NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?

I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?

Honestly? I'm tired of these threads.

But I'll answer.

I think Faith is the driving force of afterlife. Like Christ said, "He who believeth in me shall not die, but have eternal life." I think that our afterlife is determined solely by our faith. Call it a neural hallucination as our conciousness fades and subjective time crawls to a standstill, or 'Heaven and Hell'. I think we give ourselves the afterlife our faith says we deserve.

WHich is why I pity atheists. Because if I'm right, they get nothing.

WHich is why I pity atheists. Because if I'm right, they get nothing.
and i pity you because if i'm right you will have missed out on living the only life you will ever get. your faith renders you unable to experience the fullness of your only chance at existence, according to my beliefs. given the choice, i would rather risk hell than the alternative.

We've known eachother for a long time. Does it sound to you like my faith inhibits me in any way? ;)

That's really quite eloquent...philosophical too. Basically you're saying that people provide their own afterlife...which really would make sense in a way. You're also saying that the only proof lies with the dead who we cannot reach (or can we? :-)

So how do we prove that there is or isn't a God?

That's really quite eloquent...philosophical too. Basically you're saying that people provide their own afterlife...which really would make sense in a way. You're also saying that the only proof lies with the dead who we cannot reach (or can we? :-)

So how do we prove that there is or isn't a God?

Which would you prefer?

Which would I prefer?

I would have to say that I would prefer that there is a God. It's the most wonderful feeling in the world to know that there is someone always there for you is you will let him be.

And as for the comment about wasting the only time you have on earth, you must consider that in Lunatic Goofball's comment he said that you basically create your own afterlife, therefore you will not have wasted your life because you will have created a perfect afterlife for yourself.

I think it's all in what you want to believe. I don't believe in god(s) or associated religions, but that doesn't mean I'm *necessarily* right. We'll all find out the answer in the end.

given the choice, i would rather risk hell than the alternative.

That's not very comforting. I would never turn to Christianity just because I wanted to have eternal life, it would be for God. Saying that, i'm not a Christian, never will be, and don't you think that eternal bliss would get boring after a while?

As for the author of this post - how do you know that it was God that made the universe? Personally, I don't really believe in the Big Bang theory, because scientists are ever changing their ideas, but i'd stick to that before I thought that God made it. How DO you know that it was God? Couldn't it have been some really, really large and powerful sheep? Or a fern tree? Couldn't it have been a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle? Yes, the Bible does say that God is this, God is that, blah blah blah but you can't really take things literally from an old book, can you? Well, I can't.

You know, I've always figured "better safe than sorry". I can live a pretty darn happy life without too much sin, so I'll take my chances on wasting it so that I don't have to spend eternity encased in ice with my eyes ears and mouth frozen shut while satan's four heads gush bloody foam all around me.

and i pity you because if i'm right you will have missed out on living the only life you will ever get. your faith renders you unable to experience the fullness of your only chance at existence, according to my beliefs. given the choice, i would rather risk hell than the alternative.

Except that I know plenty of good Christian people who are absolutely happy with the life they lead. Perhaps because they ENJOY helping others, and all that good stuff. After all, what do we miss out on? Getting so drunk we puke (done that already, but it gets old), stealing, killing people? What exactly do we miss out on? Fighting, always getting our way, insulting other people for their beliefs? Just because you live a christian life doesn't mean you can't enjoy life. I personally feel very good when I am helping other people, and I am usually glad I refrain from doing some things, because often when I do them, the consequences aren't worth the experience. Jail isn't that great, trust me. So what exactly do I miss out on?

Which would I prefer?

I would have to say that I would prefer that there is a God. It's the most wonderful feeling in the world to know that there is someone always there for you is you will let him be.

And as for the comment about wasting the only time you have on earth, you must consider that in Lunatic Goofball's comment he said that you basically create your own afterlife, therefore you will not have wasted your life because you will have created a perfect afterlife for yourself.

Or imperfect. I think that's the 'Hell'. Do we really think we deserve an eternity of bliss, or an eternity of suffering or something in between? Have we been true to our faith? Have we rationalized away our shortcomings? Do we really believe in God, or are we just trying to provide ourselves with afterlife insurance? Do we really believe in no God, or are we just afraid of His Judgement? These could be very important questions when we die.

Well, when I say "God" I mean a universal power. Trust me, I've run the gammot relgion-wise. I was Christian at first (Catholic), then I became a Wiccan, then I became an Atheist, then I became christian again (disciples of christ). But what I mean is that the idea of the big bang defies everything that science preaches. This is a science without a god. However, if you incorporate God, then suddenly it becomes a scientific possibility. Why is it automatically assumed that God and Science are two seperate things?

Well, when I say "God" I mean a universal power. Trust me, I've run the gammot relgion-wise. I was Christian at first (Catholic), then I became a Wiccan, then I became an Atheist, then I became christian again (disciples of christ). But what I mean is that the idea of the big bang defies everything that science preaches. This is a science without a god. However, if you incorporate God, then suddenly it becomes a scientific possibility. Why is it automatically assumed that God and Science are two seperate things?

It isn't. I certainly don't. Studying physics has made me MORE convinced in my belief in God. Not less.

The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence.

Let's see- the Big Bang thoery successfully predicted:
- Expansion of the universe (Red-shift)
- Cosmic background radiation
- The abundance of helium
- The distrubition of quasars

As well, it resolves Olber's paradox (http://www.fact-index.com/o/ol/olbers__paradox.html).

Please take the time to research (from multiple sources!) scientific theories before you make such statements.

And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?

And what's to say that Shimako (http://koti.mbnet.fi/muumi/Roinaa/somethingsomething/more/marimite/shimako01.jpg) didn't cause the big bang herself? I think we should stay true to the scientific method. It works.

By the way, Hadesrulesmuch. That's really true. Living a Christian life is only a waste if you look at it that way.

The only true religion is that of Crabism. It’s a personalized scavenger religion with no dogmatic principals except for those you make up yourself or choose to follow. Well that is except for the basic rules and fundamental truths of the Almighty Crab. I’m still in the process of making those rules up. I haven’t even gotten any of them written down yet so don’t even ask.

Let's see- the Big Bang thoery successfully predicted:
- Expansion of the universe (Red-shift)
- Cosmic background radiation
- The abundance of helium
- The distrubition of quasars

As well, it resolves Olber's paradox (http://www.fact-index.com/o/ol/olbers__paradox.html).

Please take the time to research (from multiple sources!) scientific theories before you make such statements.



And what's to say that Shimako (http://koti.mbnet.fi/muumi/Roinaa/somethingsomething/more/marimite/shimako01.jpg) didn't cause the big bang herself? I think we should stay true to the scientific method. It works.

Yes, but the only problem is that it defies numerous laws of science.

Why is it automatically assumed that God and Science are two seperate things?


Science adopts a methological naturalism since it was long realized that supernatural explanations are worthless.

Yes, but the only problem is that it defies numerous laws of science.

Ah, no.

Except that I know plenty of good Christian people who are absolutely happy with the life they lead. Perhaps because they ENJOY helping others, and all that good stuff. After all, what do we miss out on? Getting so drunk we puke (done that already, but it gets old), stealing, killing people? What exactly do we miss out on? Fighting, always getting our way, insulting other people for their beliefs? Just because you live a christian life doesn't mean you can't enjoy life. I personally feel very good when I am helping other people, and I am usually glad I refrain from doing some things, because often when I do them, the consequences aren't worth the experience. Jail isn't that great, trust me. So what exactly do I miss out on?
it's always interesting to see people who think their belief in God is all that keeps them from a life of debauchery and wickedness, yet who also believe themselves to be moral human beings. if the only thing keeping you from wickedness is the bribe of heaven or the threat of hell, then how moral are you really? how much more moral is the person who leads a good life through genuine compassion and reasoned ethics? and if God isn't the only thing making you a good person then why do you assume those who don't believe in God must be immoral, reckless, rude, and corrupt?

it's also interesting that you think i base my concept of a full life on how much a person enjoys himself or herself; that is certainly a large part, but it is not what i use to define a full life. one may have to endure unhappiness or pass up pleasures in order to live well and fully, and being happy does not always mean you are living the best possible life.

no, i was not referring to any of the things you listed when i talk about missing out on existence. it is your own prejudice that confuses you into thinking that non-religious people are consumed by desires of the flesh, and you have just helped make part of my point about the blinders of faith...if those are the assumptions you carry around with you then my pity for you is even greater.

Let's see- the Big Bang thoery successfully predicted:
- Expansion of the universe (Red-shift)
- Cosmic background radiation
- The abundance of helium
- The distrubition of quasars

As well, it resolves Olber's paradox (http://www.fact-index.com/o/ol/olbers__paradox.html).

Please take the time to research (from multiple sources!) scientific theories before you make such statements.



And what's to say that Shimako (http://koti.mbnet.fi/muumi/Roinaa/somethingsomething/more/marimite/shimako01.jpg) didn't cause the big bang herself? I think we should stay true to the scientific method. It works.

I have done the research. It was the topic of a rather large paper I wrote in my senior year of college.

The Big Bang EXPLAINS these things...so what? God can explain them. I bet that I could think of a dozen theories right now that would explain most or all of those things. I've talked to PhDs on this subject (physics and astrophysics mostly as wellas theology), some who agree with the God theory, some the big bang, and some others. But none of them could offer any proof that any of their theories worked. They expected me to rely on faith. Why is it so ridiculous to have faith in God, yet it's not ridiculous to have faith in an untested, unproven scientific theory that's only popular because it's the one most "scientists" chose to believe and proliferate.

Now. I have a slightly better than rudimentary knowledge of physics and if you or anyone else can explain how the largest piece of matter that has ever existed managed to defy the greatest single gravitational force ever and expload outward without help from any other source, being etc. I'd be glad to hear it.

In any case, I personally agree with the Big Bang generally. I simply believe that God caused it.

P.S.-The scientific method is something created by humans and is therefore flawed (you can't argue with that. Humans have never created ANYTHING even bordering on perfect). And would therefore logically be incapable of detecting something perfect because something perfect does not fit within the parameters of the scientific method. The scientific method, while useful beyond any human's wildest dreams, is not the end-all, be-all

We've known eachother for a long time. Does it sound to you like my faith inhibits me in any way? ;)
yes, to be honest. you still may lead a happy and decent life, but i do not believe you can live a complete life if you embrace superstitious beliefs in dieties or afterlives. it's just like how you pity me for not believing in God, even though i lead a full and currently delightful existence.

I don't believe in God (which is completely different from believing that God does not exist), nor do I follow any religion. I do not know if God exists or whether there is a true religion. I am not dogmatic there. However, since religions contradict each other, they can't all be true. The way I see it either one religion is true or they are all false.

Now, why believe in anything which hasn't been proven? Normally people don't do that, but they tend to make exceptions on occasion, particularly in the religious department for some reason.

I also fail to understand people who use Pascal's Wager to justify faith (if Christians are right and you die a non-Christian, you are going to hell, but if the afterlife does not exist and you die a Christian, you are safe). There are numerous problems with that argument, but for one thing: What if Christianity is wrong, and some other religion is right, according to which you will go to hell if you do not follow it, and you die a Christian?

Just my two cents...

Ah, no.

Is that so? You disagree? Let me explain for you then.

The basic premise of the Big Bang theory is that a very small, very dense clump of matter exploded and then the universe formed from the explosion. However, what it does not explain is where that matter came from.

Now, MetaResearch is a group that scientifically challenges many common beliefs in the field of cosmology. They have put out a bulletin that challenges the Big Bang Theory, at http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp .
This is not a christian organization. Here is what they have to say:
A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:

1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.

2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.

10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 10^59. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

Another paper on the same topic can be found here:
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/

In any case, I personally agree with the Big Bang generally. I simply believe that God caused it.


And that's why god shouldn't play with matches.

By the way, I don't believe myself moral. I do my best to be, but I'm not. The only thing that saves me is the grace of God. I love God and I do my best to do what is right in his eyes. There is nothing we can do to make God love us more or less. God's grace is what saves us and all we have to do is believe in him.

I've looked at religion all my life. I was an atheist for years, but I studied and studied, but eventually it all came back to God.

I'm not some religious wack-o either. I've got two degrees, one in Economics and one in Theatre, and I'm working on a third. I've got three minors, too, Psychology, French, and Political science. I also speak three other languages so I'm not some moron spouting off about things he doesn't understand. I hardly claim to have a complete grasp of them, but I do, to some extent, know what I'm talking about.

Hadesrulesmuch-thank you. I was about to copy and paste my entire twenty-five page report onto this thread, but you basically summed up about two-thirds of it, lol

God can explain them.

Really?
What mechanism did God use?
What kind of organism is God?
Where did this being come from?
How does it have the abilities it has?
What evidence do we have of this being?

Why is it so ridiculous to have faith in God, yet it's not ridiculous to have faith in an untested, unproven scientific theory that's only popular because it's the one most "scientists" chose to believe and proliferate
Now. I have a slightly better than rudimentary knowledge of physics and if you or anyone else can explain how the largest piece of matter
that has ever existed managed to defy the greatest single gravitational force ever and expload outward without help from any other source, being etc. I'd be glad to hear it.

Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

* The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
* By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
* It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.
nasa.gov (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html)

Listen to me people. The problem is that an inflationary universe (i.e. one caused by the Big Bang) DOES NOT WORK. In 2001 in the scientific journal "Scientific American" (a very prestigious and well-known journal) it was stated in an article that the Big Bang was no longer seen as "a direct solution." This article echoed one from 1994. Cosmologists and scientists do NOT believe in the Big Bang anymore. It has been officially debunked, because it does not work. That is the truth.

it's always interesting to see people who think their belief in God is all that keeps them from a life of debauchery and wickedness, yet who also believe themselves to be moral human beings. if the only thing keeping you from wickedness is the bribe of heaven or the threat of hell, then how moral are you really? how much more moral is the person who leads a good life through genuine compassion and reasoned ethics? and if God isn't the only thing making you a good person then why do you assume those who don't believe in God must be immoral, reckless, rude, and corrupt?

it's also interesting that you think i base my concept of a full life on how much a person enjoys himself or herself; that is certainly a large part, but it is not what i use to define a full life. one may have to endure unhappiness or pass up pleasures in order to live well and fully, and being happy does not always mean you are living the best possible life.

no, i was not referring to any of the things you listed when i talk about missing out on existence. it is your own prejudice that confuses you into thinking that non-religious people are consumed by desires of the flesh, and you have just helped make part of my point about the blinders of faith...if those are the assumptions you carry around with you then my pity for you is even greater.

Very well said.

Really?
What mechanism did God use?
What kind of organism is God?
Where did this being come from?
How does it have the abilities it has?
What evidence do we have of this being?



Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

* The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
* By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
* It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.
nasa.gov (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html)


Do you realize that what you just pasted basically says nothing but "we don't know" and "it is beyond the Big Bang model." You haven't answered any of the points I have already made.

You are arguing that space essentially just appeared. What made it appear?

As for your questions pertaining to god. God is infinite god has and will always exist god will exist when the universe ends and he existed before it began. Infact. He does not exist in the common view of the word, because to exist is to imply having a beginning and an end, which god does not. He is no organism, but is instead a sort of consciousness that spans the entire universe, he makes up the universe. Yes, god is the universe, because everything that is came from god and is therefore a part of god.

Is that so? You disagree? Let me explain for you then.

The basic premise of the Big Bang theory is that a very small, very dense clump of matter exploded and then the universe formed from the explosion. However, what it does not explain is where that matter came from.

Now, MetaResearch is a group that scientifically challenges many common beliefs in the field of cosmology. They have put out a bulletin that challenges the Big Bang Theory, at http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp .
This is not a christian organization. Here is what they have to say:
A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:

1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.

2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.

10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 10^59. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

Another paper on the same topic can be found here:
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/

Please allow me to laugh. It took one search on Google and the first source refutes all your arguments. Even more suprising, a Christian website! Though we disagree on the supposed implications of #10, it seems respectable thiests exist! I must thank you, for now I have an interesting site to explore and consider.

Enjoy (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/bigbangrebuttal.html).

yes, to be honest. you still may lead a happy and decent life, but i do not believe you can live a complete life if you embrace superstitious beliefs in dieties or afterlives. it's just like how you pity me for not believing in God, even though i lead a full and currently delightful existence.

Oh, I don't pity your life. I hope I didn't give that impression. I just think a closed mind on the subject of an afterlife is dangerous and worthy of pity. Of course, I feel that way about many forms of closedmindedness. I just never really thought of you as closed minded about anything. I sure hope you're not.

