NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.

I have no faith that there is a god (similarly, I have no faith there is no God)

Me, because I find it difficult to believe something that's not provable, by its very nature.

That said, I don't really count, since I'm a pragmatic agnostic and do whatever seems to work, I do worship a God, albeit in a different sense than most.

Of course, I hold no belief either way, due to me being agnostic and all.

I personally feel that it seems rather ridiculous to believe that there is a big magic thing out there that did all this. I can see no evidence for it. Then again, I can see no evidence to prove I'm wrong.

So I don't believe- I need some kind of tangible proof.

I am agnostic and don't think any human can know whether or not there is a God. However, nature often takes the simplest approach. I am more convinced by science than I am by religion. Also, there are too many contradictions and tales of a higher deity, and it seems too magical and fanciful to me. I'm a born skeptic. :P

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.

Well, I've never observed evidence that suggests that there is a God, and I have never been given a convincing argument that he exists.

I am agnostic and don't think any human can know whether or not there is a God. However, nature often takes the simplest approach. I am more convinced by science than I am by religion. Also, there are too many contradictions and tales of a higher deity, and it seems too magical and fanciful to me. I'm a born skeptic. :P

I'm rather skeptic as well, but I believe. Go figure.

I feel that science offers more believable answers to life's big questions than religion does.

A friend of mine once told me that a good philosophy/religion must answer 3 questions:
Where did we come from?
Why are we here?
What happens to us after we die?

I became an atheist after it occured to me that Christianity doesn't answer the 2nd question.

I believe in God, but loathe organised religion. Do I count as a non-believer? lol

I am an Atheist, and have no problems letting people know that I think the idea of the "god" put forward by most religions (omnipotent, omnipresent, etc) is completely ludicrous.


Something must have created god, it simply could not have existed for all time, and nothing is so powerful as to be able to create an entire universe and all laws governing it.

having said that I have no problem with impostor gods, people who watch stargate will know what I'm talking about, aliens (or humans) that have a few magic tricks up there sleeve and impress the locals and either trick them into worshipping them, or humans in their infinite stupidity start worshipping of their own accord.

I feel that science offers more believable answers to life's big questions than religion does.

A friend of mine once told me that a good philosophy/religion must answer 3 questions:
Where did we come from?
Why are we here?
What happens to us after we die?

I became an atheist after it occured to me that Christianity doesn't answer the 2nd question.

Read the Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren.

i officially believe that there either is NO god of any type whatsoever or that if there is such a being who started the universe "he" is so uninvolved with us that "he" may as well not exist.

i see no evidence of god in the world. no evidence that one religion is more right than any other. no evidence that god cares what we do.

every religion contains beliefs that are patently absurd. ill leave it to you to figure out just what those are in YOUR religion

do i need to go on?

God???

What is this God thing you guys talk about?

Some kind of a cartoon figure like Superman?

When you mean non-belivers, do you mean that you don't belive in a Higher Being or that you aren't Christian?

Also, would Buddhists be considered "Non-belivers", seeing how they don't have an Uber-Mastah like most other religions?

I dunno honestly. I have been aethiest for as long as I can remember (never actually have believed). I guess I'm much more taken by science, which yeilds tangible results. Of course, I'm not completely godless however, I do follow a my goddess afterall, but since she is not really a goddes (far as I know), and in fact, I don't even know what she is, I don't think she counts. So...

-blinks- I don't think that made sense... I need sleep...

I see no evidence that a god/gods/supernatural entities exist/s. I do see plenty of reasons why these ideas were invented.
I'm an atheist as I see no reason to assume something exists simply because it's impossible to prove it doesn't.

I think that you should also explain why you believe in a god. Unless you think that it is the natural tendency of all humans to believe in God, which is extremely arrogant, you should also be able to explain your belief.

And I am a physiolatrist, one who worships Nature. I do not believe in any god in the typical sense. Natural processes are god to me, what has been produced from such humble origins is just beyond words to even comprehend. What life, or rather self-replicating entities, are capable of inspires more awe in me than any of the miracles performed by alleged prophets and gods. Why should I settle for the explanation that there is some higher power dictating how everything occurs, as theists believe? Why should I settle for the explanation that everything was designed by some sort of intelligence, as deists believe? All the answers to any question are presented in the physical world, and all humans have to do is discover it. Sure, I may be wrong, and their may be some higher power, or something along those lines in the uni- or multiverse. But I heavily doubt that, and I firmly believe that my consciousness awaits nothing but oblivion.

I'm rather skeptic as well, but I believe. Go figure.
Then obviously you're selectively skeptic, because a faith by definition is sans skepticism.

I think that you should also explain why you believe in a god. Unless you think that it is the natural tendency of all humans to believe in God, which is extremely arrogant, you should also be able to explain your belief.
How is it arrogant? especially if it's natural.

How is it arrogant? especially if it's natural.

I believe he means it is arrogant to assume that it is natural.

Also, there are too many contradictions and tales of a higher deity

What contridictions are you refering to?

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.
ok, if you can understand logic i will provide you with some

(as my understanding of most creation stories, this should hold true but it primarily effects christianity)

Christian argument: Matter coulkd not exist for ever, God created it
me: what created God?
Christian: nothing, he has always been there

*illogic alarm rings*

i think it IS natural to believe in "god"
can you think of a culture that has existed that did not have religion?

What contridictions are you refering to?


Large portions of the bible spring to mind.

God's sudden change of heart between the Old (fire and brimstone, dark and vengeful, jealous and petty) and New (loving and kind, lovely to all things, doting and fair) Testaments, for example, which implies God changes which is inherently blasphemous. God can't change. He's perfect as he is. To change would mean he wasn't perfect for starters, which means he's not God.

i think it IS natural to believe in "god"
can you think of a culture that has existed that did not have religion?


That's a cultural tool. It has bugger all to do with the existence of a God in itself. Most early religions had Gods that worked in completely different ways to modern ones, or were deified kings and ancestors. This means religion is inherent, but God himself is not. Hence, God is a falsehood created to bolster religion in it's role of binding society together.

i think it IS natural to believe in "god"
can you think of a culture that has existed that did not have religion?
Oh, I wasn't aware that religion requires theism. Have you bothered paying attention to certain sects of Celtic paganism, Greek philosophers, Buddhists, and many others. God =/= religion.

Behold! I am a living god!
There is nothing greater than me!

Behold! I am a living god!
There is nothing greater than me!
And then, of course, there are the autotheists.

And then, of course, there are the autotheists.
Ahh, nothing like a fresh cup of self-empowerment in the morning, with a dash of solipsism, and some objectivism for spice.
:D

Large portions of the bible spring to mind.

God's sudden change of heart between the Old (fire and brimstone, dark and vengeful, jealous and petty) and New (loving and kind, lovely to all things, doting and fair) Testaments, for example, which implies God changes which is inherently blasphemous. God can't change. He's perfect as he is. To change would mean he wasn't perfect for starters, which means he's not God.

