe your missing that?
And what did you do that was courageous?


This particular story has been so thoroughly refuted it's not even funny.

How so?


So how come that 'omniscient' god fellow cursed the snake then? He couldn't see satan hiding behind the snake?

He wasnt hiding he was the 'serpent.'

Ridiculous anyway, Job comes later, and HaSatan is quite clearly under the direct ordinance of 'god' at that point.

He isnt under orders from God to torture Job he is given permisssion to test his faith.

First time we agree. Have you met her?

No, but Id say by the sounds of her any demons would run a mile.



I can't EXPLAIN the supernatural because I have never encountered it. I have encountered what OTHERS said was supernatural, and always been able to explain it with science.

Like what?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]I imagine I am like most atheists. I have read the bible for the same reason I have read the Qu'ran, for the same reason I have researched Norse mythology and the religions of Mesopotamia and the Classical Empires. For the same reason I have read Gnostic texts, etc.

So do you attack their beliefs as well as false?

Do you scoff at the muslim men for believing they will each recieve thirty virgins when they go to heaven if they die in a Jihad.

If there WERE to really be a god... I would want to know. So - I have looked in all the places you are supposed to find such things, and I have also pursued scientific practice to seek answers there.

Try looking in your heart.

I have studied it all... but that doesn't make me believe it.

I would say one day you will probably come back around to it, the skeptics always make good believers.

Also, as a former 'christian', it kind of went with the territory, I thought, to be fairly well acquainted with the text I claimed to follow.

Theres no such thing as a former Christian, if you think you are your only fooling yourself.
Your only one prayer away to Jesus from being a Christian again.

Actually, atheism is a religion. Its the belief in nothing which is a belief system, therefore a religion.

The idea behind atheism is a system of belief within proof. At least you got that part right. Atheists tend not to believe anything they cannot see, touch, hear, smell, taste, or prove exists. They then set out to find the things that cannot be defined by such sense and to either prove their existance or non-existance.

As for stupid and pointless, well, we tend to believe that organized religion (such as Christianity) pretty much defines stupid and pointless. I guess that makes us even.

not trying to be difficult.. but wouldn't a person who did not believe anything that he could not see, touch, etc.. be an agnostic?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Just because YOU say it is a figure of speech, doesn't make it so. Are you saying that the Bible can be wrong? It is not the literal word of god?

I didnt say it was wrong, Im just saying using logic snakes dont eat dust or they would die, so its either a figure of speech or meant to represent symbolically how low Satan had sunk by tempting man with the promise of knowledge.



How do you decide something like that? Because I am an Atheist now, has no relation to my religion in my younger, more naive days.

If you think theres no God then your more naive than ever.

What 'makes' someone a 'christian' then? And what is it you have that I didn't have?

Faith.

God v's evolution is a different thread - I'm trying to avoid it in this one.
Of course I don't think god created evolution - I don't believe in god.
I am willing to concede that, if there WERE a god, he would probably use evolution as a tool.

I do, how else could everything be here.

That is so not true. Even YOU must know that that is not true.

Have you found the missing link yet between man and apes?

Well - there is a direct reference to killing all people of dark skin somewhere... let's see if I can recall it...

Genesis 9:22: (Where Noah wakes to find that he has been raped by Ham): "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without".

Ham being the 'father' of all the dark skinned races, such as the Cushites and the Canaanites.

Genesis 9:25: (Where Noah curses Ham's son Canaan, bacause of Ham's sin): And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren".

Genesis 9:27: (The curse is extended to all of Canaan's line): "God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant".

Deuteronomy 20:17: (God sanctions the extermination of the 'dark' skinned races): "But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the CANAANITES, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee".

It was a pretty rough and tough world in the old testament, people of all different races were trying to wipe each other out constantly,the Jews are lucky to have survived it at all, and their continued resiliance today in the face of adversity everywhere bears homage to the bravery of their ancestors, in surviving and flourishing in what was probably one of the bloodiest eras of human developement.

A hatred of different peoples because of their skin colour had nothing to do with it, it was just a survival of the fittest.

As for elementalism... it's not hidden, it's really quite obvious. I don't really want to go any further off topic in this thread.

But you bought it up?

Same goes for the phallocentric content of the bible.

It was just a reflection of the times, if feminism had been able to exist back then, it would have played a part in the Bible as well.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Ten commandments? Ten? Are you Jewish?

No, but the Old Testament is part of the Bible and so of course it would influence me.

If not (assuming you knew anything about the religion you PROFESS to represent), you'd know that Gentiles are not bound by the Ten Commandments.

Really?
So does that mean being a non Jew I can then go out against Jesus's teachings and kill and pillage and rape?

Death is the nend...no afterlife, no hell or heaven, no reward or punishment, no nothing. Its liberating, and allows for a wider bush-hating platform. You should try it.

No thanks but you go right ahead.

Being Athiest could be considered a religion, basically it means you don't believe in any higher power or after life, etc. I feel that when I die it means that my conciousness will vanish and I will cease to live/exist, except as a corpse and in memory. That's all. I'm actually more agnostic though, meaning I believe in the possibility of higher powers and such, but humans are far to stupid to know, and books prove nothing, they are written by humans.

:mp5: - and holy $%^%$% $%^, that guys a ninja.

Faith should be eyes wide open, our minds free to explore all of the amazing miracles in the world around us, and to appreciate the inherent order in the explanations for these miracles.
This is the religious experience. It is not something for Man the Observer, the scientist who is on the outside examining the subject with a magnifying glass; he will never come to understand religion nor find God that way. It is for Man the Experiencer who participates in Creation with "eyes wide open".

And for all those who want to refer to Christian scriptures for a foundation, I hope you know that the canonical gospels were compiled by a handful of people in the 2nd century who deliberately excluded other writings that they personally didn't want to be disseminated among early Christians, after a lot of fighting with others who knew the children of the first disciples. Some of those texts were written by the Apostles themselves and copies of them were re-discovered in 1945 in Egypt at a place called Nag Hammadi. The most important of these was the Gospel of Thomas which is the ONLY gospel that contains a concise collection of sayings of Jesus Christ. 25 years of intense scholarship indicate that the parables and instructions in Thomas are the closest recordings of what Jesus most likely said to his disciples, though some parts of the other gospels have parallel sayings (esp. Luke and Matthew). But by tradition, the Gospel of John is closest in theme to Thomas, and the message of the two matches up best. All the other gospels contain contradictions because they were written by individuals who were telling a story about Jesus. Only the Gospel of Thomas has a list of precise things that Jesus stated, some of which are also found in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John; only without all of the cultural and political context included in them.
Yes. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus speaks of a participatory religious experience, where God (or "knowlege of God" if you like) comes from within, from the subjective self:
"If you bring forth that within yourselves, that which you have will save you. If you do not have that within yourselves, that which you do not have within you will kill you." (Logion 70)

"Saving" of course means eternal life with God in Heaven (in the Christian tradition). The passage is line with his opening remarks, "Whoever finds the explanation of these words will not taste death."

This Gospel was left out in aid of promoting the idea of God being taken literally, as external to man. Carl Jung wrote, "The demand made by the imitatio Christi --that we should follow the ideal and seek to become like it --ought logically to have the result of developing and exalting the inner voice. In actual fact, however, the ideal has been turned by superficial and formalistically-minded believers into and external object of worship, and it is precisely this veneration of the object that prevents it from reaching down into the depths of the soul and transforming it into a wholeness in keeping with the ideal. . . An exclusively religious projection may rob the soul of its values so that through sheer inanition it becomes incapable of further development and gets stuck in an unconscious state. At the same time it falls victim to the delusion that the cause of all disaster lies outside, and people no longer stop to ask themselves how far it is their own doing."

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]And yet, Eve was a clone,

She was much more than a mere clone.



Lazarus was artifically recuscitated,

Lazarus was rotting, before he was risen back to life, would you resusitate a rotting corpse?

and Mary was artificially inseminated.

A crude way of putting it, but right in a way.

No. A scientist came up with a theory that implied that an atom could be forced to yeild a very large amount of energy.

That is correct.
Religon is not responsible for all the sorrow in this world, its time you lovers of science admitted, that the more Science discovers and cures, also the more it seems to discover ways to dig a deeper hole to bury the human race in.

Also what has the more potential to do alot of harm to our world and everything in it, in fact wipe all life off it in less than a day if used to its full and utmost potential:

A) Religon.

B) Science.


Wrong again. There are only 4 gospel books ACCEPTED during the final canonisation of the bible. The Book of Thomas, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, etc. are all excised.

Really?
Can you give me some quotes from these books that were excised then, surely there must be some around, otherwise you wouldnt know they had existed would you?



And so can belief in god.

But not as I pointed out earlier in this post, with the same devastation as Science can do now.
Do you think their will be a lot of atheists praying to God or cursing him when the nuclear bombs start falling on us?

I've been reading some posts here and fonud a few kinda funny, call me whatever you want I don't beleive there is any greater anything, we are a chunk of walking molecuels with an energy force that gives us thoghut process abilities, when we die the enrgy leaves the body, like somenoe posted before it's just like gonig to sleep but sicne I have enver rememberd a dream I can't agree with his/her point about dreaming, etc. As for antoher post i read, beleive what you want, whatever helps you get through your day, I do what I think is best for me so I can enjoy my life, cause hey, I don't want to be missreable. As for another point, I agree with antoher post9even though this isn't with the question) that beleive what you want and do what you want as long as you don't infinge on others, casue that's just not right, people who do things for their god or whatever that infringes on others well I wanna beat them over the head with a 2x4 repedidently, if you want to beleive that there's a god who looks like a hippo with five ears, good for you, as long as your not gonna try to tell me your hippo told you to go kill somebody. My advice to everybody, don't worry about death, jsut do whatever makes you happy and don't infringe on others happiness cause you wouldn't want it to happen to you.

Really?
Can you give me some quotes from these books that were excised, surely there must be some around, otherwise you wouldnt know they had existed would you?
I can quote you whole texts, if you like. :-)

I don't beleive there is any greater anything, we are a chunk of walking molecuels with an energy force that gives us thoghut process abilities. . .
Obviously not the ability to type. ;-)

I can quote you whole texts, if you like. :-)

Go ahead.

Obviously not the ability to type. ;-)

I liked the bit where he said dont infringe on other peoples happiness or he will beat you up with a lump of wood.
I think thats what he said.