Do you realize that what you just pasted basically says nothing but "we don't know" and "it is beyond the Big Bang model." You haven't answered any of the points I have already made.

Because that's the only honest answer that can be given.

Perhaps it is something that we as flawed beings are incapable of understanding because the answer is perfect...something far beyond our feeble conception. It's like trying to imagine infinty

Oh, I don't pity your life. I hope I didn't give that impression. I just think a closed mind on the subject of an afterlife is dangerous and worthy of pity. Of course, I feel that way about many forms of closedmindedness. I just never really thought of you as closed minded about anything. I sure hope you're not.

An afterlife? Which shall I choose? So many choices, all equally valid. Good thing I got my "Get out of Hell free" card incase I make a mistake.

WHich is why I pity atheists. Because if I'm right, they get nothing.
Somehow, the thought of spending eternity with a smug condescending and patronising religo makes me glad I am Atheist.

That's called spite...and it's only hurting you :'-(

Perhaps it is something that we as flawed beings are incapable of understanding because the answer is perfect...something far beyond our feeble conception. It's like trying to imagine infinty

As a naturally curious and inquisitive human, I refuse to give up. *thumbs up*

I don't say that I am a moral human being. Human beings are not moral.

In the Federalist Papers it was stated: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
Federalist Papers

Men are not angels, and it is their natural tendency to do the wrong thing. They are always tempted to steal, to lie, to cheat. Christians do not claim to be better or more moral than anyone else. However, they DO claim to refrain from indulging in these activities because they love God more than themselves. And if they do give in, they feel bad, not because they are afraid they will go to hell, but because they feel genuine remorse for having done something wrong, and they feel the need to speak to God, and say "I did this, I'm sorry, please forgive me."

Somehow, the thought of spending eternity with a smug condescending and patronising religo makes me glad I am Atheist.

I don't want to be with them either. I want infinite naked cheerleaders on a planet composed entirely of butterscotch pudding. :D

An afterlife? Which shall I choose? So many choices, all equall valid. Good thing I got my "Get out of Hell free" card incase I make a mistake.

Take Door #3. :)

I
I also fail to understand people who use Pascal's Wager to justify faith (if Christians are right and you die a non-Christian, you are going to hell, but if the afterlife does not exist and you die a Christian, you are safe). There are numerous problems with that argument, but for one thing: What if Christianity is wrong, and some other religion is right, according to which you will go to hell if you do not follow it, and you die a Christian?




If you are going to use Pascal's Wager, please at least quote it right

He said that if God exists, he'd better believe in Him. If he doesn't, he's in trouble. If He doesn't exist, then it doesn't hurt to believe in Him while he's alive, so he might as well believe

Oh, I don't pity your life. I hope I didn't give that impression. I just think a closed mind on the subject of an afterlife is dangerous and worthy of pity. Of course, I feel that way about many forms of closedmindedness. I just never really thought of you as closed minded about anything. I sure hope you're not.
i try very hard not to be close-minded. so far my open-mindedness leads me to the functional conclusion that there is no afterlife, but if new evidence were brought to my attention i would have no trouble facing it; i don't have any vested emotional interest in there NOT being an afterlife, i just don't yet have any reason to believe there IS one.

oh, and thanks for the compliment earlier on the page. i don't believe all religious people are blind, stupid, robotic slaves of dogma, and i don't appreciate when people claim all non-religious people are depraved, lust-driven creatures of filth and wickedness. morality takes more than just belief in God, though it doesn't necessarily preclude such belief.

"Human beings are not moral."

Yes they are, to a considerable extent, which constitutes much of the reason why we're still around, it's necessary for our survival. Human morality is invented and followed by humans.

I've had my doubts over the years but Im going to have to say that religion is rea, over the last year whenever I dont believe I get a sign, one different than the other. Im not going to get into the signs but I will say, my faith in God and Jesus is firm now.

Take Door #3. :)

That's right, while you're slowly trodding along in heaven, I'll be crusing down streets with 47 virgins in my brand new car! Praise Allah!

Because that's the only honest answer that can be given.

Wrong, it is not. I am giving you the answer. There is a higher being, one who loves you and gave up his son to die on the cross for you. He is waiting for you in heaven, and all you have to do is embrace him, and ALLOW him to come into your life. That is the answer. He created this world, he created you, he created this planet, our sun, the ocean, and everything else. If you try to scientifically explain your life away, you will get nowhere. You don't have to give anything up, except practices that are already hurting you. It is not wrong to be curious or inquisitive. You are free to live your life, and at the same time the only things you must give up are practices that can only bring you pain.

Human beings have exactly two saving graces:
1) a tendency to provide governments and religions capable of ensuring (to some extent) that humans do not destroy each other
2)Every animal's natural instinct to preserve and continue themselves and their species, which is bolstered by our accelerated intelligence.

This is of course, not to mention the sole saving grace, god.

i try very hard not to be close-minded. so far my open-mindedness leads me to the functional conclusion that there is no afterlife, but if new evidence were brought to my attention i would have no trouble facing it; i don't have any vested emotional interest in there NOT being an afterlife, i just don't yet have any reason to believe there IS one.

oh, and thanks for the compliment earlier on the page. i don't believe all religious people are blind, stupid, robotic slaves of dogma, and i don't appreciate when people claim all non-religious people are depraved, lust-driven creatures of filth and wickedness. morality takes more than just belief in God, though it doesn't necessarily preclude such belief.

Unfortunately, the only people who know for sure aren't talking. Whatever is beyond death must be pretty cool. Nobody ever comes back to complain.

I don't want to be with them either. I want infinite naked cheerleaders on a planet composed entirely of butterscotch pudding. :D

Great idea, however I'd prefer Warm Chocolate Mud cake Planet with infinite Bikini Models. Maybe we could twin them in Binary orbit?

"Human beings are not moral."

Yes they are, to a considerable extent, which constitutes much of the reason why we're still around, it's necessary for our survival. Human morality is invented and followed by humans.

Wrong. Human morality comes precisely from religion. Otherwise, why shouldn't you lie, or think about having sex with your friends wife, or steal some guys car?

Well, if we're going to view heaven in the form of earthly pleasures...I'd like a massive planet with oceans of Cookies and cream ice cream and land of EVERY PASTRY IMAGINABLE. Then I'd like there to be a HUGE library with all the answers to every question there is...and the librarians can be the REALLY hot movie stars...yeah...that sounds good...maybe a few pop stars too...

Wrong. Human morality comes precisely from religion. Otherwise, why shouldn't you lie, or think about having sex with your friends wife, or steal some guys car?
so you're saying that if you weren't afraid of God or determined to get into heaven then you would lie, cheat, and steal? and you think that's MORALITY?!

i don't trust people who believe things like that. if only the threats or bribes from your imaginary friend are keeping you in line then there is no way for me to know what you are capable of. you could just as easily say that God wants you to shoot me in the head, and that would be "moral" in your view because you have no rational or inherent standard of morality.

"He said that if God exists, he'd better believe in Him. If he doesn't, he's in trouble. If He doesn't exist, then it doesn't hurt to believe in Him while he's alive, so he might as well believe."

And he had the Christian God in mind when saying this. So how does that make my statement fundamentally different from yours?

Pascal's wager is still flawed.

At any rate, I appreciate having any potential mistakes, misunderstandings, or misquotations pointed out in my writing.

Would anyone care to explain why they would believe in something they cannot prove? I think it would be very interesting in the context of this thread.

We must believe in something we cannot prove whether it's the big bang or otherwise...

as for Pascal's theory, we must remember that in the study of theology there is basically one god...he is sometimes divided up into multiple gods, etc. but basically the one-god, theory can apply to almost any religion.

I am mentally unstable, I know that my life is dictated by the fact that I have taken to heart so many things which other people would simply disregard, I do think there is good in all people, and that there is always a nonviolent way to end solutions, in a way that I feel law enforcement is a hypocrisy to justice. It could be that I am naive, or that I don't understand these things, but it also means my mind is open to everything in the world. I do not believe in any religion, yet I feel that there is a god, whether or not I can provide any proof, it's rather irrelevant. I am not going to try to prove the anyone did anything in the bible, the fact is, there have never been any dually respected religious scientists, or at least none that I have heard of. Why you ask? Because, I think that neither side could ever accept learning the truth that what they lived so long for was in actuallity false. Where is this boat that housed two of every creature and lasted for fourty days and fourty nights? Why would god take away something that would give people evidence of his existence? There are things that can be explained rationally and things that require spirituality, but if you fully think about it from a religious perspective, you may judge everything as an act of God, whether it be trivial or fatal. You see, religion is just a congregation of the teachings of a certain person, and unfortunately it reflects upon the type of people who go there to learn. Religion is biased, but faith is true, there are evangelists that say the only way to get to heaven is through saving other people, which in any perspective, except to those who share the same beliefs, is a horrid thought, why is our life of eternal bliss determined by converting other people from their happy life of oblivious ignorance? The bible states homosexuals are not allowed in heaven, if god loves everyone, then why would he say they are unworthy of paradise because they choose a different style of life? All forms of religions where everyone must carry the same ideas is a cult, and a cult is frowned upon, yet people don't seem to recall all religions start out as cults. People can take things too literally, and in doing so they will separate a group of people from others and humiliate or abuse them to prove that they have divine mandate. Where has that been heard before? Weren't the crusades about divine mandate and didn't the christians lose to the muslims? Wouldn't that support the Islam religion? Saying that God lost faith in Christians and placed it in Muslims? I've seen this pattern in four religions, Zoroastrianism, Judaiism, Christianity, and Islam. All taking ideas from the previous and altering them. Zoroastrians create heaven and hell, Jews claim that Abraham made a pact with God, Christianity takes the heaven and hell idea and makes it worse, brining along the son of God; then the last prophet Muhamad with the Islam religion. It seems to me that people neglect the ethical religions in doing so, yet they must show disrespect by demeaning them during services, I was a church, a long time ago, the pastor said that he spoke with a buddhist who knew nothing of buddhism, which is a difficult religion to follow in this day and age, after explaining it to the unaware buddhist, he told him of the joys of christianity, sounds like a cult to me. He said that the end of Buddhism was a sad and pointless one, finding Nirvanna is a difficult and fruitless task, but he didn't highlight the good points of it, I'll bet. Nirvanna is the release of all desires of the world that held him to it, but the pastor described it as a flame going out. That is why I do not attach myself to any religion, it is pointless and it demeans other people to give it power. Now to what I believe, I believe people create their own after-life, whether or not they were good, they would live in a world suited to their personality, whether it be unending chaos or a tranquil bliss, the only think God does is watch over us, having created us he merely wants to make sure we don't forget the virtues that he made us with. I can not clearly describe with words how I feel, but I would think that it is right. I know that if I am wrong, I will either fade from existence, which from what I've gone through my whole short life seems pretty relaxing, or I will be damned to Hell for the fact I thought that God was a just god who allowed people freedom to live their lives the way they want. But Atheists who believe in a short life, and that everything has a begining from chaos and an ending from chaos, how do you live your life? How do you go on knowing that everything you do is in vain, that anything you do in this world will be forgotten? I can't seem to understand this and doubt my faith. Religious people want a quick way to heaven, atheists want a way to prove everything in a physical way, but I just want to find the point at which I will be happy and at rest. I apologize if this sounds disturbing, I ask that you don't bash me for how I feel, remember I'm not completely emotionally stable.

Wrong. Human morality comes precisely from religion. Otherwise, why shouldn't you lie, or think about having sex with your friends wife, or steal some guys car?

I disagree. Personally, I feel that people refrain from doing things like that because they weigh the potential consequences and decide against it. I don't follow any of the traditional, organized religons. I just use simple common sense. Lies almost always get found out, which causes people to not trust you; sleeping with your friend's wife, well, you can kiss that friendship good bye; and as for stealing a car, who'd want to end up being "Bubba"s girlfriend in federal prison?

Wrong, it is not. I am giving you the answer. There is a higher being, one who loves you and gave up his son to die on the cross for you. He is waiting for you in heaven, and all you have to do is embrace him, and ALLOW him to come into your life. That is the answer. He created this world, he created you, he created this planet, our sun, the ocean, and everything else. If you try to scientifically explain your life away, you will get nowhere. You don't have to give anything up, except practices that are already hurting you. It is not wrong to be curious or inquisitive. You are free to live your life, and at the same time the only things you must give up are practices that can only bring you pain.

Preaching? Still, allow me to set aside showing your belief for the swiss chesse it is for the moment.

If your god is the loving god you claim him to be, then I'm sure we can come to an understanding when I kick the bucket.

What practises? As well, the priests say "Do not question!" do they not?

My integrity will not allow me to abandon my principles to emotionalism. Tell Pascal to sell his death insurance elsewhere.

Well I’m off for the night. Tonight’s my poker night with God, Jesus, Satan An Buddha. I’ll tell god about this topic. I’m sure he’ll get a good kick out of it.

so you're saying that if you weren't afraid of God or determined to get into heaven then you would lie, cheat, and steal? and you think that's MORALITY?!

i don't trust people who believe things like that. if only the threats or bribes from your imaginary friend are keeping you in line then there is no way for me to know what you are capable of. you could just as easily say that God wants you to shoot me in the head, and that would be "moral" in your view because you have no rational or inherent standard of morality.

Did I say that? No. Do not try to put words into my mouth.
I don't do those things because I believe they are wrong. However, unlike you, I actually know WHY they are wrong. What is your reason for not, oh say, getting drunk and having unprotected sex with a women? Humans are not born thinking that this and that are wrong and you shouldn't do them. You were taught right from wrong, just as I was. That system of right and wrong came straight from the Bible, or depending on what country you live in, from whatever of various religions you may believe in.

Wrong. Human morality comes precisely from religion. Otherwise, why shouldn't you lie, or think about having sex with your friends wife, or steal some guys car?

Guess what the religious beliefs of many people in prison are.
Hint: Athiests are a minority.

"We must believe in something we cannot prove whether it's the big bang or otherwise..."

I am not well versed in astrophysics, so I will not discuss the status of the big bang idea here (besides it has already been brought up in some length).

Please justify your statement that we must believe in something which cannot be proven, though. Would you convict someone for murder in a court room without evidence?

Did I say that? No. Do not try to put words into my mouth.
I don't do those things because I believe they are wrong. However, unlike you, I actually know WHY they are wrong. What is your reason for not, oh say, getting drunk and having unprotected sex with a women? Humans are not born thinking that this and that are wrong and you shouldn't do them. You were taught right from wrong, just as I was. That system of right and wrong came straight from the Bible, or depending on what country you live in, from whatever of various religions you may believe in.

Written by common men. Civilization necessitates morality for peaceful coexistance.

Preaching? Still, allow me to set aside showing your belief for the swiss chesse is for the moment.

If your god is the loving god you claim him to be, then I'm sure we can come to an understanding when I kick the bucket.

What practises? As well, the priests say "Do not question!" do they not?

My integrity will not allow me to abandon my principles to emotionalism. Tell Pascal to sell his death insurance elsewhere.

What priests? I am not Catholic, and have no priest. I am not Catholic because I belive that particular faith has strayed and become too secular. My God IS a loving God. However, there will always be consequences for your actions. If you know, in your life, that there may be a God, and you decide not to act on that knowledge, than you cannot ask for forgiveness AFTER you find out the truth. God will not wait until it is convenient for YOU to believe in him. If you do not recognize him, then he will not recognize you. It will be exactly as if he had disowned you.

Written by common men. Civilization necessitates morality for peaceful coexistance.

Except that what those "common men" wrote was inspired by God.

"I don't do those things because I believe they are wrong. However, unlike you, I actually know WHY they are wrong."

I don't think humanity really needed divine help to realize that murder, for instance, is detrimental to humanity. That is one example of how human morality could be established by humans.

Except that what those "common men" wrote was inspired by God.

Ah! But what does it come down to? Evidence, evidence! No matter how convicted you are, how conviced, how determined or geniune in your belief ... I've no reason to believe you more than the madman in an asylum rambling nonsense.

wow

"I don't do those things because I believe they are wrong. However, unlike you, I actually know WHY they are wrong."

I don't think humanity really needed divine help to realize that murder, for instance, is detrimental to humanity. That is one example of how human morality could be established by humans.

Really? Then why does the practice of human sacrifice exist? The Aztects, for instance, sacrificed THOUSANDS of people. They wiped out whole tribes. Humans fight wars all the time. We have murders every day. In what way, exactly, is it that only SOME people, like you, know that murder is wrong and that others do not?