A mistake many people make. God's charachter does not change throught the two testements. It appers to, but what is actually changing is the nature of the circumstances. In the Old Testement sin = death. No way round that. Not just the physical death but also the spirtual death. Because the wages of sin were death God had the right to kill anyone at any time (the fact that he let the Human race exist at all was an extreme act of mercy on his part). Jesus's crucifixtion changes things. Sin no longer has to mean spiritual death but there is a condition. Faith. Trust that Jesus's death is enough to keep you from spiritual death. Now because you can make that decision to believe at any time, it means that God gives you as long a time as possible, with as much chance to hear the Gospel as possible (Hence the great commision, spread the word).

Behold! I am a living god!
Myself, I'm more of a dying god sort.
;)

Me and my buddies are going to film the third testament on DVD. Its future you know? We don't need any pens or paper but technology!
It's gonna be rather fun since we're not gonna tell people what we do.
Theyll think we're total wackos!

I believe in the possibility of a being or beings that humans would call 'god'. I do however not believe that/those being(s) are literally omniscient (distinguishing one electron from another? Knowing the positions AND speed of all elemental particles at the same time?), omipotent etc though. Nor do I see any reason to worship him/them. Respect, yes. Listen to advice ? Yes.

But no worship.There are waaaaay too many religions that differ on how one should do that anyway to make it practically possible. And even *if* one is correct, there is no way to proof which it is.

I am an agonistic that acts like an atheist.
Ok. There are purple-pink unicorns on the far side of pluto. Do you beleive me?
No, unless you are really nieve (because some guy posted this to an internet forum, not becuase they dont exist.)
If you beleive in them, they will come to your house and get rid of the invisible evil-fairiaes that cause dust.
You still don't beleive me.
And you have to make patterns on the ground in iron dust if you believe in them to attract their attention.
Do you do that? no. Unless you are really desprate to get rid of the dust in your house.

So I don't know if god/s/ess/esses exists, but I act like they don't - too much of an investment of time and effort. And you have to submerge your will in someone elses. Of course, if you need god/s/ess/esses for emotional support, I have no problem.

Gods and religion form for a few reasons (this is from an atheist standpoint, or one of a religion that beleives all others are false)
1) Power grab by the priests (I am the priest. We must sacrifice tasty animals to the gods through my stomache.)
2) Emotional support
3) Explaination of things (like thuunder. The gods are bowling!)
Thus, if I am going to beleive, 1 is an obvious reason not to, 2 I have no need of, and for 3 there is science. [Or little purple pixies]

Oh, I wasn't aware that religion requires theism. Have you bothered paying attention to certain sects of Celtic paganism, Greek philosophers, Buddhists, and many others. God =/= religion.
well i personally consider the worship of nature to be a kind of theism albeit not in the way christians have a god. in anycase thats why i said "god" because there are many differing sorts of beliefs that kind of qualify as "gods"

and what sect of buddhism is it that you think has no gods? why do you think they have temples?

the greeks had gods and the celts had gods.

the shintos, im not so sure about.

that there are individuals who dont believe in gods doesnt make much difference. the vast majority of humans today and through out all time have believed in some kind of god or other. that makes it NATURAL.

and NO, Nasopotomia, that doesnt mean its TRUE. to me, the very mulitiplicity of beliefs means that none are correct. if "god" cared he would make sure we knew what one was right.

and NO, Nasopotomia, that doesnt mean its TRUE. to me, the very mulitiplicity of beliefs means that none are correct. if "god" cared he would make sure we knew what one was right.

What do you think the great commision was for?

Becuase there's no proof of a god or gods existing. If there were at least some believable proof to back up this claim, the maybe I would think about the possiblilty of a god. But there's so little proof that it's still called 'faith' or 'belief', which means that nothing is there to back up thie claim of a higher power.

I think this guy put his question in a relativly unbiased, open minded way. And many of you responded in such a way, open minded and non-emotionally charged. But the arrogance of others really got to me, so next time those of you who responded in such a way go on their merry way taking it for granted that athiests are by their very nature open minded and more intelligent, keep in mind that here - you had your chance - and you responded as crude and sarcastic as the rest of us.

i think it IS natural to believe in "god"
can you think of a culture that has existed that did not have religion?

I think religion is a stage in our development as a species. We need to understand our enivronment, and religion offers answers at an entry level. Eventually, we will move on. Hopefully.

To answer your question I think it's deeply silly to base your life on some book (that may have even been very poorly translated).

Personally, I do believe in at least one god. I prefer to think that things are taken care of by a consortium of gods. Our god might work alone or work with a group.

I feel that science offers more believable answers to life's big questions than religion does.

A friend of mine once told me that a good philosophy/religion must answer 3 questions:
Where did we come from?
Why are we here?
What happens to us after we die?

I became an atheist after it occured to me that Christianity doesn't answer the 2nd question.

Answer to second question: 'Cause someone hates us. Who is news to me.

ok, if you can understand logic i will provide you with some

(as my understanding of most creation stories, this should hold true but it primarily effects christianity)

Christian argument: Matter coulkd not exist for ever, God created it
me: what created God?
Christian: nothing, he has always been there

*illogic alarm rings*

The idea of God is that He is not matter, but an abstract "being", therefore we cannot define what can or can't be possible for/about Him.

Because if there was a god, he doesn't seem any good at it.

War, Famine, Deasise (Sp?)...

Promote me to godhood and every one of my believers will get a free pair of slippers!

You see? That one sentence could get me millions of believers. God just seems to think that making a planet is enough to get worshiped. The guy get's a capital letter every time He is referred to and He thinks he's the mastah of da universe. Asshole.

I see no more reason to believe in a God than I do to believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny. To me, God is a nice tale constructed to give people a sense of morality or a better feeling about our purpose on earth. Do I know for sure that there is no God? Absolutely not. Just like I don't know for sure that there is no Santa. However, just to have both sides covered I've decided that it doesn't make a difference to me. I'm not involved.

i believe what i believe, and it's none of anybody's business. i don't hurt people. i'm not nasty to people, i don't proselytise, i don't perpetrate malevolent acts, therefore why, under the blue sky above and the dark earth below, does ANYBODY have to prove anything to anybody?

i'm an animist myself, pretty much a pagan. I trust to my feelings, and what I feel when I look up into the sky is something I can't put into words. To hell with proof, i'm tired of people always trying to speak the unspoken. let me live in Mystery thankyou very much.

remember the maxim of the Pythia at Delphi? Know Thyself, that is what was written above Apollo's shrine, and THAT is what I believe in.

:)

have a nice day everyone :)

A friend of mine once told me that a good philosophy/religion must answer 3 questions:
Where did we come from?
Why are we here?
What happens to us after we die?
That's funny, because I personally think a good philosophy/religion ignores all three questions in favour of:
What can I be to benefit all here and now?
What can I say to benefit all here and now?
What can I do to benefit all here and now?