The Nag Hammadi texts, including the extremely important Gospel of Thomas, are all available at any good bookstore, in several translations. There are at least 5 excellent translations of the Gospel of Thomas in print, along with very good histories of its discovery and the work that went into making it known throughout the world.

Other points:

I think that someone who claims to be of "faith" and constantly uses atomic energy as an example of why "science is bad" needs to consider the simple reality that the Nag Hammadi texts were discovered during the summer of 1945, just as the plans were drawn up for the US attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That should have some symbolic meaning, right?

Also, the claim that Old Testament times were "ruthless" and the fact that Jews made it through because of "survival of the fittest" only proves one thing: you obviously believe in evolution. Because "survival of the fittest" is the simple reality of the theory of evolution. The "missing link" between man and apes doesn't exist because man is a primate that developed from a common ancestor of other primates. Man did NOT come from apes according to Darwin's theory. Man simply started from the SAME PLACE as other primates. And many ancient primate ancestors have been found already. We've got plenty of evidence that the progression of "survival of the fittest" began over 5 million years ago. Thinking that evolution claims that humans were descended from monkeys is flat wrong. That is a foolish and common misunderstanding of Darwin's theories. If that were the case, then there would be no apes or monkeys today, since we would be the evolved versions of those animals. Obviously this is not the case.

Beyond that, any intelligent Christian ought to know that the text of his faith lies in the New Testament. Reading it carefully one discovers that the Old Testament is mostly rejected and "improved upon" by the teachings of Jesus. Old Testament: eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth; New Testament: turn the other cheek. There are numerous such examples where the Old Testament is contradicted. And Jesus never once spoke of Ten Commandments; he spoke forecfully about 6 of the original 10.

So read the Bible again. And then read the texts that were left out on purpose by corrupt individuals who did not want the Apostles' true opinions spread throughout the Roman Empire (because it would provide such a radically different worldview to the lower classes that it would cause a revolution of unheard-of proportions). The Nag Hammadi texts are available for everyone to read, even those who have never heard of them before! There's no reason to doubt their existence...just walk into a bookstore or look on Amazon and discover them for yourself! It's freaking lazy to keep asking others to "quote" them. Go read them!

And then maybe try reading some other scriptures and even some scientific texts and even some essays by atheists. Then you'll see why we all have a place in this world and why we are all part of a universal order.

Even those who subscribe to chaos theory must understand that by claiming that chaos is the way of the universe we are assigning "a way" to the universe, which inherently gives it an order. But on the other hand, repetitively claiming that a particular limited collection of stories is the ONLY explanation to what goes on in the universe is really unwarranted and dangerous. It is a rather ignorant way of seeing things.

Open your eyes wide! Faith comes from knowledge! It is not meant to be oblivious to the truths given to our species!

Faith may be taken to be believing certain ideas without proof; but you still want to use all of the evidence around you to guide your faith. If you just make up random reasons to believe in this or that, then your faith is misguided and ultimately harmful to yourself.

Stop worrying about being "right" or "wrong." Just live a moral life (as best you see it, without harming others) and do NOT try and impose a single set of beliefs on others or keep claiming that your way is the only way. And before you start throwing Jesus' "I am the way, the truth and the life" at us, read the entirety of the gospels and see if you can figure out what Jesus may have really meant by that statement.

Live in peace and without such prejudice. Love! You'll feel better.

Go ahead.
Well, I was just kidding. The Apocrophia itself is 288 pages long. But I will point you the books on Amazon and you can read them yourself, if you're so inclined.
Gospel of Thomas (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/006065581X/qid=1093761780/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_0_10/702-3208189-2364861)
Gospel of Mary (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0828015899/qid=1093762146/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_0_4/702-3208189-2364861)
The Apocryphia (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195141822/qid=1093761574/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/702-3208189-2364861)

Sorry, that's the wrong link for the Gospel of Mary. This is the one.
Gospel of Mary (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0818908718/qid=1093762951/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_0_6/702-3208189-2364861)

Ah, but like you said; invented. Man made them. I should have been a bit clearer; What exists, other than God (your belief man, not mine,) that isn't man-made, that can't be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt?

There is also The Invisible Pink Unicorn In The Sky.

All hail TIPUITS!!

Even those who subscribe to chaos theory must understand that by claiming that chaos is the way of the universe we are assigning "a way" to the universe, which inherently gives it an order. But on the other hand, repetitively claiming that a particular limited collection of stories is the ONLY explanation to what goes on in the universe is really unwarranted and dangerous. It is a rather ignorant way of seeing things.

Open your eyes wide! Faith comes from knowledge! It is not meant to be oblivious to the truths given to our species!

Faith may be taken to be believing certain ideas without proof; but you still want to use all of the evidence around you to guide your faith. If you just make up random reasons to believe in this or that, then your faith is misguided and ultimately harmful to yourself.

Stop worrying about being "right" or "wrong." Just live a moral life (as best you see it, without harming others) and do NOT try and impose a single set of beliefs on others or keep claiming that your way is the only way. And before you start throwing Jesus' "I am the way, the truth and the life" at us, read the entirety of the gospels and see if you can figure out what Jesus may have really meant by that statement.

Live in peace and without such prejudice. Love! You'll feel better.

Well done. Beautiful post. I actually think it's interesting that I'm a better Catholic because of all the other religions I've learned from. I guess that makes me a Pantheist.

"Repeat after me! This world is made of...
Love... and Peace!" -Vash the Stampede, Trigun

It'd be the same as going to sleep, but not waking up. And as you can only remember your dreams after you wake, I guess even if your consciousness did somehow survive, it wouldn't matter as you would have no awareness of it anyway.
The biggest difference between Atheists and believers is that Atheists live their life not looking forward to death and believers do.


A really interesting idea related to dreams: They don't happen in real-time, which means that you can have a dream that seems to be a day long but it actually only happened in a few seconds, and so on. This opens up the interesting possibility that when we die, we spend the few minutes between clinical death and brain death dreaming a dream that seems to last a near-eternity to us. That would be a very interesting afterlife.

Actually, atheism is a religion. Its the belief in nothing which is a belief system, therefore a religion.

The idea behind atheism is a system of belief within proof. At least you got that part right. Atheists tend not to believe anything they cannot see, touch, hear, smell, taste, or prove exists. They then set out to find the things that cannot be defined by such sense and to either prove their existance or non-existance.

As for stupid and pointless, well, we tend to believe that organized religion (such as Christianity) pretty much defines stupid and pointless. I guess that makes us even.
I am not an Atheist, though I have argued that is a Religion, though not as clearly or as eloquently.
Nice post, I will use it else where, hope you dont mind.
Except that Atheists do not try to prove the non-existence of something, at least the smart one dont.
anyway again nice post BLARG

Well, I was just kidding. The Apocrophia itself is 288 pages long. But I will point you the books on Amazon and you can read them yourself, if you're so inclined.
Gospel of Thomas (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/006065581X/qid=1093761780/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_0_10/702-3208189-2364861)
Gospel of Mary (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0828015899/qid=1093762146/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_0_4/702-3208189-2364861)
The Apocryphia (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195141822/qid=1093761574/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/702-3208189-2364861)

Thanks Willamena, Ill go to a bookshop and look into it more, my position on these 'gospels' is very skeptical to say the least, but I should go and check them out.


Jesus said in the last days false prophets will rise and claim to be me, and tells us not to pay them attention, and that any word added or taken away from his teachings is false.

One of the reviewers called anyone who was skeptical of these gospels as having closed minds, which makes me wonder why he would be so defensive of something thats authentic.

Thanks Willamena, Ill go to a bookshop and look into it more, my position on these 'gospels' is very skeptical to say the least, but I should go and check them out.


Jesus said in the last days false prophets will rise and claim to be me, and tells us not to pay them attention, and that any word added or taken away from his teachings is false.

One of the reviewers called anyone who was skeptical of these gospels as having closed minds, which makes me wonder why he would be so defensive of something thats authentic.

Many of the reviewers of the new testement (Christians) call anyone who is skeptical of the new testement as having closed minds, which makes me wonder why they would be so defensive of something that's authentic.

They also tell me I'm going to hell.

EDIT: I'm just trying to say there are idiots on both sides.

Just let me die, and I'll come back out of my second life to tell you how an atheist should think about death.

Why should we think about death, if we are alive? Better think about the present life. People who believe because that gives them a ticket to the ?next? world .... aren't they already death?

Quit looking at a destination ... enjoy the road you're walking on!

I do, I just like to plan ahead.

Many of the reviewers of the new testement (Christians) call anyone who is skeptical of the new testement as having closed minds, which makes me wonder why they would be so defensive of something that's authentic.

They also tell me I'm going to hell.

EDIT: I'm just trying to say there are idiots on both sides.

Idiots are everywhere Fugee-la, and I dont care if people are skeptical of the new testament or the old one, thats their opinion, and they can have it, provided it doesnt involve trying to stop me from having mine.

The difficult thing about the question of what happens after we die is that we have no frame of reference for it. Our entire store of personal experience upon which we base our speculations and thoughts about anything is entirely composed of being alive. When we die, we're not there to know what it's "like" to be dead - it's not "like" anything; when you die, all that is "you" ceases to be. It's an unwillingness or inability to grasp this that leads to the various myths about thecontinuation of the individual "soul" (or whatever you care to name it).

Idiots are everywhere Fugee-la, and I dont care if people are skeptical of the new testament or the old one, thats their opinion, and they can have it, provided it doesnt involve trying to stop me from having mine.

but you can understand why people are apprehensive about christianity when some people supporting it make such wild claims...

Jesus said in the last days false prophets will rise and claim to be me, and tells us not to pay them attention, and that any word added or taken away from his teachings is false.

One of the reviewers called anyone who was skeptical of these gospels as having closed minds, which makes me wonder why he would be so defensive of something thats authentic.
heh. Some of them are as dull reading as the Book of Begats (Chronicles).

Here is something from the preface of the Apocryphia:

Although it is uncertain whether the books of the New Testament were declared canonical by the Nicene Council, or by some other, or when or by whom they were collected into a volume, it is certain that they were considered genuine and authentic (with a few variations of opinion as to some of them) by the most early Christian writers; and that they were selected from various other Gospels and Epistles, the titles of which are mentioned in the works of the Fathers and early historians of the church. The books that exist, of those not inlcuded in the canon, are carefully brought together in the present volume. They naturally assume the title of the Apocryphal New Testament, and he who possesses this and the New Testament has, in the two volumes, a collection of all the historical records related to Christ and his Apostles now in existence, and considered sacred by Christians during the first four centuries after his birth.
I should note that my copy is a hardcover book from 1890. The Gospel of Thomas and others were among those unearthed in 1945, I believe.