Wrong, it is not. I am giving you the answer. There is a higher being, one who loves you and gave up his son to die on the cross for you. He is waiting for you in heaven, and all you have to do is embrace him, and ALLOW him to come into your life. That is the answer. He created this world, he created you, he created this planet, our sun, the ocean, and everything else. If you try to scientifically explain your life away, you will get nowhere. You don't have to give anything up, except practices that are already hurting you. It is not wrong to be curious or inquisitive. You are free to live your life, and at the same time the only things you must give up are practices that can only bring you pain.


Who are you to give anyone an answer? I'm sorry to say, but it sounds like you're forcing him to think your way, you sound like one of those people pressuring another into a cult where everyone follows one person, physical or not. How can you decide which practices are hurting him? Your religion dictates it, but not all things you consider taboo ultimately cause pain. If I recall, No sex before marriage was first a christian belief, as was that sex was a horrible act that can not be done for pleasure. I remember seeing on tv that a pope or someone had created documents that said how a man and woman were supposed to have sex, what position to have it in, and under what circumstances it would be had.

"Except that what those 'common men' wrote was inspired by God."

The burden of proof lies on you. Unless you prove that statement, no one has any reason to take that statement seriously.

Ah! But what does it come down to? Evidence, evidence! No matter how convicted you are, how conviced, how determinted or geniune in your belief ... I've no reason to believe you more than the madman in an asylum rambling nonsense.

The men who wrote it did not claim credit for the words. And you have no evidence of an alternative. As I said before, the Big Bang theory has been disproved. So has evolution. What do you have left?

I don't claim to be a theologian or have proof one way or the other about God(s), but as for my two cents, I believe in both science and a Higher Power. Witches tend to embrace the theory of, "as above, so bellow...", meaning that divinity is mirrored in our creation. This is not really so different from the idea that God created Adam in His image. I would say this: science and mathematics are great descriptions of life in this Universe as put into human terms, but why does this eliminate the possibility of a God, Goddess, General Creator, or Plurality? I don't make any claims as to God's nature BTW. (S)He could be a man with a white beard or a giant toaster for all I know. I see science and math as the code or blueprint to create the universe, but how does this make Creation any more or less random? We write computer code and virtual reality simulations here on Earth...Hell, we all play Nations States. So how do we know that we aren't simply a simulation or project of God's channeled to test our Free Will or something else entirely? Isn't it possible that both scientists and religious people are right? As above so bellow. I will add this though. I think that any morality based entirely on fear of God is sick and amoral, and honestly, I hope that God (if He or She exists) sees through all of you. I also think that a morality based on fear rather than love is completely pointless, especially since each religion has its own view on moral behavior, and goodness based on fear would depend on picking the right God's wrath as your motivation. I personally live my life in such a way that if there IS a God(dess), and I am correct, I can hold my head up high and humbly and truthfully say that I did my moral best and that I am not ashamed of my best efforts on earth. If this is not good enough, at least I tried. But since I have no reason to believe my best efforts will be good enough for God, I suppose I hold my morals merely because they are important to me...call me naive but this is the simple truth of it.

"Except that what those 'common men' wrote was inspired by God."

The burden of proof lies on you. Unless you prove that statement, no one has any reason to take that statement seriously.

Excuse me? The men themselves say that it was inspired by God. Read the Bible. You might learn something.

Guess what the religious beliefs of many people in prison are.
Hint: Athiests are a minority.

Not to be snyde, but atheists are a minority in general. Approximately 18% of the U.S. population is atheistic. Anyway, many people in prison realize their mistakes and get religion.

Who are you to give anyone an answer? I'm sorry to say, but it sounds like you're forcing him to think your way, you sound like one of those people pressuring another into a cult where everyone follows one person, physical or not. How can you decide which practices are hurting him? Your religion dictates it, but not all things you consider taboo ultimately cause pain. If I recall, No sex before marriage was first a christian belief, as was that sex was a horrible act that can not be done for pleasure. I remember seeing on tv that a pope or someone had created documents that said how a man and woman were supposed to have sex, what position to have it in, and under what circumstances it would be had.

And so I cannot argue my side, as h argues his? Is that what you are saying? Simply because my answer does lie in a higher being, and that what I say is exactly what is necessary? Why exactly am I not permitted to express my views?

"Really? Then why does the practice of human sacrifice exist? The Aztects, for instance, sacrificed THOUSANDS of people. They wiped out whole tribes. Humans fight wars all the time. We have murders every day. In what way, exactly, is it that only SOME people, like you, know that murder is wrong and that others do not?"

People behave like they do for a variety of reasons. I agree that there has been much bloodshed, and it is not uncommon for murders or wars to take place. Still, humanity lives to tell the tale. Why? Because humanity in general realizes that murder is dangerous for humans.

To suggest that morality comes from religion is preposterous. Morality is essential to human survival. Religion is not.

"Excuse me? The men themselves say that it was inspired by God. Read the Bible. You might learn something."

The people who wrote the Bible claimed that I am sure, but a claim does not a proof make. Heck, I could make up a book of my own and claim divine inspriration. Tada! And I have read the Bible, I was raised to believe it. It's a book of fairy tales, and at times a very brutal book. Not much more, I'm afraid.

I don't decide what practices are bad for him. And they are common sense. Do not have sex before marriage, because she might get pregnant. Then you are going to be taking care of a baby, and you can kiss college good-bye. Don't get drunk, because it is bad for your health. Don't you understand, it isn't arbitrarily decided that you can't do something, there is a GOOD reason for it. Homosexuals are more likely to contract AIDS. Do you see the pattern?

And so I cannot argue my side, as h argues his? Is that what you are saying? Simply because my answer does lie in a higher being, and that what I say is exactly what is necessary? Why exactly am I not permitted to express my views?

You can argue your side but if you pressure him you will only create unnecessary conflict, it's good that you have faith, but you can not go pressing it upon other people. You can't go saying that if he doesn't change his ways he's going to hell, thats your belief, true or not, it isn't a very good way to get your views noticed and accepted. If you are to argue your view and have people see it in the fondness you do, you must explain to them why you see it the way you see it, but still keeping in mind they might think differently and that they may ultimately be right. What you said wasn't necessary, not the majority, the only way it could be is if you wrote it in a way where everyone who reads and posts will get a grip of how you view your religion, but not so much that you say they are to bow down to your god merely because you say so.

And so I cannot argue my side, as h argues his? Is that what you are saying? Simply because my answer does lie in a higher being, and that what I say is exactly what is necessary? Why exactly am I not permitted to express my views?

You can argue your side but if you pressure him you will only create unnecessary conflict, it's good that you have faith, but you can not go pressing it upon other people. You can't go saying that if he doesn't change his ways he's going to hell, thats your belief, true or not, it isn't a very good way to get your views noticed and accepted. If you are to argue your view and have people see it in the fondness you do, you must explain to them why you see it the way you see it, but still keeping in mind they might think differently and that they may ultimately be right. What you said wasn't necessary, not the majority, the only way it could be is if you wrote it in a way where everyone who reads and posts will get a grip of how you view your religion, but not so much that you say they are to bow down to your god merely because you say so.

I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?

I see no reason that science and religion have to be in conflict. The way I see it, the first answers the questions "What" and "How does it work", but religion helps with "Why" and "How does one relate to it". Scientists and mathematicians like Isaac Newton and Rene Descartes had no problem thinking of things that way. Personally, I do believe in God. Science does not weaken that feeling--rather, helps to strengthen it. There's a fascinating beauty in things like math and physics and so on that to me suggests a higher force behind it all. :)

The men who wrote it did not claim credit for the words.

And why should we take them at face value?


And you have no evidence of an alternative.


The onus of proof is still on you, friend.


As I said before, the Big Bang theory has been disproved.


Miss the link I posted? Then look back.


So has evolution.


Maybe Kent Hovind would like to think so, but the DNA doesn't lie.


What do you have left?


The beautiful natural world and the myriad of knowledge therein. Life is wonderful.

Not to be snyde, but atheists are a minority in general. Approximately 18% of the U.S. population is atheistic.

... and we grow.

Anyway, many people in prison realize their mistakes and get religion.

They already have it. Besides, does it not say in the Bible that all sin and blashphemy will be forgiven, save that against the Holy Spirit?

To think I could meet Hitler in Heaven!

Hades, do you understand the concept of the burden/onus of proof?

When you make a statement which you claim to be true, it is up to you to prove it, not others to disprove it.

Failing to prove the statement does not mean it's false, but it certainly doesn't mean it's true either.

Not to be snyde, but atheists are a minority in general. Approximately 18% of the U.S. population is atheistic. Anyway, many people in prison realize their mistakes and get religion.


Why do you think they find religion? It is only to give them faint reassurance, they do not fully committ their lives to Jesus nor God. They merely say they do to give themselves a little hope, to live day to day through a life sentence, or that they will not be punished in the after life if they are on death row. If they truly found god, they would actually repent for their sins, and in doing so, sometimes may earn themselves a life sentence from a death penalty, while not gauranteed, it is a sign that they have truly found god, if only temporarily.

"Not to be snyde, but atheists are a minority in general."

I suppose that depends on where you are. I think in Norway where I live in real life the actual percentage of atheist, non-religious etc. in the general population is quite high, although I don't have an exact statistical figure to quote. I guess atheists are a minority on a worldwide basis and in the US, although I suppose that would exclude "closet atheists", and then there's the question of actual definition of "atheist".

Now, why does it matter if atheists are a minority? Does that somehow mean that they can be ignored, that whatever viewpoints they have might are wrong?

... and we grow.
And I’m sure that there are a bunch of loose believers who probably only go to church or talk about god out of habit. Their allegiance to god is no more significant than my allegiance to flushing the toilet.

And I’m sure that there are a bunch of loose believers who probably only go to church or talk about god out of habit. Their allegiance to god is no more significant than my allegiance to flushing the toilet.

All too true. I cite my own parents. I've even seen atheistic pangs in them. My mother said "How could someone believe these men are representing God when they're molesting little children? "

All too true. I cite my own parents. I've even seen athiestic pangs in them. My mother said "How could someone believe these men are representing God when they're molesting little children? "


Thats just saying how hypocritical some people can be about their religion.

Anticipating Hades demonstrating the No True Scotsman fallacy in ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?
Since all athiests most definitely believe in the big bang theory and since there is only one big bang theory, this argument is completely valid. [/sarcasm]

... 1/2 ...

I don't believe a lot of religions. Especially Christianity, which I find is filled with lies. But my tiny human mind finds great comfort in believing my body won't live forever but my soul will. My human mind is too infinitesimally small to imagine nothingness so I make a substitue. Used to be shamanistic or native american in nature. Now I've placed my faith in Spiritual Satanism, mainly because it doesn't interfere with my life and has a lot of benefits.

Most of the pro-religion arguments in this thread keep assuming that it is one of the Judeo-Christian (yes, this includes Islam) religions that are right.

What about Hinduism? The Vedas were written a good 4000+ years before the first book of the New Testament. Since the people who wrote the Vedas were inspired by God (Bramah in this case) before Matthew, does that mean that since they were chosed to recive Word before the Christians, they are more favored by God?

Or the shamanism of tribes in the Southwest United State? They talk to God on a regular basis. AND He talks back. In person. When was the last time the Creator visited you? Does this mean that they are more deserving?

Or what about good old-fashioned ancestor worship? A little shrine to the people who came before you does the trick to secure you a decent spot in the afterlife. No need to appease any god, just make sure Grandpa is happy with the present you left him.

And all these things came before YHWH/God/Allah was worshiped by a war-like herding tribe on the outskirts of the Fertile Cresent where Civilization was born. And they're still around. The God of Abraham has split into three different major sects, with many minor sects in each branch. What is right in one sect of Christianity is moraly reprihensible in another. It's the same in Islam and Judaism. Three major religions based on one original book, interpreted in hundreds of different ways. And only one of the ways can be right? There are going to be a lot of dissapointed people come Judgement Day.

This is of course ignoring that much of the Old Testement/Torah is based on Babylonian and Mesopotamian creation stories and hero myths. There is an older Great Flood story, with a man called Ea instead of Noah. Exact same story, different names. There are many other similarities that I won't go into here. Maybe it was the Mesopotamians who got it right in the first place, the Hebrews just saw a good idea and ran with it.

And me? I guess I could call myself a deist. I belive that there is a creative force, niether male nor female, and there is a piece of this deity in everyone. I belive that there are too many religions in this world for just one to be the "right" one. If there is a creator, why whould s/he create us all, and then pick one way of belief to be the one to get all the good things after death? And yes, atheism is a form of belief. Atheists believe that there is no god. They believe in hard facts.

I think that everyone is right in some way or another. Incuding me.

Then again, I could be wrong. I'll let you know.

See you in Hell.

"Most of the pro-religion arguments in this thread keep assuming that it is one of the Judeo-Christian (yes, this includes Islam) religions that are right."


I noticed this too....I thought this might actually be different because the subject is so broad, but it's turned into a bunch of monotheists attacking others and being attacked by others.

And me? I guess I could call myself a deist. I belive that there is a creative force, niether male nor female, and there is a piece of this deity in everyone. I belive that there are too many religions in this world for just one to be the "right" one. If there is a creator, why whould s/he create us all, and then pick one way of belief to be the one to get all the good things after death? And yes, atheism is a form of belief. Atheists believe that there is no god. They believe in hard facts.

I think that everyone is right in some way or another. Incuding me.

Omigod, just like, Amen to that a thousand billion times! I couldn't have put it better. There's merit to every faith and to science as well. Why must this be a battle??

Sorry my post screwed up...I was referring to the post right above mine written by Sangue E Rosas. :)

"Why does human sacrifice Excist? Why did the Incas kill all those people?"

Gee I don't know, maybe because their religion told them?
Yup, all morals came from religion indeed.

"Why does human sacrifice Excist? Why did the Incas kill all those people?"

Gee I don't know, maybe because their religion told them?
Yup, all morals came from religion indeed.
Actually in most ancient cultures it was considered an honor to be sacrificed to the gods. They would often honor the one who was sacrificed along with their god. Some people even looked forward to being sacrificed because they though they were helping the greater good. Just because you don’t understand it, that doesn’t make it wrong.

I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?

Science(Evolution Theory) has nothing ,NOTHING to do with religion. Science has nothing to say about GOD either way. If you have been told that you have been misinformed.

BIG BANG OR NOT SCIENCE HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT GOD. PERIOD.

As far as religion goes. All religions are true and false. Use your GOD given ability to reason and love when determining what parts of religion are true and what parts are false. All religions have thier "proofs". All religions are equally valid as all religions rely on faith. If faith is the only requirement for a religion to be true then all religions are equally valid. Caution: Do not allow yourselves to treat your holybooks as an idol. If all religions are equally valid, and they are, then you allready know which parts of your holy books are false. Reason,Love, and Respect in determining "Truth" allways. GOD/s BLESS.

Did I say that? No. Do not try to put words into my mouth.
I don't do those things because I believe they are wrong. However, unlike you, I actually know WHY they are wrong. What is your reason for not, oh say, getting drunk and having unprotected sex with a women? Humans are not born thinking that this and that are wrong and you shouldn't do them. You were taught right from wrong, just as I was. That system of right and wrong came straight from the Bible, or depending on what country you live in, from whatever of various religions you may believe in.
i know why doing unsafe things is wrong: because they are unsafe. i consume alcohol carefully because it is unsafe to binge-drink. i avoid unprotected sex because of the potential for disease or pregnancy. doing or not doing those things has nothing to do with them being "wrong" to me, it's just about being safe and respectful toward other people...i don't need a God to know why it's not smart to be stupid.

you originally said that human morality requires religion, yet now you say it is possible to be moral without God (one just wouldn't know "why" one is being moral), so which is it? if you know right and wrong on your own, then why is God essential to morality? and if your morality is just whatever your parents taught you, then how do you know you weren't raised totally immorally? what if your parents taught you to worship a false God, and you really should be worshipping Vishnu? are you really just going to accept whatever morality you heard most as a child?

i know i sure as hell don't.

As an agnostic, I tend to view fundies and atheists as no better than the other - while I dont think religion is evil, I do believe that it is in need of an overhaul to remove fundamentalists from the religious institutions

Really? Then why does the practice of human sacrifice exist?

because of religion. this seems to undermine your theory that religion is the foundation of morality. human sacrifices are used because the people doint the sacrificing believe that their God(s) will it, and therefore (because God is the source of their morality) it is right to kill those victims. God superceded all other moral codes, and the service of God was a legitimate excuse to commit any sort of atrocity. because they had no independent source of morality (like compassion or simple practicality) they could feel it was perfectly moral to throw humans off pyramids to please a non-existent being.
The Aztects, for instance, sacrificed THOUSANDS of people. They wiped out whole tribes.
find me a major religion that prohibits war, and i'll shake your hand. wait, scratch that...i think they all do, but nobody pays attention to those parts, since people just believe in the bits they like and ignore what doesn't suit their purposes.