The idea of God is that He is not matter, but an abstract "being", therefore we cannot define what can or can't be possible for/about Him.
and my imaginary friend tells me you are setting off the bullshit alarm

and it is irrelevant whether he is matter or not, that wasnt the point, and if he is an idea, he never existed until people though him up and will die when people stop thinking him a god

I see no more reason to believe in a God than I do to believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny. To me, God is a nice tale constructed to give people a sense of morality or a better feeling about our purpose on earth. Do I know for sure that there is no God? Absolutely not. Just like I don't know for sure that there is no Santa. However, just to have both sides covered I've decided that it doesn't make a difference to me. I'm not involved.
I do hope you get to be Santa someday.

God has existed forever. He didn't get created by anything. One may argue that that's impossible, but he's God. He can do that sort of thing.

God has existed forever. He didn't get created by anything. One may argue that that's impossible, but he's God. He can do that sort of thing.

And you know this how? All the basis for religion is in books, which are written by people, which can be full of shit (pardon the language).

What do you think the great commision was for?
if i knew what the great commision was i might have an opinion on it

A friend of mine once told me that a good philosophy/religion must answer 3 questions:
Where did we come from?
Why are we here?
What happens to us after we die?

Christianity answers all three.
The second one stems from - the rules said my parents couldn't use a condom.

The idea of God is that He is not matter, but an abstract "being", therefore we cannot define what can or can't be possible for/about Him.

1. God supposedly created us in his image. With that statement, we could suspect that god looks like us. Therefore, an image can be given to this so-called abstract object.

2. Abstract mathematical and scientific theories have definitions, which gives us the possibility to define god. Even the bible has somewhat defined god (see point 1).

And, if I really wanted to get smart with you...

3. God n. a. A perfect being conceived as the creator of the universe, and worshiped in monotheistic religions. B. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. -- from The American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th Ed.

See? He is defined. Personally, I think the first two points are enough. The third was just to be smart with you and might not even be the kind of definition you refer to.

God has existed forever. He didn't get created by anything. One may argue that that's impossible, but he's God. He can do that sort of thing.
illogic alarm: awooga-awooga


those who believe whole heartedly in religion dont consider it with logic, its all emotion

and my imaginary friend tells me you are setting off the bullshit alarm

and it is irrelevant whether he is matter or not, that wasnt the point, and if he is an idea, he never existed until people though him up and will die when people stop thinking him a god

That depends on the view. In a christian's view, the God made us believe in Him by
a) creating a need of answers or
b) informing us that He exists by making us feel that way or another way.

In an atheist's view, people "made up" the God.

If the christian's view is correct, the God exists not because we believe so but because He tangibly "is there".

illogic alarm: awooga-awooga


those who believe whole heartedly in religion dont consider it with logic, its all emotion

so what? what is so brilliant about logic, that you have to denigrate emotions?

fanatical belief in logic - as much as anything else - is the last refuge for people who can't deal with accepting that other people think, feel, and believe different things.

be careful of making sweeping statements. you have not and never will meet everybody who believes in religion whole-heartedly, and neither will i.

personally, i will trust to my instincts over logic any time.

illogic alarm: awooga-awooga


those who believe whole heartedly in religion dont consider it with logic, its all emotion

Agreed. I have even read a church sign that stated along the lines that god didn't want religious nuts. (It was along the lines of being moderate in your beliefts.) Plus, I have read somewhere that it would be best to question your beliefs. If your beliefs answer your questions, it should reinforce them. If not, then maybe you believe incorrectly. And by asking it questions, it didn't mean asking the pastor/priest what the answer is. It meant finding the answer for yourself by either reading the Bible or to give it good thought.

Personally, I don't have much against religion. It's the churches and people who worship them. (I refuse to be told what I am to believe, and that if I don't believe, I will suffer (scare tactics).)

1. God supposedly created us in his image. With that statement, we could suspect that god looks like us. Therefore, an image can be given to this so-called abstract object.

2. Abstract mathematical and scientific theories have definitions, which gives us the possibility to define god. Even the bible has somewhat defined god (see point 1).

And, if I really wanted to get smart with you...

3. God n. a. A perfect being conceived as the creator of the universe, and worshiped in monotheistic religions. B. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. -- from The American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th Ed.

See? He is defined. Personally, I think the first two points are enough. The third was just to be smart with you and might not even be the kind of definition you refer to.
'

"in His image" doesn't necesarily mean physically. could mean, posessing of intelligence, personality, will, etc.

your other two points don't address the question of whether God is matter.

'

"in His image" doesn't necesarily mean physically. could mean, posessing of intelligence, personality, will, etc.

your other two points don't address the question of whether God is matter.

I was only addressing the situation that it is undefinable. The second point does address the definability since you have stated it was abstract. If you really want me to address whether he is matter or not, let me ask this question first: Where does it say he is/isn't matter? Is this what someone told you, or was it written somewhere?

EDIT: I assumed "In His image" to mean that the human was created to appear/act/do things as God himself would. If you were an almighty creator, would YOU want someone to appear/act/do things as you would? Maybe none of the special gifts you have, but would you incorporate other things?

A mistake many people make. God's charachter does not change throught the two testements. It appers to, but what is actually changing is the nature of the circumstances.
I understand what you say, and, indeed, it's the first time I've ever seen anyone actually justify the apparent different personalities in the two Testaments. However, I still believe he just has DID. ;)

well i personally consider the worship of nature to be a kind of theism albeit not in the way christians have a god. in anycase thats why i said "god" because there are many differing sorts of beliefs that kind of qualify as "gods"
No, physiolatry is not theistic at all. It is fundamentally different, though I do believe it could be considered a religion.

and what sect of buddhism is it that you think has no gods? why do you think they have temples?
As places of meditation and learning. Buddhism in the strictest sense is a philosophy, not a religion. Most of the religious elements came from Hinduism, and typically no gods. The Buddha never mentions god.

the greeks had gods and the celts had gods.
Not all of them. Plato did not really believe in any gods, to come up with one off the top of my head. And some of the Celts did not have gods.

the shintos, im not so sure about.
Shinto can be considered to have gods, certainly.

I think there is something that everybody should remember when dealing with anything that ihas to do with the written word, or even the words of tohers, and that is the latin "caveat emptor" - LET THE BUYER BEWARE.

the written word may be a great human acheivement, but then "not all that glitters is gold".

people would do well to remember that, and also that a certain AMOUNT of skepticism and/or faith is healthy, but as in all things, when taken to excess, can become its own demon.

I think there is something that everybody should remember when dealing with anything that ihas to do with the written word, or even the words of tohers, and that is the latin "caveat emptor" - LET THE BUYER BEWARE.

the written word may be a great human acheivement, but then "not all that glitters is gold".

people would do well to remember that, and also that a certain AMOUNT of skepticism and/or faith is healthy, but as in all things, when taken to excess, can become its own demon.
*shakes your hand* Finally, a sensible person on this thread!