Oh, and my favourite part of the Apocryphia are the books that talk about Jesus early years, from birth to a young man.

This is from the First Gospel of the Infacy of Jesus Christ, translated in 1697 by Professor Henry Sike:

1. In the month of Adar Jesus gathered together the boys, and ranked them as though he had been a king.
2. For they spread their garments on the ground for him to sit on; and having made a crown of flowers, put it upon his head, and stood on his right and left as the guards of a king.
3. And if any one happened to pass by, they took him by force, and said, Come hither, and worship the king, that you may have a properous journey.
4. In the mean time, while these things were doing, there came certain men, carrying a boy upon a couch;
5. For this boy having gone with his companions to the mountain to gather wood, and having found there a partridge's nest, and put his hand in to take out the eggs, was stung by a poisonous serpent, which leaped out of the nest; so that he was forced to cry out for the help of his companions; who, when they came found him lying upon the earth like a dead person.
6. After which his neighbours came and carried him back into the city.
7. But when they came to the place where the Lord Jesus was sitting like a king, and the other boys stood around him like his ministers, the boys made haste to meet him, who was bitten by the serpent, and said to his neighbours, Come and pay your respects to the king;
8. But when, by reason of their sorrow, they refused to come, the boys drew them, and forced them against their will to come.
9. And when they came to the Lord Jesus, he inquired, On what account they carried that boy?
10. And when they answered, that a serpent had bitten him, the Lord Jesus said to the boys, Let us go and kill that serpent.
11. But when the parents of the boy desired to be excused, because their son lay at the point of death; the boys made answer, and said, Did not ye hear what the king said? Let us go and kill the serpent; and will not ye obey him?
They sound like a street gang. ;-)

12. So they brought the couch back again, whether they would or not.
13. And when they were come to the nest, the Lord Jesus said to the boys, Is this the serpent's lurking place? They said, It was.
14. Then the Lord Jesus calling the serpent, it presently came forth and submitted to him; to whom he said, Go and suck out the poison which thou hast infused into that boy;
15. So the serpent crept to the boy, and took away all its poison again.
16. Then the Lord Jesus cursed the serpent so that it immediately burst asunder, and died.
17. And he touched the boy with his hand to restore him to his former health;
18. And when he began to cry, the Lord Jesus said, Crease crying, for hereafter thou shalt be my disciple;
19. And this is that Simon the Canaanite, who is mentioned in the Gospel.

But not as I pointed out earlier in this post, with the same devastation as Science can do now.
Science can be used to kill lots of people, but only religion can make you feel good about doing it.

Do you think their will be a lot of atheists praying to God or cursing him when the nuclear bombs start falling on us?
Not me.

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.

First you say that atheism is a religion for people with no ability to trust, then you say atheism isn't a religion. So which is it?

And besides, atheism simply means that one doesn't believe there is a god. What does that have to do with trusting or feeling? An atheist is more likely to trust the human race's ability to take care of and govern itself without needing direction from a higher power. In that sense, an atheist may be considered more trusting than someone who believes in a higher power. Please don't make blanket generalizations about something you don't understand.

As for myself, I am agnostic. I don't believe anyone can prove or disprove that there is a god, so I don't make a claim for either position. I don't think we will ever know and I'm content with that.

14. Then the Lord Jesus calling the serpent, it presently came forth and submitted to him; to whom he said, Go and suck out the poison which thou hast infused into that boy;
15. So the serpent crept to the boy, and took away all its poison again.
I wonder how it did that...?
16. Then the Lord Jesus cursed the serpent so that it immediately burst asunder, and died.
Way to thank someone for following your orders!

I wonder how it did that...?

Way to thank someone for following your orders!

it makes perfect logical sense. if there's this crazy doctor who injected some lethal poison into you, and the judge asks the crazy doctor do inject you with the cure, and the crazy doctor does it, does that make the crazy doctor crimeless? it's really peculiar how you don't seem to get common sense things like these. maybe if you try to substitute the subjects of the tale with something you love and care about, you'll see more meaning in religion.

it makes perfect logical sense. if there's this crazy doctor who injected some lethal poison into you, and the judge asks the crazy doctor do inject you with the cure, and the crazy doctor does it, does that make the crazy doctor crimeless? it's really peculiar how you don't seem to get common sense things like these. maybe if you try to substitute the subjects of the tale with something you love and care about, you'll see more meaning in religion.
That doesn't explain how the snake could "suck out" the poison, which seems to be just slightly impossible.

And I wouldn't trust the crazy doctor to inject the cure at all. I'd have a non-crazy doctor do it. Besides, to the snake it was the boy who trespassed into its lair, so it had an at least semi-justifiable reason for biting him.

That doesn't explain how the snake could "suck out" the poison, which seems to be just slightly impossible.

And I wouldn't trust the crazy doctor to inject the cure at all. I'd have a non-crazy doctor do it. Besides, to the snake it was the boy who trespassed into its lair, so it had an at least semi-justifiable reason for biting him.

suppose the crazy doctor was the only doctor who had the cure. are you foresaking the life of a boy to the life of a snake?

A really interesting idea related to dreams: They don't happen in real-time, which means that you can have a dream that seems to be a day long but it actually only happened in a few seconds, and so on. This opens up the interesting possibility that when we die, we spend the few minutes between clinical death and brain death dreaming a dream that seems to last a near-eternity to us. That would be a very interesting afterlife.

Yeah, go watch "Waking Life" right now if you haven't already. You will like it.

suppose the crazy doctor was the only doctor who had the cure. are you foresaking the life of a boy to the life of a snake?

You're trying to use an analogy that doesn't apply. A snake cannot suck venom out of a wound, so there is no equivalent to "injecting the cure." Also, why would Jesus need the snake to remove the poison? Why would he feel compelled to kill the snake after it cooperated? It would have been better to reward the snake for its cooperation and set an example for everyone else. It's not like that's the entire foundation of Christianity, right?

Anyway, this is a silly argument. :)

You're trying to use an analogy that doesn't apply. A snake cannot suck venom out of a wound, so there is no equivalent to "injecting the cure." Also, why would Jesus need the snake to remove the poison? Why would he feel compelled to kill the snake after it cooperated? It would have been better to reward the snake for its cooperation and set an example for everyone else. It's not like that's the entire foundation of Christianity, right?

Anyway, this is a silly argument. :)

*yawns* it's 10 minutes to midnight. i'm here cuz i have nothing else better to do, see?

That doesn't explain how the snake could "suck out" the poison, which seems to be just slightly impossible.
Here's a clue: if it sounds foolish taken literally, then it probably isn't meant to be taken literally.

suppose the crazy doctor was the only doctor who had the cure.
Bad analogy. First, it makes no sense for the snake to be able to suck out the poison in the first place. Second, the Son of God should not need the help of a lowly animal to cure the poison.

are you foresaking the life of a boy to the life of a snake?
No, I do not agree that trespass is bad enough to justify death. However, some degree of punishment could be seen as justified, certainly from the snake's viewpoint. I know if I found a burglar in my home I wouldn't just let him take my stuff.

That just means Atheists are narrowminded, You can't see,Hear,touch, smell or taste everything. Some things are just unexplained, open your mind to another realm of thought and feeling, If you can that is.

Psh... Atheists aren't narrowminded. Gosh. I'm an atheist, and I'm actually pretty openminded. I know about christianity and all that. But to tell the truth I find it pretty stupid to just believe in something that was in the books like years after it actually happened. I dunno like what 10 or 5 thousand? And the thing that is pretty interesting is that the christians believe in God to give them strength to get through hardships. But don't you need to dig deep within yourself to do it? I mean you can be a pilliar of strength. I think God is just really a figment of imagination that people make up so its like an imaginary pillar of strength so that they won't lose grip on what they know and think is real.

Here's a clue: if it sounds foolish taken literally, then it probably isn't meant to be taken literally.
How am I supposed to EVER disprove something if the supporters can always claim that it's not meant to be taken literally?

So tell me, oh enlightened one, what is the figurative meaning I am supposed to see in this?

You're trying to use an analogy that doesn't apply. A snake cannot suck venom out of a wound, so there is no equivalent to "injecting the cure." Also, why would Jesus need the snake to remove the poison? Why would he feel compelled to kill the snake after it cooperated? It would have been better to reward the snake for its cooperation and set an example for everyone else. It's not like that's the entire foundation of Christianity, right?
It is an animal, but the fact that it was personified and did something beyond reasoning for a snake to do indicates that it is also a symbol in the story. The poison is a symbol, of a "poisoned" mind or wrong-thinking mind. The whole cure is a symbol, of a raising in awareness to recognize the power of the boy-King (boy-Christ). As to why kill the snake rather than reward it, one does not reward the ox for pulling the plow or the sheep for grazing the field --animals in the Bible are subjects of and subject to mankind; lower life-forms.

How am I supposed to EVER disprove something if the supporters can always claim that it's not meant to be taken literally?
Um... because there's nothing to disprove and you look silly banging your head against a metaphorical wall? ;-)

As to why kill the snake rather than reward it, one does not reward the ox for pulling the plow or the sheep for grazing the field --animals in the Bible are subjects of and subject to mankind; lower life-forms.
Umm, didn't you just say that it was not just an animal but a symbol?

Or is the symbol that even if you repent your crimes, you still go to hell? Yeah, I think I got it...

Also, I'm pretty sure that most farmers DO reward the ox for obeying them, even if whoever wrote the bible didn't have enough ink to explicitly mention this.

Quit looking at a destination ... enjoy the road you're walking on!
This is what it's all about for me, too. How it began and how it will end are equally irrelevant. "Now" is the only reality --the past is gone and the future hasn't happened yet --and the only place we can make any difference in each other's lives.

Umm, didn't you just say that it was not just an animal but a symbol?
It can be both. At the same time, too.

Or is the symbol that even if you repent your crimes, you still go to hell? Yeah, I think I got it...

Also, I'm pretty sure that most farmers DO reward the ox for obeying them, even if whoever wrote the bible didn't have enough ink to explicitly mention this.
Interesting slant. Not a bad interpretation, but one that is destructive rather than constructive.