Humans fight wars all the time. We have murders every day. In what way, exactly, is it that only SOME people, like you, know that murder is wrong and that others do not?
some people, like myself, believe that killing is justified in some circumstances but not in others. but aside from that, your question seems a bit silly...nobody is claiming that humans are born with a perfect moral compass, or that we would all agree on what is moral and what isn't. that is, in fact, the whole point. just because somebody's morality doesn't line up with yours doesn't mean they aren't moral; after all, you can't prove you're right, and neither can they.

*snip*WHich is why I pity atheists. Because if I'm right, they get nothing.
I hope you are. If you're right, I'll be reborn into a mortal body much like the one I currently possess when I die. =)

To be more serious: I agree with you. You get what you believe in, methinks. People have called me insane before and will in future, I'm sure, but every now and then I get a memory that couldn't possibly be from this life. So does everyone else I know who believes in reincarnation - though most aren't open about it.

I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?
Actually our best math and measurements of background microwave radiation support the big bang. The evidence most often given for god is "you can't prove he doesn't exist".

Honestly? I'm tired of these threads.

But I'll answer.

I think Faith is the driving force of afterlife. Like Christ said, "He who believeth in me shall not die, but have eternal life." I think that our afterlife is determined solely by our faith. Call it a neural hallucination as our conciousness fades and subjective time crawls to a standstill, or 'Heaven and Hell'. I think we give ourselves the afterlife our faith says we deserve.

WHich is why I pity atheists. Because if I'm right, they get nothing.
Beleif in something doesn't make it true. How many gamblers have gone broke by beleiving they could win against the casino? Here in the real world we deal in facts and probabilities.

"All religions have thier 'proofs'. All religions are equally valid as all religions rely on faith. If faith is the only requirement for a religion to be true then all religions are equally valid."

A racist cannot prove that his race is superior to others in any way. Does that mean he is right too, and his belief equally valid?

"As an agnostic, I tend to view fundies and atheists as no better than the other"

That would depend on how you define "atheist". I define "atheist" as someone who lacks belief in God, not necessarily holding the explicit belief that God does not exist.

In general, statements made without proof are all hard to take seriously.

Faith is believing in something for which there is no proof, no reason whatsoever to believe. It wouldn't be faith otherwise, but knowledge. I sure hope jurors aren't convicting people based on faith.

You know, I've always figured "better safe than sorry". I can live a pretty darn happy life without too much sin, so I'll take my chances on wasting it so that I don't have to spend eternity encased in ice with my eyes ears and mouth frozen shut while satan's four heads gush bloody foam all around me.
Similar to Pascal's wager. How do you know what god really wants? Who's religion is true? What happens when one religion forbids something and another permits it? Without evidence one way or another it's a waste to ponder the issue. Religion is irrelevant. Live your life on your own terms.

Beleif in something doesn't make it true. How many gamblers have gone broke by beleiving they could win against the casino? Here in the real world we deal in facts and probabilities.

ANd in those last few moments of brain activity, when you are cut off from all external stimuli, what happens? How long does it last from your point of view? How 'real' are our dreamworlds?

For that matter, how real is this one?

Except that I know plenty of good Christian people who are absolutely happy with the life they lead. Perhaps because they ENJOY helping others, and all that good stuff. After all, what do we miss out on? Getting so drunk we puke (done that already, but it gets old), stealing, killing people? What exactly do we miss out on? Fighting, always getting our way, insulting other people for their beliefs? Just because you live a christian life doesn't mean you can't enjoy life. I personally feel very good when I am helping other people, and I am usually glad I refrain from doing some things, because often when I do them, the consequences aren't worth the experience. Jail isn't that great, trust me. So what exactly do I miss out on?
Christians often insult the beleifs of others. For example, you seem to imply that people of other beleifs, like atheists, go around getting drunk, stealing, and killing. Not so. I'm an atheist, and I have good ethics.
What are you missing out on? Well, if you are like many christians you are missing out on pre-marital sex, the fun of an irreverant or blasphemous joke, the ability to look at other religions without judging them by the bible, etc.

In terms of an afterlife, I trust no one here has any proof for it, so why believe in it? Why believe anything on mere faith?

There is no justification.

Well, when I say "God" I mean a universal power. Trust me, I've run the gammot relgion-wise. I was Christian at first (Catholic), then I became a Wiccan, then I became an Atheist, then I became christian again (disciples of christ). But what I mean is that the idea of the big bang defies everything that science preaches. This is a science without a god. However, if you incorporate God, then suddenly it becomes a scientific possibility. Why is it automatically assumed that God and Science are two seperate things?
God is completely unscientific. There is no way to test the god hypothesis. The god hypothesis has no previcitve power. The big bang can be tested to some extent. If the big bang occured, we would expect to see certain patterns of background microwave radiation in the universe. When we built the microwave telescopes to look, sure enough, they were there.

Yes, but the only problem is that it defies numerous laws of science.
Meanwhile you seem to beleive that an invisible man who lives in the sky, can do anything, knows everything, including the future (otherwise how would prophets get their info?) has no beginning, and no end, can produce matter and energy from nothing, has a plan for you (but he wants you to figgure it out. if you fail he sends you to hell) is perfectly in keeping with logic and science.

In terms of an afterlife, I trust no one here has any proof for it, so why believe in it? Why believe anything on mere faith?

There is no justification.

we all must accept some things on faith. hell, we've got to accept the law of cause and effect on faith, since the only way we can prove it is if we assume it. faith is a necessary part of life.

now, i personally believe that faith is a necessary evil, but one that we should minimize whenever possible. we should only have faith when there is no other alternative, in my opinion, and religion/superstition clearly is not such a case.

I have done the research. It was the topic of a rather large paper I wrote in my senior year of college.

The Big Bang EXPLAINS these things...so what? God can explain them. I bet that I could think of a dozen theories right now that would explain most or all of those things. I've talked to PhDs on this subject (physics and astrophysics mostly as wellas theology), some who agree with the God theory, some the big bang, and some others. But none of them could offer any proof that any of their theories worked. They expected me to rely on faith. Why is it so ridiculous to have faith in God, yet it's not ridiculous to have faith in an untested, unproven scientific theory that's only popular because it's the one most "scientists" chose to believe and proliferate.

Now. I have a slightly better than rudimentary knowledge of physics and if you or anyone else can explain how the largest piece of matter that has ever existed managed to defy the greatest single gravitational force ever and expload outward without help from any other source, being etc. I'd be glad to hear it.

In any case, I personally agree with the Big Bang generally. I simply believe that God caused it.

P.S.-The scientific method is something created by humans and is therefore flawed (you can't argue with that. Humans have never created ANYTHING even bordering on perfect). And would therefore logically be incapable of detecting something perfect because something perfect does not fit within the parameters of the scientific method. The scientific method, while useful beyond any human's wildest dreams, is not the end-all, be-all
The scientific method is flawed? No. It's the best way to learn how the universe works from the information around us. Much better than making an assumption first and choosing what evidence fits and discarding that which doesn't. The limits of the scientific method are that it needs a testable subject. All the people that insist god exists also insist that you can't test for him.

You are arguing that space essentially just appeared. What made it appear?

As for your questions pertaining to god. God is infinite god has and will always exist god will exist when the universe ends and he existed before it began. Infact. He does not exist in the common view of the word, because to exist is to imply having a beginning and an end, which god does not. He is no organism, but is instead a sort of consciousness that spans the entire universe, he makes up the universe. Yes, god is the universe, because everything that is came from god and is therefore a part of god.
How do you know god is concious? What if it's a natural force that creates universes? You are making things up that sound good to you and supplying them as fact. Facts can be tested and are based on evidence.

Wrong, it is not. I am giving you the answer. There is a higher being, one who loves you and gave up his son to die on the cross for you. He is waiting for you in heaven, and all you have to do is embrace him, and ALLOW him to come into your life. That is the answer. He created this world, he created you, he created this planet, our sun, the ocean, and everything else. If you try to scientifically explain your life away, you will get nowhere. You don't have to give anything up, except practices that are already hurting you. It is not wrong to be curious or inquisitive. You are free to live your life, and at the same time the only things you must give up are practices that can only bring you pain.
That's your beleif. It's not a proven fact. Excuse me for not sharing your beleif, but I need a lot more convincing.

Wrong. Human morality comes precisely from religion. Otherwise, why shouldn't you lie, or think about having sex with your friends wife, or steal some guys car?
Because I wouldn't like others to lie to me, have sex with my wife, or steal my car. It's part of the contract you enter into when you choose to live in a civillized society. Also, doing those things would make me feel guilty. Humans are quite likely wired for guilt in order to maintain group unity and ensure the survival of the speceis.

A problem arises in asking whether religion is true or not. What of those systems of belief that are neither classified as Religions by the state or by practices of those beliefs. You can be sure that there are numerous esoteric and magic/k practicors that do not view what they partake in as religion, and it will be a "cold day in hell" when the state declares them a religion.
If you take the Australian Aboriginal dreaming (or 'dreamtime' as it was known ten years ago, or 'never never' as it was known 100 years ago), it is not seen as a religion more a set of beliefs that involve stories and myths with similair attributes and morals to those of organised relligions, eg: the bible has parables. The similarities between all religions and beliefs that there is still access to is remarkable, not to mention the fact that jungian psychoanalysts can gauruntee they can analys everybodies dreams by referring to these systems of belief.
Everything must have a begining that is caused by that which it is not, unless it has always been. If we accept the big bang theory of the universe then that means something must have created, or sparked the metaphorical fuse that lead to this big bang.

We must believe in something we cannot prove whether it's the big bang or otherwise...

as for Pascal's theory, we must remember that in the study of theology there is basically one god...he is sometimes divided up into multiple gods, etc. but basically the one-god, theory can apply to almost any religion.
No, we need not beleive in anything we can't prove. We should study what we don't know, but we don't need to beleive in anything that can't at least be supported by some evidence. If we were required to beleive in things we can't prove then I would have to beleive contradicting ideas. Ex. The universe is just a dream in my sleeping mind. When I awaken all will disappear. vs. The universe is real, and goes on independant of me.

"we all must accept some things on faith. hell, we've got to accept the law of cause and effect on faith, since the only way we can prove it is if we assume it. faith is a necessary part of life."

I'd venture to say that the fact that causes have their effects is obvious and cannot properly be classified as a statement of faith. I see no parallel to religious superstition which is assumed for no good reason.

Excuse me? The men themselves say that it was inspired by God. Read the Bible. You might learn something.
I can say god inspired me to rob a bank. Does that make god guilty of conspiracy, or does that make me a liar? Without evidence that god actually did tell me what to do, you must assume I am lying. Same goes for those "divinely inspired" authors.

"we all must accept some things on faith. hell, we've got to accept the law of cause and effect on faith, since the only way we can prove it is if we assume it. faith is a necessary part of life."

I'd venture to say that the fact that causes have their effects is obvious and cannot properly be classified as a statement of faith. I see no parallel to religious superstition which is assumed for no good reason.
but that's just it: cause and effect isn't necessarily obvious. it's only obvious if you assume it is. you cannot PROVE that my pencil moved across the desk because i pushed it, since it could also be magical invisible elves pushing the pencil; strictly speaking, we cannot prove cause and effect at all because doing so requires assumptions we also cannot prove (like the concept of materialism, for example).

also, you seem to think you can judge what "good reason" is, when your definition is no more valid than a religious person's. they may feel there is no good reason NOT to believe in God, and you can't prove they are wrong. "good reason" is utterly subjective and a poor concept to try to apply here.

I don't decide what practices are bad for him. And they are common sense. Do not have sex before marriage, because she might get pregnant. Then you are going to be taking care of a baby, and you can kiss college good-bye. Don't get drunk, because it is bad for your health. Don't you understand, it isn't arbitrarily decided that you can't do something, there is a GOOD reason for it. Homosexuals are more likely to contract AIDS. Do you see the pattern?
Sex before marriage is not morally wrong. Before contraception, we needed the babies to maintain the population. After contraception, we can eliminate the risk of unwanted pregnancy. Getting drunk is not morally wrong. It's a personal choice, and unless one drives afterward (thereby endangering others) it's nobody else's business. Homosexuals who use condoms are no more likely than heterosexuals who use condoms to get aids. Hetero couples who do anal are just as likely as homos to get aids. It has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with fluid exchange.

You are arguing that space essentially just appeared. What made it appear?

Read the 10million+pages on big bang theories. There are a lot of theories on how the big bang appeared, too many to put here in this post.

Now for a rant on Christianity.
If there is one thing that really pisses me of about christianity(and other religions) is that not believing in god automatically makes me a sinner and means that I'm going to hell when I die. Apartly even though I live a life compassion and care for other people means BS when I croak and believe in the wrong god or no god. Out of all the religions out there using the scare tactic on people, I'M as a HUMAN with no possible understanding of a super-universal being such as god suppose to pick the right reglion with my eyes close.

"Worship me or go to hell" -God. If this is the true god, screw him.

In terms of an afterlife, I trust no one here has any proof for it, so why believe in it? Why believe anything on mere faith?

There is no justification.

By that argument, there's nothing outside your house until you open the door. :)

"but that's just it: cause and effect isn't necessarily obvious. it's only obvious if you assume it is. you cannot PROVE that my pencil moved across the desk because i pushed it, since it could also be magical invisible elves pushing the pencil; strictly speaking, we cannot prove cause and effect at all because doing so requires assumptions we also cannot prove (like the concept of materialism, for example)."

I could prove that you pushed the pencil, and that the pencil moved. To add little magical elves into the picture is disingenious.

"also, you seem to think you can judge what 'good reason' is, when your definition is no more valid than a religious person's. they may feel there is no good reason NOT to believe in God, and you can't prove they are wrong. 'good reason' is utterly subjective and a poor concept to try to apply here."

Logic is the judge of "good reason". You think logic is subjective? Also, It's not up to me to prove if someone else is wrong, it's up to them to prove that they are right.

However you look at it, there's a world of difference between the law of cause and effect and the belief in a Bible-writing sky daddy, or a mysterious life after death.

"By that argument, there's nothing outside your house until you open the door."

Nonsense. If you don't present evidence that God exists, for instance, this does not mean that God not exist. However, it doesn't mean that God exists either, and there is no reason to believe it either. That there is something outside my house can easily be demonstrated by looking out, or even walking out of it. How do you prove God's existence?

Sex before marriage is not morally wrong. Before contraception, we needed the babies to maintain the population. After contraception, we can eliminate the risk of unwanted pregnancy. Getting drunk is not morally wrong. It's a personal choice, and unless one drives afterward (thereby endangering others) it's nobody else's business. Homosexuals who use condoms are no more likely than heterosexuals who use condoms to get aids. Hetero couples who do anal are just as likely as homos to get aids. It has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with fluid exchange.
indeed. i've been having extra-marital sex for over 7 years now, with both same-sex and opposite-sex partners, and i have never caught a single disease nor had any bastard children. i have been caring and respectful toward my partners, and can happily say that every person i have had sexual contact with is still somebody i would be glad to see or have some drinks with; i don't have wanton, careless sex, i don't abuse people, i don't allow myself to be abused, and i don't need God to help me with any of this.

"By that argument, there's nothing outside your house until you open the door."

Nonsense. If you don't present evidence that God exists, for instance, this does not mean that God not exist. However, it doesn't mean that God exists either, and there is no reason to believe it either. That there is something outside my house can easily be demonstrated by looking out, or even walking out of it. How do you prove God's existence?

We die. :) Then we have proof.

Since you admit we have no proof now, why believe now?

"but that's just it: cause and effect isn't necessarily obvious. it's only obvious if you assume it is. you cannot PROVE that my pencil moved across the desk because i pushed it, since it could also be magical invisible elves pushing the pencil; strictly speaking, we cannot prove cause and effect at all because doing so requires assumptions we also cannot prove (like the concept of materialism, for example)."

I could prove that you pushed the pencil, and that the pencil moved. To add little magical elves into the picture is disingenious.


how? anything you say could be explained by "the elves did it." to prove it was my finger that moved the pencil you would have to assume that by bringing my finger into contact with a pencil and exerting a force i will cause the pencil to move...that is an assumption of cause and effect.

"also, you seem to think you can judge what 'good reason' is, when your definition is no more valid than a religious person's. they may feel there is no good reason NOT to believe in God, and you can't prove they are wrong. 'good reason' is utterly subjective and a poor concept to try to apply here."