That depends on the view. In a christian's view, the God made us believe in Him by
a) creating a need of answers or
b) informing us that He exists by making us feel that way or another way.

In an atheist's view, people "made up" the God.

If the christian's view is correct, the God exists not because we believe so but because He tangibly "is there".
how can he be tangibly there if he isnt TANGIBLE

Why anyone won't answer this question...?

"And God said; let us make man after our image, after our likeness..."

Why US and OUR?

people would do well to remember that, and also that a certain AMOUNT of skepticism and/or faith is healthy, but as in all things, when taken to excess, can become its own demon.

Agreed. Makes perfect sense to me. People probably need something to believe. Yet, questioning it is healthy, too. Many people I have met around here would jump of a bridge if they think God told them to do it. Blind faith is what I dislike. I especially dislike blind faith that seems to think I must believe blindly, too.

*shakes your hand* Finally, a sensible person on this thread!

thanks superpower07, I'm glad somebody thinks so :)

I believe firmly in live and let live, all things in moderation, and Know Thyself :)

agreed Nefrotos, I do not like blind faith too much either, but I take that to mean blind faith in EVERYTHING, and that includes science, of which I think I am justly wary.

still, some people who have had DEEP faith, not necessarily blind, are very human and awe-inspiring people, scientists and religious figures alike :)

V-T,

I agree. Even though I have met a lot of nutcases when it comes to religion, I have still met a few nice people who are religious. I'm pretty sure exceptions could be found for every case, even thoughts I might state.

I'm probably biased against church and certain believers because my family hasn't had the best history with churches. I think the worst case was when a pastor was pulling kids out of Sunday school to get dirt on the parents and basicly blackmail the parents into continuing their attendance. My parents told the guy not to do it, but he tried anyway. We didn't stay there after that.

No, physiolatry is not theistic at all. It is fundamentally different, though I do believe it could be considered a religion.

if you say so. i just think you are defining "god" too tightly. but it seems to me to be religious in any case.


As places of meditation and learning. Buddhism in the strictest sense is a philosophy, not a religion. Most of the religious elements came from Hinduism, and typically no gods. The Buddha never mentions god.

and yet when you go to buddhist temples in buddhist countries THEY ALL HAVE GODS. they tend to vary from place to place.

Not all of them. Plato did not really believe in any gods, to come up with one off the top of my head. And some of the Celts did not have gods.

what does plato have to do with it? he was surrounded by people who believed in gods.

and while you certainly know more about these atheist celts than i do, i bet our disagreement is more along the line of where we disagreed on the "god" part of nature worship.


Shinto can be considered to have gods, certainly.
yeah i looked up shinto gods after i posted that and while they are sometimes referred to as having no gods, it doesnt seem to be true.

Wow i have never seen such rank scepticism. Do you people truly find it easier to belive that this Universe, all life, and our very sentiency are the products of a mathematical impossibility, rather than the act of a benevolent deity?
And if logic is what you seek, remember what Des Cartes said:If you believe in God and there is no God, what of it? Your life was spent embettering the world. But if you don't believe in God and there is a God, well I hope your beliefs will allow you to enjoy an eternity of fire and flames and endless pains.

Why anyone won't answer this question...?

"And God said; let us make man after our image, after our likeness..."

Why US and OUR?

It's held over from the Hebrew.

Reading Genesis 1 in Hebrew, it is quite obvious that the world was created by multiple entities, not just by one.

Why anyone won't answer this question...?

"And God said; let us make man after our image, after our likeness..."

Why US and OUR?

I think there are three possible reasons for this:

1) God is divinity, and the Kings of Britain used to be held to be divine. Royalty uses the term "we" and "us" and "our" when referring to oneself, ie, 1st person singular, so could be an extension of the royalty of God as King of Creation, thus using the 1st person plural.

2) The original Hebrew I believe inferred that God, ie, Yahweh/Jehovah was in fact one of the Elohim, a word which is PLURAL. Yahweh was in fact a regional deity of the middle east, and was linked in myths to Asherah, goddess of the hearth, and at one point trees I think. He was supposedly her husband. This would indicate he is only one of many gods.

3) There was a cock-up somewhere in the translation from Hebrew to Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, to English...highly plausible, but probably not the right answer.

does that help?

:)

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.

For the exact same reason I assume you do not believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, Bridge Trolls, Odin, Zeus, or any other mythological entity you'd like to list.

There is a complete and total absence of any objective, verifiable, or even semi-reliable evidence of their existence. In many cases (God especially included) their described proprerties also fly in the face of everything we observe about the way in which the world operates every single moment of every single day. Why would I believe in any of them?

Wow i have never seen such rank scepticism. Do you people truly find it easier to belive that this Universe, all life, and our very sentiency are the products of a mathematical impossibility, rather than the act of a benevolent deity?


So - you believe in a Creation Spirit... because it is easier to believe that?


And if logic is what you seek, remember what Des Cartes said:If you believe in God and there is no God, what of it? Your life was spent embettering the world. But if you don't believe in God and there is a God, well I hope your beliefs will allow you to enjoy an eternity of fire and flames and endless pains.

And, what if you believe in a god... but it turns out to be the wrong one?

And, what if it turns out the 'real' god tortures infidels?

how can he be tangibly there if he isnt TANGIBLE

How can He NOT be tangibly there if He IS TANGIBLE?

(What I'm saying is, I was talking about a view that believes God is tangible. Who says He isn't? You, maybe...)

1. God supposedly created us in his image. With that statement, we could suspect that god looks like us. Therefore, an image can be given to this so-called abstract object.

2. Abstract mathematical and scientific theories have definitions, which gives us the possibility to define god. Even the bible has somewhat defined god (see point 1).

And, if I really wanted to get smart with you...

3. God n. a. A perfect being conceived as the creator of the universe, and worshiped in monotheistic religions. B. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. -- from The American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th Ed.

See? He is defined. Personally, I think the first two points are enough. The third was just to be smart with you and might not even be the kind of definition you refer to.


1. Why would you suppose so, especially since you seem not to believe He exists?
2. Scientific theories are not REALLY abstract, since they can be defined. And why do you use the Bible as an argument, since you propably (according to your writings) don't believe in what it says?
3. This is not the definition of the God, this only defines the MEANING of the WORD "god".

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.

I believe that if God wanted to make Himself known, and hold man accountable for knowing Him, He would do it in a big and obvious way. That, obviously, is very vague, so let me explain.

I don't think it would be fair for God to expect people to have faith in something that they didn't see with their own eyes. I believe that, if there is a God, He made us the way we are for a reason, with need of evidence. I do not believe in original sin. To me, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Yes, human beings are "selfish", but that's not necessarily a bad thing. In my opinion, it's a good thing; it's necessary for his survival. I do not believe that human beings are "equally bad". To me, there is an obvious moral difference between the thief and the average working man; the murderer and the housewife. Morality, to me, is not a state of mind or heart, but courses of action. It's not the fact that the robber wants to have something he does not possess to sustain him that is immoral; it's the way he goes about doing it.