This is a much more practical, useful and interesting use of your brain power --indulging in speculation rather than trying to debunk what is impossible to disprove.

It can be both. At the same time, too.
If it is a symbol, then why would its death, in the same story, not be part of the same symbol? (Except that this would contradict your belief and is therefore automatically incorrect.)

Interesting slant. Not a bad interpretation, but one that is destructive rather than constructive.
Jesus is destructive. Not me.

So what's your constructive interpretation?

This is a much more practical, useful and interesting use of your brain power --indulging in speculation rather than trying to debunk what is impossible to disprove.
Any claim that is purposedly designed to be inherently immune to all challenge, does not hold enough substance for me to be able to take it seriously.

Practical use of brain power is figuring out the truth. This goal can be aided both by speculating on new theories, and by debunking old ones.

If it is a symbol, then why would its death, in the same story, not be part of the same symbol? (Except that this would contradict your belief and is therefore automatically incorrect.)
No doubt it is, if the story is read in context of the whole story. That's one problem with picking a passage at random --you can lose some of the meaning in context.

If the snake is a personification of evil, or the thing that brought the wrong-thinking "poison" into the boy's mind, then destroying it would have to be a bit showy --the averaage man doesn't get rid of evil so easily, though a son-of-God seems to have no problem.

No doubt it is, if the story is read in context of the whole story. That's one problem with picking a passage at random --you can lose some of the meaning in context.
The snake appeared only in this passage, therefore any symbolism it has should be derivable from this passage only.

If the snake is a personification of evil, or the thing that brought the wrong-thinking "poison" into the boy's mind, then destroying it would have to be a bit showy --the averaage man doesn't get rid of evil so easily, though a son-of-God seems to have no problem.
Except that if it was willing to undo its poison, it cannot have been pure evil. If it were the personification of evil, then the poison should have been cured directly by the personification of good (I would guess Jesus) rather than by the snake.

Jesus is destructive. Not me.
You have to take some responsibility for your interpretation --that's how the metaphor game works. And sarcasm is always destructive, I know because it's one of my vices. ;-)

So what's your constructive interpretation?
Enlightenment. A constructive interpretation is one that moves towards mutual understanding rather than disproving, debunking or putting down in any way.

Mine is that this little story is about the cure of the poison, not about the fate of the snake. It's about how knowledge of God can move us inside towards right-thinking.

Any claim that is purposedly designed to be inherently immune to all challenge, does not hold enough substance for me to be able to take it seriously.

Practical use of brain power is figuring out the truth. This goal can be aided both by speculating on new theories, and by debunking old ones.
Metaphor is not immune to any challenge except taking it literally, which simply robs it of its use by ignoring its meaning, its sense, and turns it into non-sense.

Truth is a good thing. The truth of metaphor is not just the meaning behind the words, but what they can do for you, how you can learn from them.

That just means Atheists are narrowminded, You can't see,Hear,touch, smell or taste everything. Some things are just unexplained, open your mind to another realm of thought and feeling, If you can that is.

I would argue that atheists are no less open-minded than theists, partially because you seldom hear of atheists persecuting people who don't follow their belief system.

As to the initial question of this thread, I don't bother to think about death much, as it is inevitable.

I am an agnostic, leaning towards atheism, because there is no concrete evidence of the existence of a god. Generally, I believe that whether there is a god is too impotant a question to decide on blind faith.

The snake appeared only in this passage, therefore any symbolism it has should be derivable from this passage only.
Ah, but the symbol might have appeared previously and may appear in a following story --the same symbolism in a different form, repeated often enough, will provide meaning to this symbol.

Except that if it was willing to undo its poison, it cannot have been pure evil. If it were the personification of evil, then the poison should have been cured directly by the personification of good (I would guess Jesus) rather than by the snake.
I wouldn't expect the Christ-boy to just undo the evil --there's no lesson in God magically doing things for us. Ultimately Christ is there to teach, not to do for others, but to get them to do for themselves. In this case, what he's trying to get the poisoned boy to do is come around to right-thinking --that is his "cure". One sometimes needs startling means to induce the mind to behaviour modification --electro shock is an extreme, but an example --in this case, it's done with an impressive command over nature, that demonstrates the power of right-thinking, and then blowing up of the symbol. Boys will be boys.

The snake only undid its evil when faced with the Christ-child --and that this evil is in animal form would mean it would *have to* obey. Lower life-form and all. So then, it being a animal is also a symbol, in this case of an inevitable outcome that is the meaning of the story --the cure.

Mine is that this little story is about the cure of the poison, not about the fate of the snake. It's about how knowledge of God can move us inside towards right-thinking.
The story-writer could easily have let the snake slither away, or even just avoid mentioning it again. If Jesus took the time to destroy the snake - and to announce in advance that he purpose of returning to the mountain was to kill the snake, not to cure the boy - then it makes sense to assume that this had a symbolic meaning important to the story. If you can show me what this meaning is, I'm listening.

Metaphor is not immune to any challenge except taking it literally, which simply robs it of its use by ignoring its meaning, its sense, and turns it into non-sense.

Truth is a good thing. The truth of metaphor is not just the meaning behind the words, but what they can do for you, how you can learn from them.
So if I can show that the interpretation of a metaphor is a bad lesson, then have I disproven it?

I wouldn't expect the Christ-boy to just undo the evil --there's no lesson in God magically doing things for us.
Such as magically commanding the snake or magically blowing it up? The boy didn't do anything. Well, he cried. That doesn't count.

Ultimately Christ is there to teach, not to do for others, but to get them to do for themselves. In this case, what he's trying to get the poisoned boy to do is come around to right-thinking --that is his "cure".
Actually, he seems to be getting the snake to come around to right-thinking.

So if I can show that the interpretation of a metaphor is a bad lesson, then have I disproven it?
Metaphor is a tool to increase understanding, and a tool to express concepts that are otherwise impossible to explain (like "broken heart"). Why do you feel the need to disprove a tool?

Such as magically commanding the snake or magically blowing it up? The boy didn't do anything. Well, he cried. That doesn't count.
Keep in mind that the boy in the story who is poisoned is not the only one receiving the cure. We, as readers, are also having our minds impressed by the story. The meaning of the metaphor is what's not to be 'magically' got or directly explained, else it looses its power to impress a lesson. Christ is not to magically do the mind-shift for us, the "cure". His job is to teach. Magical events in the actual story, on the other hand, are almost a must --they are the means of moving the mind of the reader, here in the real world, to give us the "cure". If the lesson is read often enough, written in a number of different ways, it will seep in.

Actually, he seems to be getting the snake to come around to right-thinking.
The snake go boom.

Actually, he seems to be getting the snake to come around to right-thinking.
Blind (natural) obedience is not what he's after. He's after conscious obedience, i.e. the choice to obey. Remember, man is set above nature. Man has free will (choice) and intellect (conscious awareness of his role). The snake doesn't --it has no choice but to obey.

Metaphor is a tool to increase understanding, and a tool to express concepts that are otherwise impossible to explain (like "broken heart"). Why do you feel the need to disprove a tool?
If you buy a new tool that you think will help you improve your work, but will in fact cause its ruin, would I be wrong in trying to point this out to you before it is to late?

I seem to have referenced some thing from another post I made. Sorry, my bad.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=352892

Part of the problem with modern man understanding the metaphors in the Bible is that our consciousness has changed over the many thousands of years since it was written, by science, by the philosophers like Aristotle, and by advancements in the physical world. We have all but left the world enmeshed in myth and metaphor behind. The stories in the Bible are geared towards an audience who is receiptive to metaphor as a means of teaching. Modern minds need evidence, logic and to bring things into the physical world to understanding them --we understand things in a different way, and it's a stretch to try to reach for this "new" very old way of looking at things.

Part of the problem with modern man understanding the metaphors in the Bible is that our consciousness has changed over the many thousands of years since it was written, by science, by the philosophers like Aristotle, and by advancements in the physical world. We have all but left the world enmeshed in myth and metaphor behind. The stories in the Bible are geared towards an audience who is receiptive to metaphor as a means of teaching. Modern minds need evidence, logic and to bring things into the physical world to understanding them --we understand things in a different way, and it's a stretch to try to reach for this "new" very old way of looking at things.
I am willing to use metaphors, provided that (a) the metaphor makes sense and has a meaning that I agree with, and (b) people don't treat the metaphor as though it is a story that actually happened (though I know you don't, fact is that the majority of people on Earth still do).

If you buy a new tool that you think will help you improve your work, but will in fact cause its ruin, would I be wrong in trying to point this out to you before it is to late?
You are never wrong for doing what you think is in the best interests of yourself and others. If you can demonstrate some benefit to not attempting to understand the meaning behind the metaphors, I'd gladly gve it up. If you can demonstrate some reason to the Christians for them not to have faith, I'd guess they would do the same, being "modern man", but science and faith are two separate issues that are not mutually exclusive --science works in the objective, physical reality and faith works (is understood) in the reality of the inner self. You can have one with the other --you can see through your eyes and your heart at the same time.

I am willing to use metaphors, provided that (a) the metaphor makes sense and has a meaning that I agree with, and (b) people don't treat the metaphor as though it is a story that actually happened (though I know you don't, fact is that the majority of people on Earth still do).
Bit of an overstatement (it's mostly just the Protestants) but you're right. And it's not their fault. It's science's fault, for requiring us to bring things into the physical world to analyize them, poke and prod them, define them on terms we can understand apart from ourselves.

Bit of an overstatement (it's mostly just the Protestants) but you're right. And it's not their fault. It's science's fault, for requiring us to bring things into the physical world to analyize them, poke and prod them, define them on terms we can understand apart from ourselves.
Science's "fault"? I'd like to know which metaphor you used to obtain your computer.

The metaphor itself need not exist. However, that which the symbol stands for must exist, else the symbol is meaningless.

Go home to mommy and stop acting like a little brat you annoying little punk!


Ok, you know what, I was trying to stay out of this, but I can't take it anymore. There is no place for your stupidity and your immaturity where people are trying to have an intelligent debate. Just leave. Please.

Its 5th grade physics to know that once you die, the atoms in your body still exsist, and they have been around since the creation of the universe.

Technically speaking, reincarnation can be scientifically justified. If you are not required to reincarnate as a living thing, that is. Your molecules and atoms never cease to exsist, always being reused for different things.

The case for reincarnation presumes a supernatural or metaphysical element of self. That transcends the physical. Who is the "you"? The concious identification of self? This is a result of the function of the brain, a physical object that decays after death.