Logic is the judge of "good reason". You think logic is subjective? Also, It's not up to me to prove if someone else is wrong, it's up to them to prove that they are right.


says you. i personally happen to agree with you, but "good" is subjective and i cannot claim that my concept of "good" is more right than anybody else's. unlike you, i don't need to try to do so.

However you look at it, there's a world of difference between the law of cause and effect and the belief in a Bible-writing sky daddy, or a mysterious life after death.
there is a difference, but there are also similarities. every living human must have faith in some things, due simply to the limitations of our senses and cognition, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. however, we can either choose to use that as justification for taking even MORE on faith, or we can accept the limitation and try to reduce it by whatever means become available to us.

Since you admit we have no proof now, why believe now?

WHy believe there's something outside your house when you're inside it?

"how? anything you say could be explained by 'the elved did it.'"

Does "Occam's Razor" bring anything to mind?

"says you. i personally happen to agree with you, but 'good' is subjective and i cannot claim that my concept of 'good' is more right than anybody else's. unlike you, i don't need to try to do so."

Logic actually means reason. Good reason refers to that which complies with logic. If you want to disregard logic, the burden of proof, anything like that, well that is your personal choice, not mine.

"there is a difference, but there are also similarities. every living human must have faith in some things, due simply to the limitations of our senses and cognition, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. however, we can either choose to use that as justification for taking even MORE on faith, or we can accept the limitation and try to reduce it by whatever means become available to us."

We could also just realize that faith is nonsensical, and that logic is far more useful.

All too true. I cite my own parents. I've even seen atheistic pangs in them. My mother said "How could someone believe these men are representing God when they're molesting little children? "
The proof that they are representing God is in the song "Jesus loves the little children"

Now before I get flamed, please understand that this was intended as a joke.

"how? anything you say could be explained by 'the elved did it.'"

Does "Occam's Razor" bring anything to mind?

again, Occam's Razor is an assumption. i personally happen to agree with it, and believe it is a good rule of thumb, but that doesn't mean it is objectively verifiable.

"says you. i personally happen to agree with you, but "good" is subjective and i cannot claim that my concept of "good" is more right than anybody else's. unlike you, i don't need to try to do so."

Logic actually means reason. Good reason refers to that which complies with logic. If you want to disregard logic, that is your personal choice, not mine.


did you read my post? i don't choose to disregard it, i use logic and reason as a foundation of my moral system. however, i cannot see how logic and reason can establish that my moral system is inherently BETTER than that of others; my moral system is, by definition, more LOGICAL, but "better" is a subjective judgment that logic cannot touch.

"there is a difference, but there are also similarities. every living human must have faith in some things, due simply to the limitations of our senses and cognition, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. however, we can either choose to use that as justification for taking even MORE on faith, or we can accept the limitation and try to reduce it by whatever means become available to us."

We could also just realize that faith is nonsensical, and that logic is far more useful.
you could, but that would not be the logical conclusion. there are cases where logic cannot function or cannot touch a given issue, and therefore is useless, and there are many uses of faith that logic cannot provide.

In terms of an afterlife, I trust no one here has any proof for it, so why believe in it? Why believe anything on mere faith?

There is no justification.
I don't beleive in afterlife. I am consistent in my beleifs. Show me a little evidence, and I'll admit the possibility. Show me a lot of evidence and I'll beleive. Show me no evidence and I'll ignore you or argue with you depending on my mood.

"again, Occam's Razor is an assumption."

Actually, the idea that magical elves pushed your pencil is what I would call an assumption.

"did you read my post?"

It would be kinda hard to reply to a post I hadn't read...

"i cannot see how logic and reason can establish that my moral system is inherently BETTER than that of others; my moral system is, by definition, more LOGICAL, but 'better' is a subjective judgment that logic cannot touch."

Since when was I discussing morality with you? I was pointing out the actual difference between faith and logic.

"you could, but that would not be the logical conclusion."

It is not logical that logic is better than faith?

It is not logical that logic is better than faith?

Nope. :)

"Show me a little evidence, and I'll admit the possibility. Show me a lot of evidence and I'll beleive. Show me no evidence and I'll ignore you or argue with you depending on my mood."

Show me any evidence and I'll believe. Of course, such evidence is not likely to be presented...

"Why believe there's something outside your house when you're inside it?"

I didn't see that you replied to me earlier with a formulation I had already answered.

I think it's relatively obvious that my house does not constitute all there is in this universe. I have a connection to the outside world via Internet, I can look out and walk out of the house.

Now, what steps would you take to find out that God or the afterlife exists, again? And how do you know that you will have proof of an afterlife when you die?

I was talking to god about this topic while I was playing poker with him last night. He said that he would go through it today and tell me what he though about it. Well I just got an email from him. He wanted me to tell you all that nobody out there can prove that god does or does not exist anymore that I can prove to you that my left had was raised while clicking the submit button. The rest of the message you don’t need to hear. It’s just that I had a sneaky suspicion that Buddha was stacking the deck and god was agreeing with me. Now we have to find a way of getting him back. :D

"Why believe there's something outside your house when you're inside it?"

I didn't see that you replied to me earlier with a formulation I had already answered.

I think it's relatively obvious that my house does not constitute all there is in this universe. I have a connection to the outside world via Internet, I can look out and walk out of the house.

Now, what steps would you take to find out that God or the afterlife exists, again? And how do you know that you will have proof of an afterlife when you die?

Everything you see and hear via internet and your windows can be explained in reasonable and simple, logical terms that do not include the existence of an 'outside'. You know there is one because you have gone there and come back.

The only real difference between the 'outside' of your house and an afterlife is that nobody comes back. At least, not after stepping off the porch.

But like 'outside', we do experience phenomena similar to 'internet' and 'looking out the windows' that could be explained in terms that do not include the existence of an afterlife. Or that could mean that there's something beyond life.

I believe you said yourself that 'Anything beyond our perception must be taken on faith.' The difference between your opinion and mine is that You believe that things you cannot perceive should not lead you to believe in other things you can't perceive. I believe that since there are things I can't percieve, I cannot rule out that there could be other things I don't perceive.

Which is more logical?

Well, when I say "God" I mean a universal power. Trust me, I've run the gammot relgion-wise. I was Christian at first (Catholic), then I became a Wiccan, then I became an Atheist, then I became christian again (disciples of christ). But what I mean is that the idea of the big bang defies everything that science preaches. This is a science without a god. However, if you incorporate God, then suddenly it becomes a scientific possibility. Why is it automatically assumed that God and Science are two seperate things?


sigh..
thankyou.. someone who sees sence!

as ive always told people.. science is the tool that the gods use to get done what they need to. The study of science is nothing more than the study of the rules that the gods use and employ to do their work.


Show me a little evidence, and I'll admit the possibility. Show me a lot of evidence and I'll beleive. Show me no evidence and I'll ignore you or argue with you depending on my mood."

Show me any evidence and I'll believe. Of course, such evidence is not likely to be presented...

it is their for those that know how to look and see and feel.. the cry of a child, a rainbow, melting ice.. so many things. you just need to open up, and you shall see

Humanity needs some religion to believe in always. This is because the Big Bang Theory requires three things that the human mind cannot get around: Infinity, Absolute Nothingness and Something from Nothing. Since the average mind cannot get around that, people turn to religion because it's a lot easier to believe in.

No one religion is right, and none are wrong. Believe what you believe.

I personally believe in around 6 gods who were all created after the big bang. The bang was pure physics, no gods or anything aiding it. The lead god created the others to help him once things like stars, planets and creatures began evolving.

That's my two cents.

Goofball (hope it's OK to call you that) :

"Everything you see and hear via internet and your windows can be explained in reasonable and simple, logical terms that do not include the existence of an 'outside'."

No, they cannot.

"You know there is one because you have gone there and come back."

I know there is something else in the universe for a variety of reasons, it's pretty obvious.

"But like 'outside', we do experience phenomena similar to 'internet' and 'looking out the windows' that could be explained in terms that do not include the existence of an afterlife. Or that could mean that there's something beyond life."

What indications are there of an afterlife? Proof?

"I believe that since there are things I can't percieve, I cannot rule out that there could be other things I don't perceive."

How do you know that there are things which you cannot perceive? Even when not ruling out the possibility that there could be an afterlife, where is the proof that justifies belief in it? Without such justification, why believe?

Alarian Haven:

"science is the tool that the gods use to get done what they need to. The study of science is nothing more than the study of the rules that the gods use and employ to do their work."

*awaits convincing proof with tremendous excitement*

"it is their for those that know how to look and see and feel.. the cry of a child, a rainbow, melting ice.. so many things. you just need to open up, and you shall see"

You're too vague. I have seen the world and I find no evidence that a God is behind it. I don't claim special knowledge in this area, but you seem to.

Aisetaselanau:

"Humanity needs some religion to believe in always. This is because the Big Bang Theory requires three things that the human mind cannot get around: Infinity, Absolute Nothingness and Something from Nothing. Since the average mind cannot get around that, people turn to religion because it's a lot easier to believe in."

First of all religion and Big Bang are not mutually exclusive concepts. Second, I agree that people turn to religion for the sake of convenience, while this of course doesn't make any religion true.

"No one religion is right, and none are wrong."

All religions contradict each other, so either one is true or all are false. Logic.

The only real difference between the 'outside' of your house and an afterlife is that nobody comes back. At least, not after stepping off the porch.

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on near-death experiences, or even the cases of those who have been clinically dead and revived, and report experiences even when their brains were flatlined? I've heard of this happening and I'm curious what you think might cause it.

Oh, and to the person who was talking about the Christian conception of God, I should point out that not all Christians believe that people of other religions are automatically condemned. I never have accepted that, nor does my family, even. It is my thought that ritual's not what's being evaluated...rather, it's a kind of belief that shows up in a person's actions. Of course, nobody is perfect, but I think God does know how sincere a person has been in their efforts and how much they've tried.

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on near-death experiences, or even the cases of those who have been clinically dead and revived, and report experiences even when their brains were flatlined? I've heard of this happening and I'm curious what you think might cause it.

Oh, and to the person who was talking about the Christian conception of God, I should point out that not all Christians believe that people of other religions are automatically condemned. I never have accepted that, nor does my family, even. It is my thought that ritual's not what's being evaluated...rather, it's a kind of belief that shows up in a person's actions. Of course, nobody is perfect, but I think God does know how sincere a person has been in their efforts and how much they've tried.
First of all, their brains never flatlined. They were pronounced dead when their hearts stopped beating, and couldn't be started again in a given period of time. Secondly, the experiences of "near death" are strikingly similar to the experiences of people on large doses of ketamine. This would indicate that the "near death" experience is an artifact of brain chemistry.

I don't believe in religon. It just seems silly to me. But religous people probably think the same of my beliefs. But I think that religion can be a good thing. It can give people a good moral code to live to. But some people can take to far and I became disillusioned with religion becasue of these peope. People like the Sept. 11 attackers, the crusaders in the middle ages, Bush jr. etc.

"I think that religion can be a good thing. It can give people a good moral code to live to."

Why should people need a religion to be moral?

First of all, their brains never flatlined. They were pronounced dead when their hearts stopped beating, and couldn't be started again in a given period of time. Secondly, the experiences of "near death" are strikingly similar to the experiences of people on large doses of ketamine. This would indicate that the "near death" experience is an artifact of brain chemistry.

I've read about the ketamine idea, and I'm not sure that would cover it--there seem to be some experiences that don't fit with the ketamine "pattern". And even if you can induce many of the aspects of it by chemical means, that doesn't necessarily mean that's the ONLY way to do so. I believe the main proponent of the ketamine hypothesis himself (Dr. Jansen) acknowledges this himself. Plus, I have heard that there have been cases where people's brain activity was being monitored, and they reported things such as conversations going on around them when there was no brain activity showing (I'd have to research again to find this account). The reason I am saying I don't know that the ketamine idea would work in cases like this is because these things would be occurring after the electrochemical processes of the brain stopped.

I've read about the ketamine idea, and I'm not sure that would cover it--there seem to be some experiences that don't fit with the ketamine "pattern". And even if you can induce many of the aspects of it by chemical means, that doesn't necessarily mean that's the ONLY way to do so. I believe the main proponent of the ketamine hypothesis himself (Dr. Jansen) acknowledges this himself. Plus, I have heard that there have been cases where people's brain activity was being monitored, and they reported things such as conversations going on around them when there was no brain activity showing (I'd have to research again to find this account). The reason I am saying I don't know that the ketamine idea would work in cases like this is because these things would be occurring after the electrochemical processes of the brain stopped.
I don't buy the idea that people have experiences when they have no brain activity. Not without hard evidence.

I don't buy the idea that people have experiences when they have no brain activity. Not without hard evidence.
another part of this whole issue is that there IS activity in the brain for some time after brain death; electrical charge still is moving around in tissues even after medically death, and rupture of dead cells can release transmitters onto the tissues as well. until the chemicals and structures have actually broken down it is possible for chemical reactions similar to those in a living brain to take place. because we do not fully understand the processes that give rise to consciousness, even minor electrical surges or chemical release could be significant in ways we don't yet understand.

<Insert a quote here, there are too many to choose from>

<Insert me saying they are wrong>

Alright, anyone who's been in 8th grade science should know what mass-energy is. It has been proven (and found in nature, not just in a lab) that one can be converted to the other, and with time, each one produces the other.

Let's say the Big Bang theory is correct. No, keep reading. Just assume for a moment that the Big Bang is correct.

There's mass, and definitely energy. It's entirely possible that feedback from the energy could cause the mass to eventually break apart and explode, or simply pressure from the center. Who knows? It could have been hollow.

But the question remains: Where did the mass-energy come from? Science can explain things only from the start of time. What about before then?

Well, it could be that aliens from another dimension came along and dropped a nuclear engine or something into this one, jumped back to their own, and watched as over countless aeons the energy became mass.

But where did THEIR dimension come from?

No matter how far-fetched you make the story, it all circles back around...there had to have been some sort of beginning. Nobody has yet answered 'how?'. I'm sick of hearing the answer to 'why?'.

As for a higher power, I think there was, and possibly still is, a higher power. A 'creator' if you will. Whether through conscious will this higher power created mass-energy or through energy produced from the higher power itself, I can't think of any other plausible explanation.

But Atheists who believe in a short life, and that everything has a begining from chaos and an ending from chaos, how do you live your life? How do you go on knowing that everything you do is in vain, that anything you do in this world will be forgotten?
Ever played Tetris? You know the game's going to end eventually, and probably pretty soon. In fact, you know that when it ends, you lose. There is no way of ever winning Tetris, only of prolonging the inevitable defeat. Nonetheless, people enjoy playing it and do their utmost to delay their doom by a couple of seconds. Why?

I know that I cannot win the game of line, because I know that I have less than a century to live, and that I will probably be forgotten soon afterwards. Fortunately, my goal in life is not to win. It is to enjoy the game while I'm still capable of playing it.

the Big Bang theory has been disproved. So has evolution.
Haahahahaha-haahahahaha-haahahahahahaha!!!!! :) :) :)

Homosexuals are more likely to contract AIDS. Do you see the pattern?
BZZZZZT!!! Wrong.

People who "jump beds" (regularly change who they sleep with) have a high risk. People who stay in a long-term committed relationship are low-risk, regardless of whether that relationship is homosexual or heterosexual.

I believe in a creator. In my case, the Christian god. Now I'm going to make two points.

1) Many would say that science can be offered as proof that there is no creating force, consciousness, God, whatever in the Universe; that we are a scientific anomaly. However, we really don't know that much. The primary forces in physics are the strong and weak nuclear forces. We don't know what causes them, we don't know EXACTLY what they do. But we do know that they are present in every molecule of matter in the universe as far as we know. could it not be that this mysterious force is nothing more than a universal consciousness that caused everything to come into being as it has? Or could it not be perhaps the evidence of God in all of us, since God is everything?

2) I've done extensive religious studies on my own. Really, though, when you come down to it, every god or set of gods is the same, almost all religions believe essentially the same things. We are not just arguing on a Judeo-christian line.

By the way, evolution is not at all well substantiated and has been brought into question constantly over the last two or three years. More and more scientists are starting to believe that evolution may not be the correct version of the past.

P.S. I'm hardly willing to compare my life to an 8-bit nintendo game...but that's just me...

People who "jump beds" (regularly change who they sleep with) have a high risk. People who stay in a long-term committed relationship are low-risk, regardless of whether that relationship is homosexual or heterosexual.
And because in most places homosexuals are not allowed to marry, the have a higher tendency to "jump beds" than heterosexuals, who marry and settle down. There are exceptions both ways, but it just explains the facts. It's kind of like saying minorities in America are more likely to commit crime. The truth is that the poor are more likely to commit crimes and minorities make up most of the poorer part of our country unfortunately.