From a scientific standpoint, I do not reject the possibility of the existance of a God or gods. It's more from a moral angle. In my opinion, nothing is a stronger testament of the fallacy of religion than that of the behavior and beliefs of religious people as we know them today. There are several people on this board alone that are prime examples of this. Being a former religious nutcase myself, I know and understand how the system works, and I think it is a very bad, a very evil system.

I try to live a good, moral life. I am open to God, if He/She/It/They want to reach me. But as far as I'm concerned, if nature attests to God's will in any way, shape, or form, which seems to me to be the only logical way to know Him/Her/It/They on this Earth rather than through books written thousand of years ago through men with political agendas, then my purpose for living is to simply live, and I will deal with the Eternal when I get there.

How can He NOT be tangibly there if He IS TANGIBLE?.
HE ISNT FUCKING TANGIBLE

he cannot be: seen, heard, touched, or smelt, he can be "felt" but not "touched" he is NOT TANGIBLE, he is INTANGIBLE

Why anyone won't answer this question...?

"And God said; let us make man after our image, after our likeness..."

Why US and OUR?

I see it as a reference to the Trinity. See John 1:1-3, 14; "(1)In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. (2)He was in the beginning with God. (3)All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.... (14)And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

Wow i have never seen such rank scepticism. Do you people truly find it easier to belive that this Universe, all life, and our very sentiency are the products of a mathematical impossibility, rather than the act of a benevolent deity?

Ok, so let me get this straight.

You look around at life, the universe and everything and you think "Wow, that's impressive and complex, no way did this all come about and develop on it's own... some kind of superior force/intellect must have made it happen."

What you've done there is stated that the existence of this amazing complex thing presents some kind of problem, and in order to solve that problem you must postulate that something even more impressive created it. Fine... but if we accept that reasoning something had to create God, because he's supposedly even MORE amazing and complex than the universe he created.

Oops.

That's where this line of reasoning falls apart. Thiests must simply declare that God is an exception to the rule, he doesn't need a creator, he just exists and that's it.

There's a name for that, it's called special pleading, and it's a fallacy.

Oh, and what mathematical impossibility would you be speaking of?

And if logic is what you seek, remember what Des Cartes said:If you believe in God and there is no God, what of it? Your life was spent embettering the world. But if you don't believe in God and there is a God, well I hope your beliefs will allow you to enjoy an eternity of fire and flames and endless pains.

Uh-huh.. and what God should I believe in if I am to follow that advice? You realize the Christian one isn't the only one right? For that matter, what denomination of Christianity am I supposed to believe in while believing in the Christian God even if he WAS the only available option? According to some of them, if I pick certain others I end up in hell anyway because I'm not a "real" Christian.

Sorry, but the wager is rationally bankrupt. How do I know that if a God really does exist choosing to believe in the wrong one won't piss him off even more than just not believing in any?

A mistake many people make. God's charachter does not change throught the two testements. It appers to, but what is actually changing is the nature of the circumstances. In the Old Testement sin = death. No way round that. Not just the physical death but also the spirtual death. Because the wages of sin were death God had the right to kill anyone at any time (the fact that he let the Human race exist at all was an extreme act of mercy on his part). Jesus's crucifixtion changes things. Sin no longer has to mean spiritual death but there is a condition. Faith. Trust that Jesus's death is enough to keep you from spiritual death. Now because you can make that decision to believe at any time, it means that God gives you as long a time as possible, with as much chance to hear the Gospel as possible (Hence the great commision, spread the word).

Why did an omnipotent, omniscient, and above all all-loving God need to have the 'nature of circumstances' changed for Him (by sacrificing His son no less) before being able to change the wage of sin?

HE ISNT FUCKING TANGIBLE

he cannot be: seen, heard, touched, or smelt, he can be "felt" but not "touched" he is NOT TANGIBLE, he is INTANGIBLE

Oh, right, I mixed up the terms - tangible is naturally a synonyme for "concrete". What I meant was that God really is there, but doesn't appear as a 3-dimensional "object" or cannot be defined in any other way. So maybe God is there really, not literally "in a tanglible way"... Just like the... subjective world view which people have, we just have it but it isn't tanglible. Or any other abstract thing. You must know dozens of abstract things that "are there". Whether we believe it or not.

Why do people need a god?

What is it in your mind that makes you think that a supernatural beeing is needed? Why do you think that you need to worship some supernatural beeing that nobody ever has seen. (and don't come with prhases like "god talks to me" or "i can feel god" or similar stuff)

What has this god done? What can you point to and say "This is made by god!" and it can not be explained any other way.

Why do people need a god?

What is it in your mind that makes you think that a supernatural beeing is needed? Why do you think that you need to worship some supernatural beeing that nobody ever has seen. (and don't come with prhases like "god talks to me" or "i can feel god" or similar stuff)

What has this god done? What can you point to and say "This is made by god!" and it can not be explained any other way.

Maybe people just need answers? Since science hasn't solved everything yet, people can't believe some things are natural.
On the other hand, the people who have "seen the light" may think that they "experiensed the God". In that case, we don't really know about it since we can't experience experiences of other people and find out... If someone says "God talks to me", it COULD be true, you know...

I see it as a reference to the Trinity. See John 1:1-3, 14; "(1)In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. (2)He was in the beginning with God. (3)All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.... (14)And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

Nice try, but flawed.

Hebrews wrote the Old Testament - and didn't believe in the Trinity.

They did, however, start as polytheistic society - which is what is 'left over' in the Genesis 1 account.

Maybe people just need answers? Since science hasn't solved everything yet, people can't believe some things are natural.
On the other hand, the people who have "seen the light" may think that they "experiensed the God". In that case, we don't really know about it since we can't experience experiences of other people and find out... If someone says "God talks to me", it COULD be true, you know...

I actually heard that some doctors believe there to be a "spiritual" part of the brain that some people are dominant in, and some aren't.

Why do people need a god?

What is it in your mind that makes you think that a supernatural beeing is needed? Why do you think that you need to worship some supernatural beeing that nobody ever has seen. (and don't come with prhases like "god talks to me" or "i can feel god" or similar stuff)

What has this god done? What can you point to and say "This is made by god!" and it can not be explained any other way.

again, i repeat, who are you and by what right do you inflict yourself upon others who choose to believe in a god?

keep your tongue between your teeth you ignorant fool, and leave others quietly to their own beliefs. unless they harm you, what right do you have to act this way to others?

again, i repeat, who are you and by what right do you inflict yourself upon others who choose to believe in a god?

keep your tongue between your teeth you ignorant fool, and leave others quietly to their own beliefs. unless they harm you, what right do you have to act this way to others?