I will not pass on "my" atoms at my death alone. The atoms that are constantly transmuting in, through and then beyond the physical "me" appear to be eternal, (but may or may not be.) But they are only transitorially part of the corporate "me".

This cannot be properly considered reincarnation as it is on ongoing process that started within my parents before those elements came together at conception and continues in my children and grandchildren. A continuum perhaps, but not a reincarnation.

Reincarnation presumes a metaphysical self beyond the apparent physical self, not very different from what some refer to as "the soul". The concept of reincarnation requires a belief in a metaphysical or supernatural realm. While not truly religion (unless you add a diety or ruler of some kind) it does fall into the realm of superstition.

Ok first off I'm a christian... I like to apologize to some comments made by other "christians". Know that a christian is not to judge others.. that includes their views, beliefs, and actions. That is not our job. I like to also point out that relegion even athiesm is mans creation not gods creation.

Atheism doesn't deny the existence of things beyond our senses, does it? I was under the impression that it only denied the existence of god and left the possibility open for many things we can't see.

As far as I know, atheists have no problem opening up to another realm of thought or feeling. They just have a problem with arbitrarily picking a mythology to live by. They don't see a reason why this or that god has to be the explanation of everything/anything.

Things that may exist beyond our senses are not exclusively limited to your made-up god.

And just so I'm not a total jerk for ignoring the point of this thread:

Just because I don't believe in a god doesn't mean I dicount the possibility of some type of existence after this life. I can speculate on what could be beyond death (including the possibility of oblivion, which inspires me to live this life to the fullest, whatever that means to me), but I cannot state with any confidence what lies after our current lives, and thus I cannot base my actions in this life on any expectations about an afterlife.

Although I would probably feel deep sadness about leaving this world (as well as, I hope, satisfaction), I am very interested in finding out what happens after (and if it turns out to be obliivion or the like, I won't find out, but I also won't care anymore, so either way that curiosity is taken care of).


Does what I've said above mean that I cannot be labeled an atheist? Am I missing something by assuming the definition of atheism is not believing in any god?


Actually, atheism is the lack of belief in anything that cannot be proven with out doubt. This should include science which cannot prove anything absolutely, but there is a such thing as taking purism too far. It seems rather hypocritical to have fundamentalist atheists, but they do exist. As well, some people, philosophers mainly, feel that by denying the existence of something you are actually validating it. Personally, I think this is bull, but whatever.

Non-theism is the lack of belief in a god.

Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of god, or afterlife, cannot be proven.

I am Wiccan, but I do not believe in a supreme being, nor do I believe in an afterlife. Death is death, and I accept that. It comforts me to know that my body will decay and nourish the new life that grows from it. Life is cyclical and we are all a part of the cycle. I do like fairytales, however, and the buddhist notion of karma has always appealed to me. Our souls have karma attached and when we die all the little pieces that made up that soul scatter to be rejoined with other pieces from other people with the same karma to make a new person. I don't believe this, I just like the romance of it.

I think that we should invent a new category, the skepticist. The skepticist would not believe anything outright, but would not rule anything out either. They would use critical thinking to determine if something is true to their satisfaction.

Reincarnation presumes a metaphysical self beyond the apparent physical self, not very different from what some refer to as "the soul". The concept of reincarnation requires a belief in a metaphysical or supernatural realm. While not truly religion (unless you add a diety or ruler of some kind) it does fall into the realm of superstition.

Religion does not have to include any ruler or diety at all. It is a belief system that has structure and has some method of dictating how the follower should live their life.

Superstition is the belief that some event foreshadows or causes another event with no proof that it is so, nor anything linking the two events besides coincidence and circumstance. Every religion falls into this category except those that are based strictly in actual cycles that occur in nature

I would argue that atheists are no less open-minded than theists, partially because you seldom hear of atheists persecuting people who don't follow their belief system.
.
No?
I see Atheists mock people all the time who dont believe the way they do, and I have no doubt that given the right set of circumstances they would be as quick to "persecution" as the next group. You say that as if Atheists have one set of Human faults and theists have an entirely different a more vicious set.
Atheists are no more immune from being bigoted hate mongers then any of the rest of us.
You have to take it on a person to person basis.

I think teaching a religion to a child should be banned until they reach a respectable age (13 seems to be an accepted one for things, like sexual inclination). This would allow people to make up their own minds and not be forced into something which they may not be able to leave. For this reason many people i know reject Christianity (and to a lesser extent other religions, its just Christianity is the majority) as a bad religion that indoctrinates its young (i went to a protestant school). Anyway, as an Agnostic i have a problem:

I fear death. Oblivion terrifies me. I like me. I am unique. Someone help.

I think teaching a religion to a child should be banned until they reach a respectable age (13 seems to be an accepted one for things, like sexual inclination). This would allow people to make up their own minds and not be forced into something which they may not be able to leave. For this reason many people i know reject Christianity (and to a lesser extent other religions, its just Christianity is the majority) as a bad religion that indoctrinates its young (i went to a protestant school).

i believe the opposite: i believe a child should be taught all religious superstitions EQUALLY, from as early on as possible. all myths should be taught equally, all religions portrayed equally, and all scientific possibilities also presented when applicable. then the child can make his or her own decisions with maximal information.

i also believe sexual information should be taught all along, and that waiting until a child is 13 is silly; i knew my "girl parts" were called a vagina at the same age i could identify my elbow, and i think that's the right way to do it.

I fear death. Oblivion terrifies me. I like me. I am unique. Someone help.
All I have to say is this.

When you're dead, you won't mind.

Im an agnostic and I personnally dont care if god exist or not. Even if somehow a god was proven to exist I would still live the same way

As to dieing, I dont care about it. Im going to die one way or another so why worry about. If it happens it happens and i cant stop it

No, you can't say that.
It's a linguistical difference that can't be stated as you said it.
Imagine 'believe that' and 'believe in' to be two enitirely different words like 'knight' and 'night'.

Atheism isn't a religion in a strict sense, however it is a religious viewpoint as it relates to religion and as such is as valid as any given religion.

That is a fine example of tortured logic. Unfortnately, it is tortured to death. Refuting a postulate because it has no proof is not a belief "in" something but simply a belief that there is nothing there. One cannot believe "in" the nonexistence of something. They believe "that" it doesn't exist.

One can believe all the tenents of a belief system. They believe "in" that system because their beliefs fall "inside" that doctrine. Those who do not share that view have beliefs that fall "outside" that doctine insofar as they belive that viewpoint is baseless.

As for my the original question of this thread and my dealings with death; at present I am in no hurry to come to that inevitable point. There are things I hope to experience and people who rely on me. But that is of no weight. I do not fear death, I just find it a major inconvenience and frustration to my desires both selfish and noble. It will be a source of painfull loss for those who love me. But they will heal and go on. Such is life and so goes death.

I do not fear a painful death. The pain is only felt in life - death would be a release from that suffering. Ask anyone who has had a relative with terminal cancer such as my family experienced when my father died. Death became the hoped for event, not the implaccable enemy. It is the cessation of suffering in that it is the cessation of existence.

Religion does not have to include any ruler or diety at all. It is a belief system that has structure and has some method of dictating how the follower should live their life.

Superstition is the belief that some event foreshadows or causes another event with no proof that it is so, nor anything linking the two events besides coincidence and circumstance. Every religion falls into this category except those that are based strictly in actual cycles that occur in nature
Name a religion that doesn't at least infer a being or entity that runs the show. Religion, by definition, is a particular set of beliefs that have at it's center theism of some sort.

I think a belief system that includes a deity is classed as a religion, while one which doesn't is called a philosophy...

http://www.geocities.com/finis_stellae/ng/ft/religion.html

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_bel_philosophy.htm

http://www.yespakistan.com/iqbal/rel_phil.asp

Name a religion that doesn't at least infer a being or entity that runs the show. Religion, by definition, is a particular set of beliefs that have at it's center theism of some sort.

Buddhism. There is no diety in buddhism. The buddha was a man who acheived enlightenment by following the middle road. He was mortal and died. According to their belief, upon acheiving enlightenment, he no longer had any karma to tie him to samsara, the cycle of death and rebirth. There are bodhisatvas that are other people (read: mortals) who have also acheived enlightenment. They, too, were not gods; they are simply figures to be revered and emulated.

Myself, I am Wiccan. There is no god figure in my religion. I believe that the earth, the unverse and all of the laws that created it and sustain it are the only thing that we need to "believe" in, whether we understand all of them or not. There is no "entity that runs the show". For some wiccans that may be true, but not for me and others that I know.

Religious Studies 100 is a very informative course. Scholars define religion as anything that follows a belief system that regulates or defines the way a person should live thier life. There is a lot of other stuff in that definition, but nowhere does it say that there has to be a diety. It can be based strictly on superstition.

Thanks Willamena, Ill go to a bookshop and look into it more, my position on these 'gospels' is very skeptical to say the least, but I should go and check them out.


Jesus said in the last days false prophets will rise and claim to be me, and tells us not to pay them attention, and that any word added or taken away from his teachings is false.

One of the reviewers called anyone who was skeptical of these gospels as having closed minds, which makes me wonder why he would be so defensive of something thats authentic.

You should bear in mind that there are so-called Apocryphal texts still included in the Catholic bible.

Also - Most of the texts we consider as Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha today were considered core texts by early christians. They were considered 'supplemental', not wrong.

[QUOTE=Willamena] 1. In the month of Adar Jesus gathered together the boys, and ranked them as though he had been a king.
2. For they spread their garments on the ground for him to sit on; and having made a crown of flowers, put it upon his head, and stood on his right and left as the guards of a king.

Jesus was too humble to acept that kind of abasement.

3. And if any one happened to pass by, they took him by force, and said, Come hither, and worship the king, that you may have a properous journey.

And I dont think he liked Bullies either.


4. In the mean time, while these things were doing, there came certain men, carrying a boy upon a couch;

This soulds like somthing out of India or Rome or maybe Egypt not Nazareth.


5. For this boy having gone with his companions to the mountain to gather wood, and having found there a partridge's nest,

I dont think this kind of bird was mentioned at all in the new testament.


7. But when they came to the place where the Lord Jesus was sitting like a king,

More self abasement which Jesus despised.

and the other boys stood around him like his ministers, the boys made haste to meet him, who was bitten by the serpent, and said to his neighbours, Come and pay your respects to the king;

And again Jesus would not have tolerated fools like this to be around him and praising him in this manner, sorry but the whole things starting to stink.