I believe in a creator. In my case, the Christian god. Now I'm going to make two points.

1) Many would say that science can be offered as proof that there is no creating force, consciousness, God, whatever in the Universe; that we are a scientific anomaly. However, we really don't know that much. The primary forces in physics are the strong and weak nuclear forces. We don't know what causes them, we don't know EXACTLY what they do. But we do know that they are present in every molecule of matter in the universe as far as we know. could it not be that this mysterious force is nothing more than a universal consciousness that caused everything to come into being as it has? Or could it not be perhaps the evidence of God in all of us, since God is everything?

2) I've done extensive religious studies on my own. Really, though, when you come down to it, every god or set of gods is the same, almost all religions believe essentially the same things. We are not just arguing on a Judeo-christian line.
1 Nobody would say that science disproves god's existance. The god hypothesis is untestable, and therefore inherently unscientific. Science is simply used to debunk the crap that creationists constantly spew forth.

2 Try explaining to a muslim who is stoning a woman to death for being raped that your religion is basically the same as his.

By the way, evolution is not at all well substantiated and has been brought into question constantly over the last two or three years. More and more scientists are starting to believe that evolution may not be the correct version of the past.

P.S. I'm hardly willing to compare my life to an 8-bit nintendo game...but that's just me...
Bullshit. Every day more evolution evidence is unearthed. The vast majority of scientists don't even debate the fact of evolution anymore. It's too well established. Only creationists try (unsuccessfuly). Scientists mainly debate about how evolution happened. For example, Punctuated Equilibrium (the idea that evolution mainly occurs when small populations are isolated from larger numbers of breeding stock, thus letting mutations travel faster through the entire population rather than being watered down) vs. the old steady darwinian variety.

P.S. I'm hardly willing to compare my life to an 8-bit nintendo game...but that's just me...
Of course, life is much more complicated, which is why we're willing to put up with it for eighty years while no sane person would play an 8-bit Nintendo game that long. The basic principles, in quality rather than quantity, are the same.

Of course, life is much more complicated, which is why we're willing to put up with it for eighty years while no sane person would play an 8-bit Nintendo game that long. The basic principles, in quality rather than quantity, are the same.
Uh...I know some people who probably would play an 8-bit Nintendo game for 80 years if they didn't have to do things like work to earn money for electricity and Ramen noodles.

1 Nobody would say that science disproves god's existance. The god hypothesis is untestable, and therefore inherently unscientific. Science is simply used to debunk the crap that creationists constantly spew forth.

2 Try explaining to a muslim who is stoning a woman to death for being raped that your religion is basically the same as his.

1) The God hypothesis is untestable because science is inherently finite and can therefore not accept anything infinite (hence the expanding universe theory). Science has the same flaws that humans have. We live lives with a beginning and end, everything we see has a beginning and an end whether it be our shoe-laces or the Eiffel Tower. From the earliest age we are tought to view things in finite, quantitative terms. We are therefore incapable of conprehending the infinite and, since God is infinite, we cannot comprehend him/her. It is science, then, that is flawed, not God.

2) There is no reasoning with religious fanatics. But if you do your research, you will discover that, at the core, all religions (with a very few exceptions)
are essentially the same. Plus, many muslims wouldn't even consider that a part of the true islamic religion.

1) The God hypothesis is untestable because science is inherently finite and can therefore not accept anything infinite (hence the expanding universe theory).

2) There is no reasoning with religious fanatics. But if you do your research, you will discover that, at the core, all religions (with a very few exceptions)
are essentially the same. Plus, many muslims wouldn't even consider that a part of the true islamic religion.
1 It's untestable because science is a method for learning about the universe through observation and experimentation. How does one see god? What experiment could you design to test it's existance? It's everywhere, but you don't see it. It has no magnetic field. It doesn't seem to move things around, react to chemicals, heat, etc. For all intents and purposes, it may as well not be there.

2 If all of these religions are basically the same, why are there any different religions? If god wanted people to get the message why doesn't it just show up and tell us personally?

Oh come on, that was an AWESOME response, somebody has to say something, lol

1 It's untestable because science is a method for learning about the universe through observation and experimentation. How does one see god? What experiment could you design to test it's existance? It's everywhere, but you don't see it. It has no magnetic field. It doesn't seem to move things around, react to chemicals, heat, etc. For all intents and purposes, it may as well not be there.
Therefore, for all intents and purposes, you may as well not pray.

2 If all of these religions are basically the same, why are there any different religions? If god wanted people to get the message why doesn't it just show up and tell us personally?
Because people like being self-righteous and think that there is something making themselves superior to many other people. This would be much harder without having differing religions, although humans have shown remarkable creativity (racism, for example).

another part of this whole issue is that there IS activity in the brain for some time after brain death; electrical charge still is moving around in tissues even after medically death, and rupture of dead cells can release transmitters onto the tissues as well. until the chemicals and structures have actually broken down it is possible for chemical reactions similar to those in a living brain to take place. because we do not fully understand the processes that give rise to consciousness, even minor electrical surges or chemical release could be significant in ways we don't yet understand.

About the nature of consciousness, we don't know that the electrochemical processes are the only driver behind consciousness, or if they are simply the conduit by which the soul interacts with the physical world. The question would be whether those reactions after clinical death are meaningless residuals or if they are not. It is possible that the soul parts from the body before all reactions have ceased, and that the body is left behind to just "wind down", so to speak. I do recognize this area is very hard to research because the only people we hear from are ones who for whatever reason don't quite complete the process. That means all we can ultimately do is hypothesize. Still, it can't hurt to try.

1 It's untestable because science is a method for learning about the universe through observation and experimentation. How does one see god? What experiment could you design to test it's existance? It's everywhere, but you don't see it. It has no magnetic field. It doesn't seem to move things around, react to chemicals, heat, etc. For all intents and purposes, it may as well not be there.

Being untestable is not the same thing as not existing--again we need to bear in mind that we're trying to use finite, flawed methods to try to define (confine?) something that is by definition beyond our finite experience.

2 If all of these religions are basically the same, why are there any different religions? If god wanted people to get the message why doesn't it just show up and tell us personally?

On the origin of different religions, I think that our reception of the message is distorted by our cultural biases. Especially if we consider the idea of an infinite truth being conveyed to a finite creature (like us--and this would be why it can't be spelled out in a cut-and-dry manner for us), that means the finite creature will only retain a part of it. And I think the cultural/personal biases cause some people to retain certain parts of the truth and others to retain another part of it. However, this doesn't render them all null and void. It just means they REALLY ought to stop fighting with each other. ;-)

Speaking of cultural bias - if God really exists and gave us the bible, then I think that with all the cultural change since then, it's about time he came out with a second edition. Surely that cannot be so difficult for an omnipotent being?

Also, if you believe that all religions are equally valid/mangled as representations of the true infinite god, then does that mean that you reject physical/religion-dependant parts of your religion such as Jesus dying on the cross for you? (Or whatever equivalent your religion has.)

Being untestable is not the same thing as not existing--again we need to bear in mind that we're trying to use finite, flawed methods to try to define (confine?) something that is by definition beyond our finite experience.



On the origin of different religions, I think that our reception of the message is distorted by our cultural biases. Especially if we consider the idea of an infinite truth being conveyed to a finite creature (like us--and this would be why it can't be spelled out in a cut-and-dry manner for us), that means the finite creature will only retain a part of it. And I think the cultural/personal biases cause some people to retain certain parts of the truth and others to retain another part of it. However, this doesn't render them all null and void. It just means they REALLY ought to stop fighting with each other. ;-)
In my first response to you I said that science can't prove that god doesn't exist. We agree there. Still, without some proof, why should anyone beleive. I can claim that there are invisible elves that live in the drop ceiling at my office, and they use my computer when no one is looking. Just because nobody can prove me wrong doesn't mean anyone needs to beleive me.

If you want to believe in a god that is your perogative. What pisses me off is the people who tell me they feel sorry for me because I don't think that I have someone watching over me and guiding me. My response is that I am a confident enough individual to believe that I do not need any deity to guide me. And as for the ones that expect me to be afraid of dying because I don't believe in the afterlife I just want to say that I don't need your pity. I am having a great time here on the planet earth and when its my time be it tomorrow or eighty years from now, I will be ready. I believe deistic religions put unnesessary shackles on mankind. They tell us that our bodies are ugly and that we should be ashamed of them. They tell us that other people are inferior to us in some way. And most important they tell us that our minds are not good enough to create great art or make new scientific discoveries. We had to have a god or gods to help us. As far as christianity goes I have this to say. If god sends the people to hell that won't bow to him than that is a shitty god in my opinion.

Pascal's Wager is a mathematical proof; it shows that it's better to believe in God than not. If you don't believe in God, you are making a foolish choice which is PROVEN to work against you.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ says it best.

2 If all of these religions are basically the same, why are there any different religions? If god wanted people to get the message why doesn't it just show up and tell us personally?
Demophobia.

Pascal's Wager is a mathematical proof; it shows that it's better to believe in God than not. If you don't believe in God, you are making a foolish choice which is PROVEN to work against you.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ says it best.
Pascal's wager is bull. It's a logical argument based on false assumptions. It assumes beleif in god costs nothing and entails no risk. Beleif may cause unnecessary guilt, and waste one's precious time. It entails risk if it angers other gods/goddeses

Speaking of cultural bias - if God really exists and gave us the bible, then I think that with all the cultural change since then, it's about time he came out with a second edition. Surely that cannot be so difficult for an omnipotent being?

I think He could if He wished--the problem with making everything perfectly cut, though, would be to deprive humans of free choice, which I think was the above-all intent in creating us as we are.

Also, if you believe that all religions are equally valid/mangled as representations of the true infinite god, then does that mean that you reject physical/religion-dependant parts of your religion such as Jesus dying on the cross for you? (Or whatever equivalent your religion has.)

The reason I do not reject those aspects is because it makes sense to me that His death would be necessary. What I tend to get irritated with--and where I see the most chance for distortions--are human interpretations (like people deciding that they know who is going to Heaven; they DON'T know that.), more than anything. I know I could end up being proven wrong after I die, on any number of theological matters, but I do recognize that I could be corrected. In fact, I anticipate such correction gladly...for me the question is how much will I be corrected on, not simply "will I".

I'm not articulating this very well, I know. I can feel it, but can't explain very well even though I do have an internal sense of it.

Pascal's Wager is a mathematical proof; it shows that it's better to believe in God than not. If you don't believe in God, you are making a foolish choice which is PROVEN to work against you.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ says it best.
Firstly, as a mathematician, I must take this opportunity to whack you soundly on the head. Math is the most exact of all sciences - the only one where we can actually be certain of anything, rather than merely 99% sure. Claiming something is a mathematical proof when it is not is a disgrace to the profession.

With that out of the way, let us see why it doesn't work. Pascal's Wager assumes there are four possibilities, as follows:
1. God exists, you believe in him. You go to heaven. (Best case.)
2. God exists, you don't believe in him. You go to hell. (Worst case.)
3. God does not exist, you believe in him. Nothing happens. (Average case.)
4. God does not exist, you don't believe in him. Nothing happens. (Average case.)

However, this is not an accurate representation of the possibilities. What if you are a Christian and the true god is the Muslim one, or vice versa? In fact, there is an infinity of possible deities and pantheons, so any particular religion has a chance of almost zero of getting the right one - the true god might well be from a religion that has been abandoned long ago, or maybe he never even revealed himself to us. And don't claim that "all religions are basically the same". If that is the case, then specifics like heaven and hell are withing the human margin of error caused by the splitting of these religions.

On to a true listing of possibilities:
1. A deity exists, and you believe in the correct one. You go to heaven. Unfortunately, as explained above, this case isn't very likely.
2. A deity exists, and you believe in the wrong one, OR you believe in none at all. In both cases, Christian theology would condemn you to hell. However, a truely benevolent deity would be more likely to forgive you and let you enter heaven anyway provided you led a good moral life, even if you didn't actually believe in him - especially in light of the unlikelyhood of the above option.
3. No deities exist, but you think one does. You'll still waste time and money in prayer, sacrifices, bible studies, etc., as well as being bound by some completely random laws. The consequences aren't as severe as the two above, but are still not desirable.
4. No deities exist, and you don't believe otherwise. You will be able to freely live with good undeluded understanding of your surrounding world, and do not rely on prayers to bring you happiness, instead working to attain it yourself.

From these options, I find it obvious that atheism is the better wager.

1 It's untestable because science is a method for learning about the universe through observation and experimentation. How does one see god? What experiment could you design to test it's existance? It's everywhere, but you don't see it. It has no magnetic field. It doesn't seem to move things around, react to chemicals, heat, etc. For all intents and purposes, it may as well not be there.

2 If all of these religions are basically the same, why are there any different religions? If god wanted people to get the message why doesn't it just show up and tell us personally?

1)It is untestable because as yet science has not come up with a way to test it. And science never will because the very concept of something infinite is simply unacceptable within the confines of human science.

2) There are different religions for the same reason that there are different languages. Going by your logic we'd all be speaking modern Proto-Indo-European right now, but we're not, are we? As people spread far and wide and grow seperate from their origin, things will change and evolve. Thing will be made up and forgotten, but nonetheless the core remains the same.

I'm almost tempted to ignore your "why doesn't god just show up" comment. The very point of faith is just that, faith. To receive the grace of god, we must have faith in him and know personally that (s)he exists without having to have it proven and I think that if everyone looks deep inside themselves they will find god there awaiting them.

We are therefore incapable of conprehending the infinite and, since God is infinite, we cannot comprehend him/her.

In my case, the Christian god.

Exactly how where you able to determine the characteristics of this infinite, incomprehensible god?

If you want to believe in a god that is your perogative. What pisses me off is the people who tell me they feel sorry for me because I don't think that I have someone watching over me and guiding me. My response is that I am a confident enough individual to believe that I do not need any deity to guide me. And as for the ones that expect me to be afraid of dying because I don't believe in the afterlife I just want to say that I don't need your pity. I am having a great time here on the planet earth and when its my time be it tomorrow or eighty years from now, I will be ready. I believe deistic religions put unnesessary shackles on mankind. They tell us that our bodies are ugly and that we should be ashamed of them. They tell us that other people are inferior to us in some way. And most important they tell us that our minds are not good enough to create great art or make new scientific discoveries. We had to have a god or gods to help us. As far as christianity goes I have this to say. If god sends the people to hell that won't bow to him than that is a shitty god in my opinion.

1) I don't tell people that I pity them even when I do. But I pity people because I know how wonderful it feels to know that you have a constant and completely loyal companion.

2)These things you are listing are virtually untrue, except that all of our accomplishments are thanks to god and his grace. One can still be proud of the fact that god chose him/her to do it.

3) As for the bowing to god thing, a common atheistic view is that "might makes right" therefore, god as the omnipotent being is absolutely right.

and i pity you because if i'm right you will have missed out on living the only life you will ever get. your faith renders you unable to experience the fullness of your only chance at existence, according to my beliefs. given the choice, i would rather risk hell than the alternative.

i pity you poor athiest. you live your life to the fullest but i've seen an athiest on the brink of death and it's pretty sad. nothing but fear. for people of faith they have hope and don't spend the last times of their life is fear.

Exactly how where you able to determine the characteristics of this infinite, incomprehensible god?

I can't, I trust that what I read in the bible is true and that he can take care of things himself.

I think He could if He wished--the problem with making everything perfectly cut, though, would be to deprive humans of free choice, which I think was the above-all intent in creating us as we are.
Then, why did he ever reveal himself to us in the first place?


The reason I do not reject those aspects is because it makes sense to me that His death would be necessary.
He didn't even really die. I mean, as an onmipotent being, he CAN'T die, and I am sure that he knew this very well and intended from the start to come back to life afterwards. The entire crucification was a publicity stunt, not an actual sacrifice.

What I tend to get irritated with--and where I see the most chance for distortions--are human interpretations (like people deciding that they know who is going to Heaven; they DON'T know that.), more than anything.
Agreed. I don't agree with religion, but I can tolerate it enjoy debating it so long as people don't assert that their explanation can be the only correct one. (I am not certain that God doesn't exist. It's just that I have no evidence supporting him, he is not necessary to explain how anything works, and as detailed in my previous post, I have weighed the possibilities against each other and decided that disbelieving is the most rewarding choice.)

1) I don't tell people that I pity them even when I do. But I pity people because I know how wonderful it feels to know that you have a constant and completely loyal companion.
Didn't you just tell us? Hypocrite. Besides, I personally appreciate my privacy.