Care to point out where I'm ignorant?

Belief is affecting me through stupid descisions made by religious people, wars started because of religion etc. So I have all the rights I need to talk about this.

When the American president claims that some kind of a supernatural beeing is with USA and protecting it and blessing it (whatever blessing is), it affects me seriously.

Who are you btw to tell me what I can or can not do?

again, i repeat, who are you and by what right do you inflict yourself upon others who choose to believe in a god?

keep your tongue between your teeth you ignorant fool, and leave others quietly to their own beliefs. unless they harm you, what right do you have to act this way to others?

And yet, I'll wager that you fully support the 'right' of evangelical christians to 'witness' to the non-believers, right?

And, you probably don't think of it as at all hypocritical, right?

HE ISNT FUCKING TANGIBLE

he cannot be: seen, heard, touched, or smelt, he can be "felt" but not "touched" he is NOT TANGIBLE, he is INTANGIBLE
There are people who claim to have heard him, seen him, felt him. On what evidence do you base your claim?

There are people who claim to have heard him, seen him, felt him. On what evidence do you base your claim?
Sure, and many of them should be in padded cells with a straight jacket.

You know that hearing voices in your head is considered a mental illness?

Which voices in a persons head is the right ones? What if a person say that god told him that he is "chosen" and demands that he goes about killing infidels? Is that voice of god too? If not, why not?

again, i repeat, who are you and by what right do you inflict yourself upon others who choose to believe in a god?

keep your tongue between your teeth you ignorant fool, and leave others quietly to their own beliefs. unless they harm you, what right do you have to act this way to others?

Chill the beans, dude. The post is a 'question for non-believers', but when we answer the question with our own, we're inflicting ourselves upon others. Sounds a little unfair to me.

Care to point out where I'm ignorant?

Belief is affecting me through stupid descisions made by religious people, wars started because of religion etc. So I have all the rights I need to talk about this.

When the American president claims that some kind of a supernatural beeing is with USA and protecting it and blessing it (whatever blessing is), it affects me seriously.

Who are you btw to tell me what I can or can not do?

and I am continuously affected by people as deeply fanatical about science and logic as religious fundamentalists with religion, but I dont act the way you do, talking down to people, belittling them for their faith. if you want to prove your own beliefs better than somebody else's, then set the appropriate example, don't sink to their level, and think yourself high-minded and intelligent.

And by the way, I'm somebody who believes in live and let live, and moderation. Where do you get off talking to people who believe in a god, like fools? show me why I should believe in something like science as opposed to a god, when I see death, destruction, and the raping of the planet at the hands of the priests of science, who blind people with the myth of "progress", just as much as the same crimes committed by religious fundamentalists. nobody is perfect, not even you, and if a god is what it takes for some people to feel happy and hopeful and comforted then FINE - would you do take that comfort from a dying man? NO, then don't to anybody else of ANY age.

you should be ashamed of yourself, you go against your own country's law of right to freedom of belief.

shame on you.

p.s. I'm an animist pagan.

There are people who claim to have heard him, seen him, felt him. On what evidence do you base your claim?
who, when, and where

there are people who have claimed to have seen elvis-in the past 10 years, little green men, and santa claus im sure.

what is your response to this

if i knew what the great commision was i might have an opinion on it

The great comission was Jesus's final command to make deciples among all nations.

Why did an omnipotent, omniscient, and above all all-loving God need to have the 'nature of circumstances' changed for Him (by sacrificing His son no less) before being able to change the wage of sin?

They were not changed "For him". He changed them himself. God may be omnipotent but to be omnipent mereley means you have the power to do things. It doesnt state how you do them.

And the reason he sent his son to die (changing the circumstances) was because he loves us and wants to be with us. Sin did not allow that to happen, so he sent Jesus. And Jesus's death made it possible to do away with sin, since he (The only sinless human) died. Logical flaw, wages of sin = death but a sinless man died. Because of that break in the cycle, other people to can use the same break to be with God.

illogic alarm: awooga-awooga


those who believe whole heartedly in religion dont consider it with logic, its all emotion

yeah FUCK HUMAN EMOTIONS, who needs them anyway when we can just live in a bland PC world of "logic."

yeah FUCK HUMAN EMOTIONS, who needs them anyway when we can just live in a bland PC world of "logic."
Since when does logic have anything to do with this "PC" that seems to be the trend these days?
When examined in any logical way I know of, it's bunk.

I am an agonistic that acts like an atheist.
Ok. There are purple-pink unicorns on the far side of pluto. Do you beleive me?
No, unless you are really nieve (because some guy posted this to an internet forum, not becuase they dont exist.)
If you beleive in them, they will come to your house and get rid of the invisible evil-fairiaes that cause dust.
You still don't beleive me.
And you have to make patterns on the ground in iron dust if you believe in them to attract their attention.
Do you do that? no. Unless you are really desprate to get rid of the dust in your house.

So I don't know if god/s/ess/esses exists, but I act like they don't - too much of an investment of time and effort. And you have to submerge your will in someone elses. Of course, if you need god/s/ess/esses for emotional support, I have no problem.

Gods and religion form for a few reasons (this is from an atheist standpoint, or one of a religion that beleives all others are false)
1) Power grab by the priests (I am the priest. We must sacrifice tasty animals to the gods through my stomache.)
2) Emotional support
3) Explaination of things (like thuunder. The gods are bowling!)
Thus, if I am going to beleive, 1 is an obvious reason not to, 2 I have no need of, and for 3 there is science. [Or little purple pixies]
Well, though this is going to get flak I will say it.

1) Power grab by the scientists (I am a scientist. You must pay me money so that I can look at bugs in front of me.
2) Emotional Support (meh. so maybe not so much, but it is there)
3) Explaination of things (like creation. A big explosion created everything in the universe!)

Now on to the thread
Besides the statement that everyone seems to be forgetting is, higher power, not God. I'm a priest, that doesn't mean I worship the Christian's God. I believe in a higher power, that doesn't mean I'm Christian. Sheesh peeople, Christianity is not the only religion. Not to say everyone isn't realizing this, but all attacks on religion that I have seen, are attacks on Christianity. Expand your horizons and try to bash everybody equally ^_^

yeah FUCK HUMAN EMOTIONS, who needs them anyway when we can just live in a bland PC world of "logic."
emotion is behind political correctness
think about it
why is pc there? to prevent offending people, and what causes people to get offended? emotions, stupid illogical emotions

and emotions are ok, IN MODERATION and mixed with logic, NOT ALONE, emotions are scary things that eat children and puppies

There are a bunch of reasons I don't believe in any God, but I'll stick to the one I consider most convincing.

Taking all the evidence into account, I have just as much reason to believe in an evil god, multiple gods, and sentient three armed aliens in alpha centauri as I do to believe in the christian/jewish/muslim God. The number of things I could conceive of is literally uncountable, and I have no more reason to believe in God than to believe in an infinitude of things which any reasonable person would agree are ridiculous.