10. And when they answered, that a serpent had bitten him, the Lord Jesus said to the boys, Let us go and kill that serpent.


'Kill' is not a word Jesus would use to get rid of a dangerous creature, 'got rid of' or 'rid thyself of' Id belive maybe.


11. But when the parents of the boy desired to be excused, because their son lay at the point of death; the boys made answer, and said, Did not ye hear what the king said? Let us go and kill the serpent; and will not ye obey him?
They sound like a street gang. ;-)

Exactly, and Jesus did not lower himself to consort with Bullys and thugs as his friends or followers unless they changed to his way.


13. And when they were come to the nest, the Lord Jesus said to the boys, Is this the serpent's lurking place? They said, It was.
14. Then the Lord Jesus calling the serpent, it presently came forth and submitted to him; to whom he said, Go and suck out the poison which thou hast infused into that boy;

This is getting comical. :rolleyes:

15. So the serpent crept to the boy, and took away all its poison again.
16. Then the Lord Jesus cursed the serpent so that it immediately burst asunder, and died.

Harharharharhar, sorry but Im just imagining the snake swelling up and going boom, pure comedy. :)


19. And this is that Simon the Canaanite, who is mentioned in the Gospel.

Strange that this snake blowing up incident isnt referred to by the other gospels then, when Jesus meets Simon again, wonder why?

Also strange some of the Athiests in here dont believe in Jesus or the Bible, but their pretty keen on believing in missing gospels, that sound after reading all that nonsense, pretty dubious to say the least.

You should bear in mind that there are so-called Apocryphal texts still included in the Catholic bible.

Also - Most of the texts we consider as Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha today were considered core texts by early christians. They were considered 'supplemental', not wrong.

OK my bad, I was referring mainly in my skeptisism to the 'Gospels' of Thomas and Mary Magdalene, I dont think women were allowed to write accounts or books back then anyway.

i believe the opposite: i believe a child should be taught all religious superstitions EQUALLY, from as early on as possible. all myths should be taught equally, all religions portrayed equally, and all scientific possibilities also presented when applicable. then the child can make his or her own decisions with maximal information.

i also believe sexual information should be taught all along, and that waiting until a child is 13 is silly; i knew my "girl parts" were called a vagina at the same age i could identify my elbow, and i think that's the right way to do it.

i think you might be misunderstanding the spirit of the original post. There is a difference between being indoctrinated into a religion and taught a religion. If I am not mistaken the original post was talking about the former.

I agree with both of you. Anything that furthers the understanding of others is a excellent idea. We need to teach our children about other ways so that they know that everyone, while different, is still equal.

As to sex ed., absolutely. We protect our kids from innocent misconception, fear of their own bodies and bodily functions, and child molestors, by giving them answers to any question they might have. We are their parents and they shouldn't be looking for answers elsewhere. A caveat should be put on that, though. There is a such thing as age appropriate information. A child has a certain level of maturity and we cannot expect them to understand things beyond that level. It is more a question of language than anything else.

OK my bad, I was referring mainly in my skeptisism to the 'Gospels' of Thomas and Mary Magdalene, I dont think women were allowed to write accounts or books back then anyway.

You heard of Sappho?

Just because the 'faith' you belong to has a history of subjugating females doesn't mean that females have always lived the little 'home-maker' role you would slot them into.

Most of the inhabitants of the world, aside from the Greek and Roman empires were illiterate at this point in history, and yet you have no problem believing that a group of itinerant fisherman wrote 'gospels'. So - why not women?

I am willing to use metaphors, provided that (a) the metaphor makes sense and has a meaning that I agree with, and (b) people don't treat the metaphor as though it is a story that actually happened (though I know you don't, fact is that the majority of people on Earth still do).
Bit of an overstatement but you're right. And it's not their fault. It's science's fault, for requiring us to bring things into the physical world to analyize them, poke and prod them, define them on terms we can understand apart from ourselves.
Science's "fault"? I'd like to know which metaphor you used to obtain your computer.

The metaphor itself need not exist. However, that which the symbol stands for must exist, else the symbol is meaningless.
Not sure what you mean. Let me explain what I said. . .

Ancient man’s mind-set allowed him to be more receptive to religious metaphor than we are today. Then scientific method and logic were popularlized by the Greek philosophers, and these new ideas took the world by storm. The philosophers were like Hollywood stars; they would get up on the stage infront of huge audiences and orate them into frenzies. Everyone loved them, and every walk of life wanted in on their new ideas, and they adopted them so well that they literally reshaped the world. (One of the biggest ironies of this is that philosophy, once exalted as the highest achievement of the human mind, was relegated to a secondary importance in favour of science --subjective things became “mere” as in merely speculative.) And religion wanted in on this new world --the world was turning to science to explain things and religion changed with it. It was that or suffer criticism. Sadly, their ideas had no place in this new world, so they suffer criticism anyway. The idea of a God who is real and physical is an attempt to adapt ideas to a world that had embraced science and logic.

I guess science isn’t the only one to blame. By buying into science, religion set itself up for criticism on those terms.

Buddhism. There is no diety in buddhism. The buddha was a man who acheived enlightenment by following the middle road. He was mortal and died. According to their belief, upon acheiving enlightenment, he no longer had any karma to tie him to samsara, the cycle of death and rebirth. There are bodhisatvas that are other people (read: mortals) who have also acheived enlightenment. They, too, were not gods; they are simply figures to be revered and emulated.

Myself, I am Wiccan. There is no god figure in my religion. I believe that the earth, the unverse and all of the laws that created it and sustain it are the only thing that we need to "believe" in, whether we understand all of them or not. There is no "entity that runs the show". For some wiccans that may be true, but not for me and others that I know.

Religious Studies 100 is a very informative course. Scholars define religion as anything that follows a belief system that regulates or defines the way a person should live thier life. There is a lot of other stuff in that definition, but nowhere does it say that there has to be a diety. It can be based strictly on superstition.

I seem to recall that when one reaches nirvana they meet the Atman. It's been over 30 years but I recall that Atman is the godhead.

If you have taken the Wiccan beliefs but left behind the dieties you no longer have religion but are philosophically disposed toward the Wiccan matrix. If I discount Christ but hold to the precepts of Christianity I am no longer in a religion but, similarly, have a philosophical disposition that accepts the Judeo-Christian moral matrix.

So have I but I dont think this neccesitates the leaves having souls.


You started it... the aura is evidence of the spirit, and all that.



Well I dont know about the humility, maybe your missing that?
And what did you do that was courageous?


Now see, that hurts.
And now you question my courage, too?

Would you take a bullet for someone? Would you step in front of a gun to protect someone you loved?


He wasnt hiding he was the 'serpent.'


So you claim Satan was the serpent? And yet god cursed him to crawl on his belly and eat dust? Either the whole thing is metaphor, or a lie - you pick one, but stop trying to wedge stuff together to wriggle out of it.


He isnt under orders from God to torture Job he is given permisssion to test his faith.



You read it your 'way'... I'll read what it says in the book. 'Permission' would imply HaSatan asked for the task.

Job 1:8 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"

See, 'god' brings it up...

Job 1:11 "But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face."

See, HaSatan tells god to test Job... he says that if god abused Job, Job would curse him...

Job 1:12 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD."

And then god orders HaSatan to go and 'test' Job.

Read it whatever way you like. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with scripture.

i just don't think about it. it's gonna happen eventually whether you believe in a god or not. it sounds pretty sucky to me anyway, afterlife or not.

So do you attack their beliefs as well as false?

Do you scoff at the muslim men for believing they will each recieve thirty virgins when they go to heaven if they die in a Jihad.


Yes. But they don't make nearly as much fuss on the forums, so I have less cause to educate them.

And there are different interpretations of the Qu'ran verse you refer to... in some 'versions' the word virgin is replaced by 'fruit basket'.


Theres no such thing as a former Christian, if you think you are your only fooling yourself.
Your only one prayer away to Jesus from being a Christian again.

Would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?

I may be only one prayer away - but that's like saying if you jumped high enough you could get to the moon. You are never going to jump that high - hell, you're never going to try to... why? Because it would be a baseless endeavour, and you know it as foolish before it happens.

Name a religion that doesn't at least infer a being or entity that runs the show. Religion, by definition, is a particular set of beliefs that have at it's center theism of some sort.
Zen Buddhism

No, but the Old Testament is part of the Bible and so of course it would influence me.

Really?
So does that mean being a non Jew I can then go out against Jesus's teachings and kill and pillage and rape?

No, but:

Matthew 22:40 "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

(These being 'love god' and 'love thy neighbour as thyself')

OR:

Matthew 10:19 "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother."

That's only 6 commandments.

AND:

Luke 18:20 "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother."

That's only 5 commandments.

I'm not sure Rape was ever forbidden by commandment... the Old Testament is filled with people 'taking' wives, but very few marriages or requests...

Also - killing is often justified... e.g. Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Strange that this snake blowing up incident isnt referred to by the other gospels then, when Jesus meets Simon again, wonder why?
Are any incidents of Jesus youth recorded in the official canon gospels?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]You heard of Sappho?

Yes.

Just because the 'faith' you belong to has a history of subjugating females doesn't mean that females have always lived the little 'home-maker' role you would slot them into.

Oh stop it with the feminist rant would you, most civilisations and religons subjugated women as you call it, dont make it to be some kind of standout with Christianity.
And Im sure she would have written poetry anyway as well as looking after the home.

Most of the inhabitants of the world, aside from the Greek and Roman empires were illiterate at this point in history, and yet you have no problem believing that a group of itinerant fisherman wrote 'gospels'. So - why not women?

Beacause the new testament makes no mention of her reading and writing abilitys for a start, have you any proof that the other disciples were illiterate, or was that just one of your own generalisations.

Are any incidents of Jesus youth recorded in the official canon gospels?

Hardly any, a few of him at the local temple debating spiritual matters with the pharisees who considered him to be incredibly wise for his age.

Hardly any, a few of him at the local temple debating spiritual matters with the pharisees who considered him to be incredibly wise for his age.
Is it presumed in official canon that Jesus was as wise as he was when he an adult when he was a child? Or behaved in the same manner?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]You started it... the aura is evidence of the spirit, and all that.

I was making a comparison, at no stage of this did I say this was evidence of the leaves having souls.


Now see, that hurts.
And now you question my courage, too?