2)These things you are listing are virtually untrue, except that all of our accomplishments are thanks to god and his grace. One can still be proud of the fact that god chose him/her to do it.
You know, I really hate people who say that all good things that happen to us are entirely thanks to God, but all bad things that happen to us are our own fault.

And what is the joy in succeeding at something if it is not I but God that is to thank? It would take away any reason to live (Except, well, that God outlawed suicide. I wonder why he needed to.)

3) As for the bowing to god thing, a common atheistic view is that "might makes right" therefore, god as the omnipotent being is absolutely right.
I definitely DO NOT think that. Although might-makes-right sadly does often happen, I definitely don't think that's how it should be. If it is someday proven to me that God does exist but his morals contradict mine, I would refuse to worship him. Sure, he could threaten to smite me with lightning, or something like that. In the English language, we have a word for people (and deities) who use threat of death to make people obey. It's "terrorist".

SO true! I hate it when people assume they or others are going to heaven. Although, I think you can know, to some extent (at least in christianity) if you are going to heaven. If you honour god, believe in god, and love god above all things and repent your sins because they displease him, then you will, in all likelihood, go to heaven. This is said in the Bible

"I trust that what I read in the bible is true"

I see... why?

I am Natio Valida too, btw

I can't, I trust that what I read in the bible is true and that he can take care of things himself.

Why do you choose to believe in God? Why do you choose the Bible?

Didn't you just tell us? Hypocrite. Besides, I personally appreciate my privacy.


You know, I really hate people who say that all good things that happen to us are entirely thanks to God, but all bad things that happen to us are our own fault.

And what is the joy in succeeding at something if it is not I but God that is to thank? It would take away any reason to live (Except, well, that God outlawed suicide. I wonder why he needed to.)


I definitely DO NOT think that. Although might-makes-right sadly does often happen, I definitely don't think that's how it should be. If it is someday proven to me that God does exist but his morals contradict mine, I would refuse to worship him. Sure, he could threaten to smite me with lightning, or something like that. In the English language, we have a word for people (and deities) who use threat of death to make people obey. It's "terrorist".

I told you why I pity people, in the process it was an unfortunate necessity that I tell you that I pity people. You know that, don't argue semantics.

The joy is in knowing that god chose you and used you to make the world a better place!

Bad things that happen to us are our fault. God in the beginning gave us perfect life, but we were tempted and ate the forbidden fruit. Original sin. This is way too easy.

You're calling God a terrorist? Let's assume God exists. He gave us life, he gave us food, air to breathe, what luxuries we have, and so many other things and all he expects is for us to believe in and respect him. I'd hardly call him a terrorist. In any case what does define right? Is there an ultimate "right" to the universe? If there isn't, then what is the point of having any morals at all, because the only place they'll matter is in every human's own little world.

Why do you choose to believe in God? Why do you choose the Bible?

Wow. I was afraid someone would ask that. Very simply, I've gone on a religious journey throughout my life. I've been Catholic, then wiccan, then an atheist for years, then finally A protestant christian. I've studied psychology, languages, religions and their texts and traditions and basically it all keeps coming back to christianity for me. Plus, I'm afraid I'm not completely christian in all of my beliefs.

I'm really sorry I can't explain it all. First it would take up WAY to much time and space and second, I really can't explain it completely. There's just this knowledge that I can feel in my innermost being that there is a God, he came to earth and was named jesus and he died and was resurected for my sin. I try every day to thank and respect god for all he has given me and I try every day to live up to his law. Whenever I am sad or depressed, all I have to do is remember that God is right there with me feeling my pain. Whenever I help a person I realize that I am blessed to have God working through me. God is.

I told you why I pity people, in the process it was an unfortunate necessity that I tell you that I pity people. You know that, don't argue semantics.

The joy is in knowing that god chose you and used you to make the world a better place!

I find joy in life as an athiest that I never had when I was a Roman Catholic. Surely your religion doesn't have all the monopoly on happiness?


Bad things that happen to us are our fault.


Is this not a double standard? Why are bad things our fault and the good things God's doing?


God in the beginning gave us perfect life, but we were tempted and ate the forbidden fruit. Original sin. This is way too easy.


How did Adam and Eve know right from wrong when they had to partake of the fruit to gain the knowledge of right and wrong? Why does God punish their desendants for sins they never commited?


You're calling God a terrorist? Let's assume God exists. He gave us life, he gave us food, air to breathe, what luxuries we have, and so many other things and all he expects is for us to believe in and respect him. I'd hardly call him a terrorist. In any case what does define right? Is there an ultimate "right" to the universe? If there isn't, then what is the point of having any morals at all, because the only place they'll matter is in every human's own little world.

Why not? Don't you enjoy making other people happy and being around loved ones? Don't you think in you didn't believe in God you'd still feel that way?

I think that whether you are an atheist or believe in a particular religion that you still create your own afterlife. I think it depends on how you act as a person in general regardless of your religion. I personally am a Christian but I feel that everyone has the chance to eternal life regardless of what they believe, as it all comes down to their actions in life.

I think that whether you are an atheist or believe in a particular religion that you still create your own afterlife. I think it depends on how you act as a person in general regardless of your religion. I personally am a Christian but I feel that everyone has the chance to eternal life regardless of what they believe, as it all comes down to their actions in life.

Good, then I have no worries.

I find joy in life as an athiest that I never had when I was a Roman Catholic. Surely your religion doesn't have all the monopoly on happiness?



Is this not a double standard? Why are bad things our fault and the good things God's doing?



How did Adam and Eve know right from wrong when they had to partake of the fruit to gain the knowledge of right and wrong? Why does God punish their desendants for sins they never commited?



Why not? Don't you enjoy making other people happy and being around loved ones? Don't you think in you didn't believe in God you'd still feel that way?

Did I ever say that christians or religious people had a monopoly on happiness? Lemme think here...uh...no.

I already explained why it's our fault. The forbidden fruit thing. If you'll recall, the ONE thing God said NOT to do was to eat the apple. They knew right from wrong. He did not punish us (other than expelling us from eden and so forth) we punished ourselves by giving ourselves knowledge. We learned how to hate and how to love, we learned how to forge weapons and fight. All the evil that is in this world came from us. We are not god and are therefore not perfect. Therefore knowledge, when expressed through humans cannot be completely good.

I gain joy from knowing that God was doing his work through me.

The joy is in knowing that god chose you and used you to make the world a better place!
I'd rather be the horseman than the horse.

Bad things that happen to us are our fault. God in the beginning gave us perfect life, but we were tempted and ate the forbidden fruit. Original sin. This is way too easy.
Who created the forbidden fruit? Who create sin?

I'm sure that by any decent code of law on Earth, if I make a bomb and put it in a public square with a "do not touch sign", and someone touches it anyway and it explodes, than despite the sign I'm still guilty of murder.

You're calling God a terrorist?
Well, yes, basically. Although I'd tolerate him if his morals agreed with mine. The morals described in the bible that I grew up with definitely don't, but by by no means does that imply that there might not be a real God who agrees with me perfectly. Still, I do not need the knowledge of an omnipotent being backing me in order to have self-confidence.

Let's assume God exists. He gave us life, he gave us food, air to breathe, what luxuries we have, and so many other things and all he expects is for us to believe in and respect him.
And many, many, forms of disease.

I'd hardly call him a terrorist. In any case what does define right? Is there an ultimate "right" to the universe? If there isn't, then what is the point of having any morals at all, because the only place they'll matter is in every human's own little world.
And I happen to like my little world. I can easily imagine societies with morals vastly differing from ours - in fact, I don't even have to imagine, I just have to look at history, or at other civilizations. But I really, really, wouldn't like to live in such a society. Maybe it's just me. But I believe in my own morals, and I will stick by them, even if that means fighting God himself. (Can't be that hard. Jacob beat him in a wrestling match, didn't he?)

Russo-Princepolis:

"I'm really sorry I can't explain it all."

That's OK. Did you arrive at Christianity or decide to be religious for any rational reason?

I think that whether you are an atheist or believe in a particular religion that you still create your own afterlife. I think it depends on how you act as a person in general regardless of your religion. I personally am a Christian but I feel that everyone has the chance to eternal life regardless of what they believe, as it all comes down to their actions in life.
I think that when you die, that's that. However, when you're dead you are unable of thinking or feeling any emotion, so your happiness only really depends on what you think is going to happen to you while you're still alive. If in the last minutes of your life you think you're going to the afterlife, then as far as you're concerned it might as well be true, because by the time your belief turns out to be wrong you won't care anymore.

I already explained why it's our fault. The forbidden fruit thing. If you'll recall, the ONE thing God said NOT to do was to eat the apple. They knew right from wrong.


3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


He did not punish us (other than expelling us from eden and so forth) we punished ourselves by giving ourselves knowledge.


3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
3:17
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
3:18
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
3:20
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
3:22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

He seemed quite extensive.

I do not believe that ignorance is bliss. I find joy in unraveling the mysteries of the universe. I find that our mortality is what gives our lives meaning.

Russo-Princepolis:

"I'm really sorry I can't explain it all."

That's OK. Did you arrive at Christianity or decide to be religious for any rational reason?

Well religion isn't a rational thing. But there were some rational reasons that led me down the path to discovering christianity as what I believe to be the true faith. I studied religions and saw that they seemed to all have the closest similarities to Christianity. What I mean is that their general core was most similar to Judeo-Christian beliefs. This would imply that the general source of religion would be closest to the Judeo-Christian area. There have been miracles witnessed by many despite the fact that they could not be scientifically explained. There are many more things like this, but ultimately, it comes down to the fact that God is the most logical choice. Science is utterly crippled in its inability to comprehend infinity and as science has not yet proven otherwise, we must then assume that the one variable, infinity must be the difference. God is infinite. If you'd like I think I could site you to some of the more valuable resources that led me towards Christianity. I'll have to dig out that paper I mentioned a long time ago, but I think I know which general group of boxes it's in :-).

Russo-Princepolis:

"Well religion isn't a rational thing."

"God is the most logical choice."

Anyone else see a tiny contradiction?

"I studied religions and saw that they seemed to all have the closest similarities to Christianity. What I mean is that their general core was most similar to Judeo-Christian beliefs. This would imply that the general source of religion would be closest to the Judeo-Christian area."

I thought you said the core of all religions was the same. Now you are saying they are more similar to Judeo-Christian beliefs. Of course, reality is all religions contradict each other and so either one is true or none are.

He seemed quite extensive.
He's also a liar, because he said that the penalty would be death but afterwards settled for expulsion from the garden plus a couple of curses that would have happen due to the laws of nature anyway. Not that I'm complaining - I rather like being alive - but he still lied, quite interesting behaviour for such a supposedly perfect being.

Well religion isn't a rational thing.
Wow, I completely agree.

3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.



3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
3:17
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
3:18
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
3:20
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
3:22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

He seemed quite extensive.



Perhaps I should have been more clear. They knew right from wrong in that particular situation. Forgive my lack of clarity. We took on the burdens of God which we are incapable of bearing because of our inate flaws. We punished ourselves. We became as gods and thus God treated us as such.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. They knew right from wrong in that particular situation.
Says you. Care to give us biblical evidence?

Several theists here seem keen on religion, why is that? Even if we assume God's existence, why does this God have to have anything to do with the religions existing today?

Russo-Princepolis:

"Well religion isn't a rational thing."

"God is the most logical choice."

Anyone else see a tiny contradiction?

"I studied religions and saw that they seemed to all have the closest similarities to Christianity. What I mean is that their general core was most similar to Judeo-Christian beliefs. This would imply that the general source of religion would be closest to the Judeo-Christian area."

I thought you said the core of all religions was the same. Now you are saying they are more similar to Judeo-Christian beliefs. Of course, reality is all religions contradict each other and so either one is true or none are.

1) I was using your scientific, logical view. If you'll notice, I said that these logical things were what led me to christianity. They are not what made me believe in it.

2) I'm afraid I have once again worded things poorly. ALMOST (as I have said) all religious have the same core. However, there are different layers of this core, just as there are different layers surrounding the earth's core. What I'm saying is that as the layers go out, there is less variance than with other faiths.

i pity you poor athiest. you live your life to the fullest but i've seen an athiest on the brink of death and it's pretty sad. nothing but fear. for people of faith they have hope and don't spend the last times of their life is fear.
since the age of 11 i have been on the brink of death, since i was diagnosed with an terminal illness for which there is no known cure. i was originally told that i would not live to see my 25th birthday. i have spent most of my conscious life dealing with my impending death, and have thought about death more than even the most angst-ridden adolescent goth.

i have no fear of dying, though i am happy that recent medical developments give me more time to enjoy life. i have hope, since i know the things i have done during my life will endure long after i am gone, and i don't see any need to believe in fairy tales in order to make my peace with life. i don't believe it would be right for me to embrace God just to make myself feel better, and i don't think fear of death is a good reason to make up stories about heaven or an afterlife; if that's the only reason people believe in religion, then that is pretty pathetic.

i am strong enough to experience my life in full, and that means having to accept that my existence is finite. i could not know the complete significance of my life if i had not faced its inevitable end, and it was not until i came to terms with my own death that my life truly began. those who cannot embrace the eventuality of death cannot embrace all that it means to live, and for that my heart goes out to them.

Several theists here seem keen on religion, why is that? Even if we assume God's existence, why does this God have to have anything to do with the religions existing today?

That's an interrsting question. there are basically two answers.

1) He doesn't, he is a classic Deistic's God.

2) Logically if there was a god in the beginning who created and communicated with us, there would be in the very least some remnants of true religion in what religions we have today.

2) Logically if there was a god in the beginning who created and communicated with us, there would be in the very least some remnants of true religion in what religions we have today.
why? couldn't God have decided to erase all record of his presence? isn't it possible that the Devil created all major religions, to lead us away from God through convincing us we were doing God's will? isn't that, in fact, just as likely as the theory that religion leads us to God?

Russo-Princepolis:

"I was using your scientific, logical view."

You haven't exactly been arguing in scientific, logical terms, no. You have presented a lot of assertions with little evidence to back them up, and no reason for us to take anything you say seriously.

"That's an interrsting question. there are basically two answers."

We know that you believe the God of Christianity = The One True Almighty Superior You Name It Being, so why is your view correct?

We took on the burdens of God which we are incapable of bearing because of our inate flaws.

That is the very thing that makes us human. Our flaws. They make us unique and noble.

We punished ourselves. We became as gods and thus God treated us as such.

I take pride in that.

Basically, the existance or inexistance of a God/gods/godess/whatever, the burden of proof is on the believer. So, that's why I'm an agnostic, and not an atheist.

Absolute Pleasure:

"Basically, the existance or inexistance of a God/gods/godess/whatever, the burden of proof is on the believer. So, that's why I'm an agnostic, and not an atheist."

True, but an atheist is someone who lacks belief in God. Doesn't have to deny the existence of God.

Agnosticism has to do with knowledge, or the lack of it, not belief.

Definitions can be confusing at times.

It is impossible to completely disprove the existence of God, because an omnipotent being would be able to carefully manipulate all evidence to make it look like he doesn't exist. Still, if he does choose to do that, he probably doesn't really want to be worshipped anyway.

why? couldn't God have decided to erase all record of his presence? isn't it possible that the Devil created all major religions, to lead us away from God through convincing us we were doing God's will? isn't that, in fact, just as likely as the theory that religion leads us to God?
"The devil can quote scripture for his purpose." -- Shakespear

since the age of 11 i have been on the brink of death, since i was diagnosed with an terminal illness for which there is no known cure. i was originally told that i would not live to see my 25th birthday. i have spent most of my conscious life dealing with my impending death, and have thought about death more than even the most angst-ridden adolescent goth.

i have no fear of dying, though i am happy that recent medical developments give me more time to enjoy life. i have hope, since i know the things i have done during my life will endure long after i am gone, and i don't see any need to believe in fairy tales in order to make my peace with life. i don't believe it would be right for me to embrace God just to make myself feel better, and i don't think fear of death is a good reason to make up stories about heaven or an afterlife; if that's the only reason people believe in religion, then that is pretty pathetic.

i am strong enough to experience my life in full, and that means having to accept that my existence is finite. i could not know the complete significance of my life if i had not faced its inevitable end, and it was not until i came to terms with my own death that my life truly began. those who cannot embrace the eventuality of death cannot embrace all that it means to live, and for that my heart goes out to them.

It's funny that you say this. I was in a car wreck about three years ago which almost killed me. This was actually about one year after I had realized Christianity as my faith. When I became conscious (in ICU) I was told that basically I was going to have to have an opperation that had only about a 33% chance of working, otherwise I would probably die within several weeks. I was afraid, I knew I shouldn't have been, but I was. I was afraid for my soul! Would I spend eternity in hell? I didn't think so, but what if I did?