The only thing that gives me doubt is that so many people are religious, that it would be arrogant to dismiss them out of hand. But then these people are split into large groups who believe mutually inconsitent things - only one group could be right anyway.

Besides, historically, huge numbers of people have believed things that seem ridiculous now, so the whole x million people couldn't be wrong argument just doesn't sway me.

Really, anyway, the question shouldn't be why a non-believer doesn't believe in God, but why they do believe whatever they believe. No sane human being would believe in God without some reason (even if it's an irrational reason), so not believing in God doesn't really need a justification.

Being an atheist (as opposed to an agnostic) does call for some sort of reason, but my reasons for that are a little beyond the scope of this thread.

They were not changed "For him". He changed them himself. God may be omnipotent but to be omnipent mereley means you have the power to do things. It doesnt state how you do them.

And the reason he sent his son to die (changing the circumstances) was because he loves us and wants to be with us. Sin did not allow that to happen, so he sent Jesus. And Jesus's death made it possible to do away with sin, since he (The only sinless human) died. Logical flaw, wages of sin = death but a sinless man died. Because of that break in the cycle, other people to can use the same break to be with God.

Problem: God allegedly created everything.

Therefore: God created Sin (but we use the logic that he was allowing free choice)

Also: God created Hell - specifically creating somewhere to punish people who exercised the right to free choice.

Thus: God created a system which he deliberately rigged to punish those who exercise free choice.

Problem: Why would god then undo his big plan? Did 'god' decide that he just wasn't getting kicks out of torturing mere mortals any more?

Also - If jesus was sinless, does that mean he had no genitals? He wouldn't have needed them, right? And he wouldn't need to use the restroom, because he was perfect, right? Or - did he in fact have flaws?

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.

Being a pagan, this question makes me feel a bit left out.

Being a pagan, this question makes me feel a bit left out.
:(
You need a hug.
:fluffle:

emotion is behind political correctness
think about it
why is pc there? to prevent offending people, and what causes people to get offended? emotions, stupid illogical emotions

and emotions are ok, IN MODERATION and mixed with logic, NOT ALONE, emotions are scary things that eat children and puppies

I agree, emotions in moderation are okay mixed with logic.

Problem: God allegedly created everything.

Therefore: God created Sin (but we use the logic that he was allowing free choice)

Also: God created Hell - specifically creating somewhere to punish people who exercised the right to free choice.

Thus: God created a system which he deliberately rigged to punish those who exercise free choice.

Problem: Why would god then undo his big plan? Did 'god' decide that he just wasn't getting kicks out of torturing mere mortals any more?

Also - If jesus was sinless, does that mean he had no genitals? He wouldn't have needed them, right? And he wouldn't need to use the restroom, because he was perfect, right? Or - did he in fact have flaws?

This is the Christian god, who's to say that god isn't the god of any of the religions out there today?

The great comission was Jesus's final command to make deciples among all nations.
well that explains it for YOU but not for me.

it doesnt make christianity more correct than any of the other 1000s of religions that have existed in human history.

Problem: God allegedly created everything.

Therefore: God created Sin (but we use the logic that he was allowing free choice)

Also: God created Hell - specifically creating somewhere to punish people who exercised the right to free choice.

Thus: God created a system which he deliberately rigged to punish those who exercise free choice.

Problem: Why would god then undo his big plan? Did 'god' decide that he just wasn't getting kicks out of torturing mere mortals any more?

Also - If jesus was sinless, does that mean he had no genitals? He wouldn't have needed them, right? And he wouldn't need to use the restroom, because he was perfect, right? Or - did he in fact have flaws?

urination is not a flaw, just an annoyance

Because there is no evidence. The bible cannot be evidence. It was compiled by a men. It was written by men. i could gather a bunch of my friends, and each write something. Maybe 2000 years later, people will start to believe it.
http://albinoblacksheep.com/text/hank.php

go. read. learn. and then go kill yourself and be with Jesus

Because there is no evidence. The bible cannot be evidence. It was compiled by a men. It was written by men. i could gather a bunch of my friends, and each write something. Maybe 2000 years later, people will start to believe it.
http://albinoblacksheep.com/text/hank.php

go. read. learn. and then go kill yourself and be with Jesus


What do you consider to be evidence? Do you not believe anything that has been written by dead men? Have you personally conducted experiments to verify that the invisible, odorless gas that we breath (and need to survive) is really oxygen? Such work was conducted by Boyle over 200 years ago--do you believe this? Saying the Bible is false because it was written along time ago is a very poor argument (but obviously does not prove its validity either).

It cannot be verified by anyone other then believers. That's one point. And Christianity is a shit religion. That's the other point

and i never said that because it was written a long time ago, it cannot be evidece. i said it is a religion written by men, and compiled by men.

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.
i'm equally interested: why don't you believe in magical invisible unicorns?

seriously. i don't believe in any particular higher power for the same reason that sane adults don't believe in magical invisible unicorns: because there is no reason for me to believe. i don't need God-belief for anything, it doesn't explain anything or provide any solutions to problems, and it actually generates several logical inconsistencies that render it worse than useless.

human beings will never and can never know about the existence or nature of a God-being. it's simply not possible. since we can never know, it is worthless to attempt to base our lives or morality on speculations about what may or may not exist.

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.
Yeah, I haven't been following the thread. Sorry.

I don't understand why a deity should be the default belief. "We don't know how the universe works" seems to be a much more reasonable default to me. I'm a mathematician. When I can't find a counter-example to a hypothesis, I don't just assume it's true. Not even if billions of people think it's true and have taken the time to make up stories about it, can I assume that it is true. Why? Because I like being right.

Sure, and many of them should be in padded cells with a straight jacket.

You know that hearing voices in your head is considered a mental illness?

Which voices in a persons head is the right ones? What if a person say that god told him that he is "chosen" and demands that he goes about killing infidels? Is that voice of god too? If not, why not?
Nice way to avoid the question.

who, when, and where

there are people who have claimed to have seen elvis-in the past 10 years, little green men, and santa claus im sure.

what is your response to this
Nice way to avoid the question.

1) Power grab by the scientists (I am a scientist. You must pay me money so that I can look at bugs in front of me.
2) Emotional Support (meh. so maybe not so much, but it is there)
3) Explaination of things (like creation. A big explosion created everything in the universe!)

Awesome. Someone with that good of an ability to make me kick myself in the mouth is awesome.

Bottle - your cool too. I used a similar argument earlier too... But I borrowed it from you.

In answer to the original question:

In general, the simplest explanation is the one most likely to be correct. Also, lifeforms will tend to gain complexity as time goes on and evolution occurs. To suggest a deity as a first cause is to add an unnecessary level of explanation to the suggestion of universe as first cause.