Not questioning it at all, just asking what you did.


Would you take a bullet for someone? Would you step in front of a gun to protect someone you loved?

Well if thats what you did, I take my hat off too you, and yes if I could react in time Id do the same.

So you claim Satan was the serpent? And yet god cursed him to crawl on his belly and eat dust? Either the whole thing is metaphor, or a lie - you pick one, but stop trying to wedge stuff together to wriggle out of it.

Whatever, you believe the serpent goes off and eats dust for eternity then, and I'll stick to what I think it means.


You read it your 'way'... I'll read what it says in the book. 'Permission' would imply HaSatan asked for the task.

He did.

Job 1:8 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"

See, 'god' brings it up...

Job 1:11 "But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face."

See, HaSatan tells god to test Job... he says that if god abused Job, Job would curse him...

Job 1:12 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD."

And then god orders HaSatan to go and 'test' Job.

Well thats giving him permission to do it isnt it.

Read it whatever way you like. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with scripture.

I do agree with scripture, but your twisting it around to suit your arguement.

Zen Buddhism
Please see Buddhism response above and clarifications below.

"Interspersed throughout the hymns collected in the Rig Veda are references to a single god or single principle which is the source or the totality of all other divinities and phenomenon in the universe. . ." link (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/ATMAN.HTM)

What is Zen? (the simple question)
Zen is short for Zen Buddhism. It is sometimes called a religion and sometimes called a philosophy. Choose whichever term you prefer; it simply doesn't matter.

Historically, Zen Buddhism originates in the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama. Around 500 B.C. he was a prince in what is now India. At the age of 29, deeply troubled by the suffering he saw around him, he renounced his privileged life to seek understanding. After 6 years of struggling as an ascetic he finally achieved Enlightenment at age 35. After this he was known as the Buddha (meaning roughly "one who is awake"). In a nutshell, he realized that everything is subject to change and that suffering and discontentment are the result of attachment to circumstances and things which, by their nature, are impermanent. By ridding oneself of these attachments, including attachment to the false notion of self or "I", one can be free of suffering.

The teachings of the Buddha have, to this day, been passed down from teacher to student. Around 475 A.D. one of these teachers, Bodhidharma, traveled from India to China and introduced the teachings of the Buddha there. In China Buddhism mingled with Taoism. The result of this mingling was the Ch'an School of Buddhism. Around 1200 A.D. Ch'an Buddhism spread from China to Japan where it is called (at least in translation) Zen Buddhism. link (http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/faq.html)

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]You started it... the aura is evidence of the spirit, and all that.

But not on leaves Grave


Now see, that hurts.
And now you question my courage, too?

Not at all, I was just asking out of curiosity what it was you did.

Would you take a bullet for someone? Would you step in front of a gun to protect someone you loved?

Well if thats it, I take my hat off to you, and yes if I reacted fast enough I would.


So you claim Satan was the serpent? And yet god cursed him to crawl on his belly and eat dust? Either the whole thing is metaphor, or a lie - you pick one, but stop trying to wedge stuff together to wriggle out of it.

Whatever, you believe the serpent crawled off and ate dust for eternity, and Ill believe what I think it means.


You read it your 'way'... I'll read what it says in the book. 'Permission' would imply HaSatan asked for the task.

Job 1:8 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"

See, 'god' brings it up...

Job 1:11 "But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face."

See, HaSatan tells god to test Job... he says that if god abused Job, Job would curse him...

Job 1:12 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD."

And then god orders HaSatan to go and 'test' Job.

Well thats pretty much giving him permission isnt it.

Read it whatever way you like. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with scripture.

I dont think so.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]No, but:

Matthew 22:40 "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

(These being 'love god' and 'love thy neighbour as thyself')


Well if you do follow those two all your life you pretty much wont break any other commandments will you.

OR:

Matthew 10:19 "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother."

That's only 6 commandments.

Your splitting hairs again, maybe he was just saying the ones he thought were the most important.

AND:

Luke 18:20 "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother."

That's only 5 commandments.

See my previous answer.

I'm not sure Rape was ever forbidden by commandment... the Old Testament is filled with people 'taking' wives, but very few marriages or requests...

It was a rough world for women then I wont argue that, there werent many feminists around to help them for some reason, they were probably too scared to say anything.

Also - killing is often justified... e.g. Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Agreed, and that includes male witches as well.

Do you think the Israelites shouldnt have killed anyone even in self defence?

Sorry but sometimes killing is very justified.

"Interspersed throughout the hymns collected in the Rig Veda are references to a single god or single principle which is the source or the totality of all other divinities and phenomenon in the universe. . ." link (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/ATMAN.HTM)

Um... Rig Veda is Hinduism

Um... Rig Veda is Hinduism

Just goes to show you my memory's limitations. Thanks.

However the comment from the Zen site is on point;
"Zen is short for Zen Buddhism. It is sometimes called a religion and sometimes called a philosophy. Choose whichever term you prefer; it simply doesn't matter.

Given the definition of religion as essentially theist oriented we can split the hair on Buddahism.

Bedtime. Got to go.

Good night all & thanks for the conversation.

Bedtime. Got to go.

Good night all & thanks for the conversation.

Nighty night, or Gud nacht.

Ill be doing the same in 12 hours.

You Atheists are sad sad people.

I guess insults are only bad when they are aimed at you then?

Theres no such thing as a former Christian, if you think you are your only fooling yourself.
Your only one prayer away to Jesus from being a Christian again.

I'm also one fuck away from not being a virgin, but hey-neither one will probebly happen anytime soon.

Only difference is, I might have sex one day. I've turned my back on that religion and it's falsehoods. Heh, that's a word you should enjoy. Good, biblical word, "falsehoods"

Also - killing is often justified... e.g. Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Agreed, and that includes male witches as well.

Do you think the Israelites shouldnt have killed anyone even in self defence?

Sorry but sometimes killing is very justified.

That fucking Mrs Cleo is going DOWN.

Now, see how silly that seems? I'm going to go murder Cleo because the bible tells me to. Isn't that marvelous logic? Or better yet, I'm going to go find some wiccans and chop their heads off.

You have obviously not read ANY of the Old Testament. "Then the hebrews went out, and God told them to massacre some tribe and to steal all their women. Then they went into the the land of the such and such.

Actually no, that wasn't my favorite part. I liked the part where God would harden the heart of a leader, then tell "his people" to kill him and everyone in his city because of it.

Then again, that part where Jephthah gives his fucking DAUGHTER as a human sacrifice. God welcomed it, of course. After all, he loves the smell of roasting flesh.

Oh, but it's so hard to choose. So many wonderful parts, so little time.

I guess insults are only bad when they are aimed at you then?

How you take my opinion of Atheists and Atheism is up to you, but it wasnt meant to be an insult.

If you took it that way then Im sorry, and might I suggest you learn to develop a thicker skin.

How you take my opinion of Atheists and Atheism is up to you, but it wasnt meant to be an insult.

If you took it that way then Im sorry, and might I suggest you learn to develop a thicker skin.

I'll bet.

Actually, I don't care about the insult itself, more about the fact that almost every page in this thread has you complaining about being insulted or telling people you're no longer talking to them because they were rude.

[QUOTE=Goed]I'm also one fuck away from not being a virgin, but hey-neither one will probley happen anytime soon.

Im not interested in your sex life.

I've turned my back on that religion and it's falsehoods. Heh, that's a word you should enjoy. Good, biblical word, "falsehoods"



Diddums.



That fucking Mrs Cleo is going DOWN.

Sorry but your making absolutely no sense at all now.

Now, see how silly that seems? I'm going to go murder Cleo because the bible tells me to. Isn't that marvelous logic? Or better yet, I'm going to go find some wiccans and chop their heads off.

If their threatening you why not?
Some were seen as a threat to society, and so were in those times dealt with in the only way that was fast, their werent many Jails around then.

You have obviously not read ANY of the Old Testament. "Then the hebrews went out, and God told them to massacre some tribe and to steal all their women. Then they went into the the land of the such and such.

Ive read alot of the old testament actually, funny that a Christian should do that.

What if some tribe went out to go massacre the Hebrews, you probably wouldnt worry about that I'd bet.
It was a dog eat world then, the Hebrews were only doing what everyone else was, why should they have to be the exception, they would have got wiped out pretty soon if they had been.



Actually no, that wasn't my favorite part. I liked the part where God would harden the heart of a leader, then tell "his people" to kill him and everyone in his city because of it.

Just local politics I wouldnt read too much into it.

Then again, that part where Jephthah gives his fucking DAUGHTER as a human sacrifice. God welcomed it, of course. After all, he loves the smell of roasting flesh.

Human sacrifice was common in the Ancient world, once again why do you expect the Hebrews to be any different, personally I would rather die than give up a relation for sacrifice, and would offer myself in their place.


Oh, but it's so hard to choose. So many wonderful parts, so little time.

Its an interesting book your right, its the most talked about book in the history of the world, is discussed presently more than any other book, just look at this thread, and has sold more copies ever than any other book, which is pretty good for something you Atheists call fake, a bunch of fairytales and a load of nonsense, wouldnt you agree?

On the other hand, one could believe so passionately in life after death that they attain it...

...buried in a 7'x3' box, cognizant of rot.

Have a nice eternity.

I've turned my back on that religion and it's falsehoods. Heh, that's a word you should enjoy. Good, biblical word, "falsehoods"
Diddums.
What the hell does that mean? :p


That fucking Mrs Cleo is going DOWN.

Sorry but your making absolutely no sense at all now.
You're holy book said to kill all practitioners of magic, and you said it was justified. Therefore, it would be perfectly fine to go kill her.


Now, see how silly that seems? I'm going to go murder Cleo because the bible tells me to. Isn't that marvelous logic? Or better yet, I'm going to go find some wiccans and chop their heads off.

If their threatening you why not?
Some were seen as a threat to society, and so were in those times dealt with in the only way that was fast, their werent many Jails around then.
So you believe that murder is a permissable crime?


You have obviously not read ANY of the Old Testament. "Then the hebrews went out, and God told them to massacre some tribe and to steal all their women. Then they went into the the land of the such and such.

Ive read alot of the old testament actually, funny that a Christian should do that.

What if some tribe went out to go massacre the Hebrews, you probably wouldnt worry about that I'd bet.
It was a dog eat world then, the Hebrews were only doing what everyone else was, why should they have to be the exception, they would have got wiped out pretty soon if they had been.
Several times the Hebrews would attack another land for no reason other then to burn it and kill all of it's inhabitants. So much for a good moral founding.