When I was 18, I was an atheist (who, by the way was very well mentally balanced.) I was also an avid sky diver. In the plane, I performed all the necessary checks and so forth ensuring that I'd land safely and exited the plane in the appropriate manner. I counted. Then pulled the rip cord. Nothing happened. The funny thing is that I wasn't afraid of death then. I thought, I'm not that important, I'm just one organism on this planet that's about to die. I even briefly considered just falling to my death before thinking of how depressed my parents, sister, friends, etc. would be. So I released the emergency 'chute and glided to a rather rough, painful landing.

So you see. Not all people are religious because of their fear of death. I went from not being afraid of death at all to being terrified of it ( a sin on my behalf because it means I'm not completely trusting in God's saving grace)

Webster's dictionary of atheist
A person that believes there is no God

It is impossible to completely disprove the existence of God, because an omnipotent being would be able to carefully manipulate all evidence to make it look like he doesn't exist. Still, if he does choose to do that, he probably doesn't really want to be worshipped anyway.

This is not so. He wants faith. If we know that he exists, then we KNOW we have to follow his law. He wants, instead, for people to trust in him that he exists.

"I even briefly considered just falling to my death"

OK, that is just stupid.

Webster's dictionary of atheist
A person that believes there is no God

Atheist's defintion of what he believes:

Deriving from the greek meanings.
a - without
theos - god

This is before the term was misused by thiests.

Absolute pleasure, you are a weak athiest. You lack belief in gods. Welcome to the club.

Absolute Pleasure:

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathd_index.htm

I was in a car wreck about three years ago which almost killed me. This was actually about one year after I had realized Christianity as my faith.
Interesting welcoming present he gave you.

When I was 18, I was an atheist (who, by the way was very well mentally balanced.) I was also an avid sky diver. In the plane, I performed all the necessary checks and so forth ensuring that I'd land safely and exited the plane in the appropriate manner. I counted. Then pulled the rip cord. Nothing happened. The funny thing is that I wasn't afraid of death then. I thought, I'm not that important, I'm just one organism on this planet that's about to die. I even briefly considered just falling to my death before thinking of how depressed my parents, sister, friends, etc. would be. So I released the emergency 'chute and glided to a rather rough, painful landing.
Well, a nice story by itself. Also, iyou just admitted yourself that atheists have morals independantly from religion or God (in this case, not wanting your family and friends to be depressed).

I went from not being afraid of death at all to being terrified of it ( a sin on my behalf because it means I'm not completely trusting in God's saving grace)
Let me get this right. Being afraid that you would go to hell, is a sin and thus increases your chances of going to hell?

why? couldn't God have decided to erase all record of his presence? isn't it possible that the Devil created all major religions, to lead us away from God through convincing us we were doing God's will? isn't that, in fact, just as likely as the theory that religion leads us to God?
That makes sense, but then why would a god who obviously wants us to follow the "right" track erase it making it impossible for us to follow, so instead the human race would have to make it up as it goes along?

"I even briefly considered just falling to my death"

OK, that is just stupid.
Why? I see only one thing wrong with it, and that thing is exactly the reason he changed his mind.

Atheist's defintion of what he believes:

Deriving from the greek meanings.
a - without
theos - god

This is before the term was misused by thiests.

Absolute pleasure, you are a weak athiest. You lack belief in gods. Welcome to the club.
Polytheist = believes firmly that the number of existing deities is two or more.
Monotheist = believes firmly that the number of existing deities is exactly one.
Atheist = believes firmly that the number of existing deities is exactly zero.

Well, a nice story by itself. Also, iyou just admitted yourself that atheists have morals independantly from religion or God (in this case, not wanting your family and friends to be depressed).


Let me get this right. Being afraid that you would go to hell, is a sin and thus increases your chances of going to hell?

I never denied that atheists had morals in any way shape or form. If I have, it was absolutely inadvertently and I humbly ask your forgiveness.

I believe that since I believe in God and try to follow his law and repent it when I don't, I will be going to heaven as god has told me through his scripture. However, when I fear that I am going to hell, despite the fact that I have done what he asked to the best of my ability, it means that I am not trusting him completely as I should.

That makes sense, but then why would a god who obviously wants us to follow the "right" track erase it making it impossible for us to follow, so instead the human race would have to make it up as it goes along?
Maybe he doesn't particularly want us to do something specific, but created us expressly in order to watch what we would do if left to our own devices? I think that's pretty interesting research, even for an omnipotent being.

I never denied that atheists had morals in any way shape or form. If I have, it was absolutely inadvertently and I humbly ask your forgiveness.
Maybe not. It's hard keeping track of who made what claim in a multi-person debate. Regardless, a lot of religious people claim otherwise and so it's nice having someone "on the inside" contradict them.

No offense intended.

If god created everything, then how could anything be unholy or heretical? If, indeed, there is a god and he created all, how could anything people believe be ungodly -- up to and including denying his existence? Also, how could any relgion or group of "God's Words" be more Godly than any other?

By the way, Agnostic:
a : Without
gnost : Knowledge

To be agnostic literally means to be without knowledge... in a sense, the ultimate in humbleness.

"Atheist = believes firmly that the number of existing deities is exactly zero."

Not quite, as seen previously. All atheists have the fact in common that the number of deities they hold an explicit belief in, is zero. That includes people who don't deny the existence of God and people who do.

Says you. Care to give us biblical evidence?

Genesis 2:16-17 "And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

See?

As for this about God being a liar. Could he not have been merciful? Haven't we heard of merciful Kings who said they would kill an anemy, but instead allowed them to lived, but punished them severely? Of course, I still hold that man punished himself.

"Why? I see only one thing wrong with it, and that thing is exactly the reason he changed his mind."

Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't think it's particularly smart or sane to contemplate falling to the ground in the first place, if you can do something to prevent it. But I guess that's a personal opinion...

You have to be at least reasonably firm in your belief that there are no gods to be an atheist - though perhaps not entirely sure that they're right, they need to have just as much faith as religious people hold in their beliefs. If your mind is really open to both sides, you're an agnostic. Even if not entirely the original root of the word (I don't know Greek, so I can't debate this), this is how the words are used nowadays, and it's a good distinction to make.

Maybe he doesn't particularly want us to do something specific, but created us expressly in order to watch what we would do if left to our own devices? I think that's pretty interesting research, even for an omnipotent being.

That was what I stated, though, in answer 1. That god is the classic deist's God in that he left no trace of himself and is content to sit back and watch.

Milostein:

"You have to be at least reasonably firm in your belief that there are no gods to be an atheist - though perhaps not entirely sure that they're right, they need to have just as much faith as religious people hold in their beliefs. If your mind is really open to both sides, you're an agnostic. Even if not entirely the original root of the word (I don't know Greek, so I can't debate this), this is how the words are used nowadays, and it's a good distinction to make."

The word is used in several ways nowadays, and several dictionary definitions exist.

There is plenty of basis for stating that an atheist is someone who is not a "theist", someone who does not hold that explicit belief. All atheists certainly have a lack of belief in common. By the way, you can also divide them into weak atheists (merely lacking belief) and strong atheists (denying).

Agnosticism refers originally (Huxley) to the idea that we cannot know anything about God (a contradiction, because then we would know about God that we can't know anything about God).

Genesis 2:16-17 "And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
My point stands. God didn't say it was wrong, he said they would die. Many people nowadays engage in dangerous sports - yourself included - and nothing is considered immoral about them. Adam and Eve avoided the fruit not because they felt it was wrong, but out of self-preservation. When the snake convinced them that they wouldn't die ("Of course this parachute'll open properly!") their reason for not eating it disappeared (at least in their minds), so they did.

Neither Adam nor Eve nor the snake ever considered the act to be good or evil, because they were not yet able to do so.

My point stands. God didn't say it was wrong, he said they would die. Many people nowadays engage in dangerous sports - yourself included - and nothing is considered immoral about them. Adam and Eve avoided the fruit not because they felt it was wrong, but out of self-preservation. When the snake convinced them that they wouldn't die ("Of course this parachute'll open properly!") their reason for not eating it disappeared (at least in their minds), so they did.

Neither Adam nor Eve nor the snake ever considered the act to be good or evil, because they were not yet able to do so.

I can understand your point, but God, the omnipotent and ultimate "right", ordered them NOT to do this. It was against the will of God and therefore, wrong.

Omnipotence is a contradictory word. For example, how can one that is omnipotent create a stone that is too heavy for them to lift? It's not possible.

I can understand your point, but God, the omnipotent and ultimate "right", ordered them NOT to do this. It was against the will of God and therefore, wrong.
Yes. It was wrong. But Adam and Eve, not yet having a sense of morality, DID NOT and COULD NOT realize that it was wrong, and God knew it (he's omniscient, after all). Also note that the warning you quoted could easily be applied without modification to someone who is about to eat a poisoned berry or mushroom - which is not immoral, just stupid. However, even if God had chosen words which actually stated outright that it is wrong, it would have been lost on Adam and Eve who simply would not understand it. In fact, the fact that God chose not to mention morality in his speech in itself provides evidence that he knew it would have no effect.

Omnipotence is a contradictory word. For example, how can one that is omnipotent create a stone that is too heavy for them to lift? It's not possible.
Or perhaps this is once again the inability of the human mind to comprehend anything infinite.

In any case, that's what makes God so awesome. He is both omnicient and omnipotent. He knows (this is my personal theory) that to create something that he can't do would be to destroy himself or otherwise lock himself and, therefore, the entire universe in a destructive eternal struggle.

"Or perhaps this is once again the inability of the human mind to comprehend anything infinite."

Presupposing that something infinite exists.

By the way, Agnostic:
a : Without
gnost : Knowledge


It's actually gnosis.


To be agnostic literally means to be without knowledge... in a sense, the ultimate in humbleness.

How arrogant. :D

Still, it remains to be seen whether your lack of knowledge leads you to theism or atheism.

Or perhaps this is once again the inability of the human mind to comprehend anything infinite.

In any case, that's what makes God so awesome. He is both omnicient and omnipotent. He knows (this is my personal theory) that to create something that he can't do would be to destroy himself or otherwise lock himself and, therefore, the entire universe in a destructive eternal struggle.
I think that if God exists at all, then he his only omnipotent with regard to THIS universe. Limiting himself from ever moving a rock would require action outside of this universe, and is thus beyond his capability.

Yes. It was wrong. But Adam and Eve, not yet having a sense of morality, DID NOT and COULD NOT realize that it was wrong, and God knew it (he's omniscient, after all). Also note that the warning you quoted could easily be applied without modification to someone who is about to eat a poisoned berry or mushroom - which is not immoral, just stupid. However, even if God had chosen words which actually stated outright that it is wrong, it would have been lost on Adam and Eve who simply would not understand it. In fact, the fact that God chose not to mention morality in his speech in itself provides evidence that he knew it would have no effect.

Actually, at least as far as christianity is concerned, to knowingly eat a poisonous berry or mushroom knowingly is immoral because the body is a temple to the soul and by ingesting something harmful, you are poisoning it.

Humans sinned by disobeying God whether they were aware of it or not. Sin is not based on humans but instead on God. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for disobeying it. To say that because you didn't know it was illegal to kill someone doesn't mean that you aren't to be held accountable for it. He would have known that Adam and Eve would have eaten from the tree, but he gave them free will nonetheless. Instead of preventing what he knew would happen, he allowed it to occur, because he was not going to take away to greatest gift he gave humans, free will. By his grace he let the humans live and by his grace he gave them clothes and by his grace he let them keep their two great assets (though one weighed both as a burden and curse as well) free will and knowledge.

I think that if God exists at all, then he his only omnipotent with regard to THIS universe. Limiting himself from ever moving a rock would require action outside of this universe, and is thus beyond his capability.
Forgive me, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying...

although I will point out that universe, by definition encompasses everything.

Webster's New World Dictionary- Universe-the totality of all things that exist

Yes. It was wrong. But Adam and Eve, not yet having a sense of morality, DID NOT and COULD NOT realize that it was wrong, and God knew it (he's omniscient, after all). Also note that the warning you quoted could easily be applied without modification to someone who is about to eat a poisoned berry or mushroom - which is not immoral, just stupid. However, even if God had chosen words which actually stated outright that it is wrong, it would have been lost on Adam and Eve who simply would not understand it. In fact, the fact that God chose not to mention morality in his speech in itself provides evidence that he knew it would have no effect.

I'll refer you to what I wrote above...too lazy to write it again
:-D

This could go on forever, but I think it comes down to this: We are viewing this from two different viewpoints which, in this case, cannot be reconciled. I am viewing it from the religious viewpoint and you from the non-religious... I fear we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one :-)

You know, I've always figured "better safe than sorry". I can live a pretty darn happy life without too much sin, so I'll take my chances on wasting it so that I don't have to spend eternity encased in ice with my eyes ears and mouth frozen shut while satan's four heads gush bloody foam all around me.


and I say that is the stupidest reason of all for believing in a god... I have no problem with people that believe in god (s) but it is STUPID to believe out of fear!!!

and I say that is the stupidest reason of all for believing in a god... I have no problem with people that believe in god (s) but it is STUPID to believe out of fear!!!

I'll ask you to read my other postings which firmly indicate that I don't believe in God out of fear. that was just one point out of many. Anyway, we are supposed to fear God and we are supposed to fear Hell. It's Christian, Islamic, Jewish, and Hindu doctrine, among others. Therefore to NOT fear God would be a sin...

And we really needn't get personal, I know you have a wider vocabulary than "stupid" and "STUPID", perhaps unintelligent, "incomprehensible to me", even ignorant would be much more pleasant.

Humans sinned by disobeying God whether they were aware of it or not. Sin is not based on humans but instead on God. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for disobeying it. To say that because you didn't know it was illegal to kill someone doesn't mean that you aren't to be held accountable for it. He would have known that Adam and Eve would have eaten from the tree, but he gave them free will nonetheless. Instead of preventing what he knew would happen, he allowed it to occur, because he was not going to take away to greatest gift he gave humans, free will. By his grace he let the humans live and by his grace he gave them clothes and by his grace he let them keep their two great assets (though one weighed both as a burden and curse as well) free will and knowledge.
So I am now being punished for a sin that (a) I did not personally commit and (b) my ancestors who did commit it weren't aware that it was a sin? Wow, really merciful.

Also, they didn't just not know that it was wrong. They had no CONCEPT of wrong. Their mind was not wired to understand obeying or disobeying God - they only had self-preservation. To use your murder example - would you tell a tiger not to eat people, and then set it free? Of course not.

And as I said, God's speach shows that he knew this. He tried to DISCOURAGE them from eating the fruit (like giving the tiger a mild shock when they look at a human hungrily), but he did not FORBID it as such, because it is impossible to outlaw something for a person who has no concept of law.

Ah a little while back it was wondered how God could exist and where he began. The reason God must be eternal is because something had to start the universe in motion. A Word. If there was no word at any time, there would never be an existence of anything. Someone started this book that we all live in. Some of us are written in the Book of Life for eternity. Some of us don't like this book at all and don't want to be apart of it. This knowledge of the book, is only given for us in all of creation to understand. We were given the gift of words from the Origin of Words. Our image is like Him. That is why we understand deep in our hearts what we all must know. We must know God. The word in the flesh has been sent out into this world. He sends the invitation to join in knowing Him. Will you join? Matthew 22:1-14

LAOS DEO

Forgive me, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying...

although I will point out that universe, by definition encompasses everything.

Webster's New World Dictionary- Universe-the totality of all things that exist
Don't you lot keep claiming that God is infinite and beyond our understanding of the normal world?

The reason God must be eternal is because something had to start the universe in motion.

Allow me to get all Mr.Spock on your ass. That's special pleading (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html).

So I am now being punished for a sin that (a) I did not personally commit and (b) my ancestors who did commit it weren't aware that it was a sin? Wow, really merciful.

Also, they didn't just not know that it was wrong. They had no CONCEPT of wrong. Their mind was not wired to understand obeying or disobeying God - they only had self-preservation. To use your murder example - would you tell a tiger not to eat people, and then set it free? Of course not.

And as I said, God's speach shows that he knew this. He tried to DISCOURAGE them from eating the fruit (like giving the tiger a mild shock when they look at a human hungrily), but he did not FORBID it as such, because it is impossible to outlaw something for a person who has no concept of law.

You are being punished the same way I am for the sin of all humanity.

They did have a concept of law, though. Genesis 1:28 "...fill the Earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air and every other living creature that moves on the ground."