Actually no, that wasn't my favorite part. I liked the part where God would harden the heart of a leader, then tell "his people" to kill him and everyone in his city because of it.

Just local politics I wouldnt read too much into it.
No, according to your religion, God wanted these people dead, and he made a bullshit justification for it. It's not local politicas for you. Do you understand your own religion?


Then again, that part where Jephthah gives his fucking DAUGHTER as a human sacrifice. God welcomed it, of course. After all, he loves the smell of roasting flesh.

Human sacrifice was common in the Ancient world, once again why do you expect the Hebrews to be any different, personally I would rather die than give up a relation for sacrifice, and would offer myself in their place.
Once again, you can't take a moral high ground if you lower yourselves to others. "Thou shalt not kill. Unless I tell you to. Oh, and unless you're burning it. That shit smells good. Hey, don't look at me like that, I'm fucking GOD. Back off, bitch."

Now's here's a nice question. If God told you to kill your daughter-and by kill, I mean do so very specifically while she was still a virgin-would you?

How strong is your faith?

Oh, but it's so hard to choose. So many wonderful parts, so little time.

Its an interesting book your right, its the most talked about book in the history of the world, is more discussed presently than any other book, and has sold more copies ever, than any other book, which is pretty good for something you Atheists call fake, a bunch of fairytales and a load of nonsense, wouldnt you agree?[/quote]

When people smell shit, they tend to call it. Not our fault you keep believing it.

[QUOTE=Goed]What the hell does that mean? :p

It means I couldnt care less.

Also Im not sure why Atheists like you who used to be Christians are so full of hate and derision for something you say now doesnt exist, its more as if your trying to convince yourselves more than anyone else.

You're holy book said to kill all practitioners of magic, and you said it was justified. Therefore, it would be perfectly fine to go kill her.

If the person is breaking a tribes law then they have to pay the punishment.


So you believe that murder is a permissable crime?

I wouldnt call it murder.


Several times the Hebrews would attack another land for no reason other then to burn it and kill all of it's inhabitants. So much for a good moral founding.

Yes and they recieved the same treatment themselves quite a few times as well, once again you expect these people to be different in this regard.


No, according to your religion, God wanted these people dead, and he made a bullshit justification for it. It's not local politicas for you. Do you understand your own religion?

Well you think its bullshit, but I would say he had a good reason for it.

And were talking about the Ancient Jews arent we, you know the Hebrews, so in case you hadnt worked it out yet, Im a Christian not Jewish, and so its not my religon.
While I believe in the ten commandments importance, I dont celebrate Yom Kippur or say mazel Tof.


Once again, you can't take a moral high ground if you lower yourselves to others. "Thou shalt not kill. Unless I tell you to. Oh, and unless you're burning it. That shit smells good. Hey, don't look at me like that, I'm fucking GOD. Back off, bitch."

Calm down, take a deep breath.

Now's here's a nice question. If God told you to kill your daughter-and by kill, I mean do so very specifically while she was still a virgin-would you?

No I would kill myself and hope he takes me instead.

How strong is your faith?

Compared to other Christians pretty weak, but with Gods help in the coming years of tribulation it will hopefully get much stronger.



When people smell shit, they tend to call it. Not our fault you keep believing it.

Well what I believe in is up to me not you, and if you want to try and be more grown up in future, and not such an ignoramus, try not to call what other people believe in shit, or do you enjoy being a bore and and going around and mocking other people for their religous beliefs.
Maybe you could go down to a Navaho Indian reservation and call their spiritual beliefs shit too, or go into your local mosque and spit on their Koran as well, because you think, right or wrong that you know better than they do.

Sorry but arrogance like yours is very simple minded.

What the hell does that mean? :p

It means I couldnt care less, you sound like a real sook, sorry.
According to you, this "sook" is one small prayer away from salvation :p. Too bad it isn't going to happen.

You're holy book said to kill all practitioners of magic, and you said it was justified. Therefore, it would be perfectly fine to go kill her.

If the person is breaking a tribes law then they have to pay the punishment.
Even if the law is unjustified?

So you believe that murder is a permissable crime?

I wouldnt call it murder.
What would you call it? WHen I see a spade, I call it a spade. When I see murder, I call it murder.

Several times the Hebrews would attack another land for no reason other then to burn it and kill all of it's inhabitants. So much for a good moral founding.

Yes and they recieved the same treatment themselves quite a few times as well, once again you expect these people to be different in this regard.
I'm pointing out that you have no standing moral highg ground.

No, according to your religion, God wanted these people dead, and he made a bullshit justification for it. It's not local politicas for you. Do you understand your own religion?

Well you think its bullshit, but I would say he had a good reason for it.

And were talking about the Ancient Jews arent we, you know the Hebews, so in case you haventworked it out yet, Im a Christian, and so its not my religon.
While I believe in the ten commandments importance, I dont celebrate Yom Kippur.
Sorry champ, but the Old Testament is part of your holy book, so it's part of your religion.

Once again, you can't take a moral high ground if you lower yourselves to others. "Thou shalt not kill. Unless I tell you to. Oh, and unless you're burning it. That shit smells good. Hey, don't look at me like that, I'm fucking GOD. Back off, bitch."

Calm down, take a deep breath.
It was a joke. Laugh much, eh?

Now's here's a nice question. If God told you to kill your daughter-and by kill, I mean do so very specifically while she was still a virgin-would you?

No I would kill myself and hope he takes me instead.
That would be against your religion, though.

How strong is your faith?

Compared to other Christians pretty weak, but with Gods help in the coming years of tribulation it will hopefully get much stronger.
This is what I don't understand. Why would you WANT further faith in this religion? As stated above, God had previously asked someone to kill his daughter as a sacrifice. Of course, he did the same shit to Abraham, but at least God told him to stop before the deed was done. You're telling me that you want to increase your faith...how much? To the point where if God asks you to sacrifice your daughter, you'll do it?


When people smell shit, they tend to call it. Not our fault you keep believing it.

Well what I believe in is up to me not you, and if you want to try and be more grown up in future, and not such an ignoramus, try not to call what other people believe in shit, or do you enjoy being a bore and and going around and mocking other people for their religous beliefs.
Maybe you could go down to a Navaho Indian reservation and call their spiritual beliefs shit too, or how about taking your piggy little butt into your local mosque and spitting on their Koran as well, because you think, right or wrong that you know better than they do.
One majorly big difference: they don't shove it in my face, and try to force me to believe it.

Oh, and to be completely honest, I have a larger...distaste for christianity, since I was fooled into believing it for some time.

[QUOTE=Goed]According to you, this "sook" is one small prayer away from salvation :p. Too bad it isn't going to happen.

Im starting to agree with you on that and care even less.


Even if the law is unjustified?

What right have you got to say it was unjustified, did you live back then under their conditions, you have got no idea and even less reason to judge.


What would you call it? WHen I see a spade, I call it a spade. When I see murder, I call it murder.

I call it the laws they lived and functioned under, would you, if you could, go back and tell them any differently?

I'm pointing out that you have no standing moral highg ground.

And who made you the judge of my moral high ground?


Sorry champ, but the Old Testament is part of your holy book, so it's part of your religion.

Dear oh me, the New Testament is the main focal point of Christianity, not the Old one.




It was a joke. Laugh much, eh?

Um dont ever try to be a comedian, you might get a stunned silence instead of the reaction you were looking for.




That would be against your religion, though.

Oh well better than killing a relation, I'll accept the consequences.


This is what I don't understand. Why would you WANT further faith in this religion? As stated above, God had previously asked someone to kill his daughter as a sacrifice. Of course, he did the same shit to Abraham, but at least God told him to stop before the deed was done. You're telling me that you want to increase your faith...how much? To the point where if God asks you to sacrifice your daughter, you'll do it?

I think Ive already explained to you enough I wouldnt kill a relation for anyone.

If God calls me weak for not going through with it then I'll accept the consequences.
Your having a great go at my amount of faith, which is ironic for someone who never had any.
People in glass houses you know..


One majorly big difference: they don't shove it in my face, and try to force me to believe it.

Well I think if anyones shoving anything or pushing an agenda around here its you, burn any Churches lately?



Oh, and to be completely honest, I have a larger...distaste for christianity, since I was fooled into believing it for some time.


Im sure when you mature a bit more, that you will get over it.

Just goes to show you my memory's limitations. Thanks.

However the comment from the Zen site is on point;
"Zen is short for Zen Buddhism. It is sometimes called a religion and sometimes called a philosophy. Choose whichever term you prefer; it simply doesn't matter.

Given the definition of religion as essentially theist oriented we can split the hair on Buddahism.
Right; it doesn't matter. But it has no deity.

Then again, that part where Jephthah gives his fucking DAUGHTER as a human sacrifice. God welcomed it, of course. After all, he loves the smell of roasting flesh.
Jephthah wasn't a Hebrew, he just went to work for them. The Israelites needed a great general and hired him to lead them in war. Sacrificing the first-born was a common practice among pagans to bring victory in war. His daughter went willingly, because she understood this; she was a pagan. This story is a good example of the slant that people looking at an incident from only one point of view put on a story --the story-teller saw it as if Jephthah didn't expect to sacifice his daughter, and fell to his knees in grief. He saw what he wanted to see.

Judges 10:6 says, "Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD . They served the Baals and the Ashtoreths, and the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites and the gods of the Philistines." The reason for this is that people settling in the region (i.e. new Israelites) were expected to simply adopt the religion of the region; some did, some didn't. Jephthah was given special consideration, because he fought so well for Israel in the wars. His sons were born Israelites, and so adopted the religion of the country they resided in, and eventually drove their father away because of his beliefs.

Oh stop it with the feminist rant would you, most civilisations and religons subjugated women as you call it, dont make it to be some kind of standout with Christianity.
And Im sure she would have written poetry anyway as well as looking after the home.

Beacause the new testament makes no mention of her reading and writing abilitys for a start, have you any proof that the other disciples were illiterate, or was that just one of your own generalisations.

You really don't read other peoples posts do you...?

I said most people were illiterate, and asked why you thought fishermen would be capable of writing a book - but a woman wouldn't.

I didn't say the fishermen were illiterate. But, they probably were, now that you mention it.

And what have you got against women? Feminist rant? Everyone else was doing it, why shouldn't we...?

See - that's part of the problem.