Similarly (and I realise that I'm vastly oversimplifying here) to say that humans evolved from apes which evolved from amphibians which evolved from fish which evolved from amoebae more or less makes sense. To say that humans evolved from apes which evolved from amphibians which evolved from fish which evolved from amoebae which were created by an omnipotent, onmiscient, omnibenevolent, wholly simple deity does not, since the last precept represents a vast break from the pattern.

Further, in the event that the Judaeo-Christian did exist, I deny that that existence should compel us to worship him. It boils down the the Euthyphro dilemma, which can be summed up as follows: Does God (well, Plato actually wrote "the gods", but it's essentially the same thing) tell us what is good because it is good (ie. there is a universal standard of goodness independent of God of which he is able to inform us), or is that which God tells us is good good because God tells us it is?

If the former is true, it shouldn't make a difference whether of not we worship God, as long as we still follow this universal Goodness. If the latter is true, it places God on the level of a petty tyrant, meaning that the only reason one would logically follow his commandments would be in the hope of currying favour with him in the afterlife.

Nice way to avoid the question.
no im answering the question with a question

if you say so. i just think you are defining "god" too tightly. but it seems to me to be religious in any case.
I guess my form of physiolatry could be considered spiritual, but it is atheistic. I do not believe in any type of intelligence governing the universe or anything like that.

and yet when you go to buddhist temples in buddhist countries THEY ALL HAVE GODS. they tend to vary from place to place.
But that does not mean that all Buddhists go to a temple, or that all Buddhists believe in god(s).

and while you certainly know more about these atheist celts than i do, i bet our disagreement is more along the line of where we disagreed on the "god" part of nature worship.
Yeah...I was pretty much using that for the sake of argument... Though there were probably spatterings of actual atheistic Celts here or there, most at least were henotheistic and at least revered sídhe.

yeah i looked up shinto gods after i posted that and while they are sometimes referred to as having no gods, it doesnt seem to be true.
Absolutely. There were gods, mostly spirits, the Japanese word kami is used to denote them. The Abrahamic God is called kami-sama if you're wondering.

Wow i have never seen such rank scepticism. Do you people truly find it easier to belive that this Universe, all life, and our very sentiency are the products of a mathematical impossibility, rather than the act of a benevolent deity?
It actually isn't as impossible as you'd believe. It just seems impossible to us because we live in organismic time. In geological time, abiogenesis is much, much more likely, though we'd probably have to go out further than E.O. Wilson ever did to get to a point where abiogenesis would become a common enough occurence. I highly recommend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. He explains it all very well, and it is one of the most interesting books I've ever read.

If someone says "God talks to me", it COULD be true, you know...
Sure, anything's possible, but I think you need to remember such things as seizures, schizophrenia, and psychosomatics.

and I am continuously affected by people as deeply fanatical about science and logic as religious fundamentalists with religion, but I dont act the way you do, talking down to people, belittling them for their faith.
You are probably one of the most reasonable people yet to post on this thread. And fanaticism for knowledge is not bad in my opinion; my nation's very name, Gnostikos, means "of knowledge" in Greek.

1) Power grab by the scientists (I am a scientist. You must pay me money so that I can look at bugs in front of me.
I see where you're coming from, and respect the way you came up with that, it is patently untrue. You obviously were never much into science, and also don't realise how much we can learn for practical use from unexpected areas.

Also, never dis entomology in my presence. I won't explode this time, but the study of insects is one of the most interesting of all!

Have you personally conducted experiments to verify that the invisible, odorless gas that we breath (and need to survive) is really oxygen?
Well it's not. That would be ~21% of the air. The rest is nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, neon, helium, krypton, sulfur dioxide, methane, hydrogen, nitrous oxide, xenon, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, iodine, carbon monoxide, and ammonia. There are probably a few other traces along with carbon monoxide and ammonia, but there's a lot more than just oxygen in what you breathe.

Good and evil are not carved in stone. Good and evil are merely defined by politics and usually whoever wins the war, writes the book that defines who is evil and who isn't (I would like to add that since the dawn of the information age, the latter condition is no longer an intellectual hindrance and more accurate analyses are available for current conflicts).

Religion is nothing more than a political system with a posthumous reward system that was set up to fill in the gaps of empirical and historical knowledge with superstitious tales of the supernatural. These tales serve the purpose of:

allowing the arrogant to believe that they are somehow significant in the grand scheme of the entire universe. (why am I here?)
establishing that since the individual is universally important, death can not merely be the end of that individual. (what happens after death?)
since that which holds knowledge of an person, place, thing or notion, has the potential to control that person, place, thing or notion, the difference between empirical knowledge and supernatural tales becomes irrelevant to someone else who doesn't know any better. (why is the universe the way it is?)

All you really need to know about the politics of the whole God/Jesus/Yahweh/YHWH theology set is that it is a monotheistic set up. The rest of the required reading for any of these political structures is irrelevant. Besides, it is futile to try and argue semantics with people who have been justifying their political stance with false righteousness for over two thousand years. Its not worth the headache.

The monotheistic structure is pretty much the same in all cases in western religions... "I am the one true God and there are no gods above me".

First, I would like to point out that by acknowledging that there are no gods above the one god, that god has declared itself to be an atheist respectively to those that worship it. I like to point that out to the ultra-religious just to blow their minds and watch the veins in their foreheads throb; it doesn't necessarily mean there is no god, just that it isn't on their side - which in turn is where most of the problems stemming from religion come from. "My God is on my side."

The monotheist, by definition, is inherently unable to accept anyone other than those who practices magic in the name of the same central mytho-figure as he does. By magic, I mean general worship and prayer. Its all the same thing when you realize that prayer is nothing more than trying to invoke and obtain favoritism from the supreme mytho-figure in order to impose order over chaos in a favorable manner towards the one invoking the spell or prayer. In truth, it holds no more water than the baseball player who eats chicken before every game because he thinks it'll get him a better batting average. As I was saying earlier, the monotheist is inherently incapable of tolerance because since there is only one god, all other people outside the monotheist's culture are wrong (evil) by default. It is then up to the monotheist to impose their political stance upon those who are currently wrong in the eyes of the monotheist, through intellectual, emotional or physical force for two reasons:

Its the right thing to do by their politics
If the evil ones have a better life and are not unhappy, then it casts doubt on whether their "one true god" is the only answer in life

The intolerance doesn't end with just monotheist vs polytheist/agnostic/atheist either. The monotheist's inherent intolerance also extends to those within its own culture as well since the monotheist has rules and regulations that allow monotheists to judge who is closer to their supreme mytho-figure when compared to other monotheists of the same culture. "My god is closer to me because I perform magic rituals A, B and C more often than that individual"

This behavior leads to personalization of the supreme mytho-figure, variations of the same god and factioning of the political group. One religion turns into two because one group of monotheists don’t like the way another group of monotheists pray to the same deity (e.g. Catholics, Christians, Lutherans, Muslims, Jewish, Protestants, Southern Baptists, Mormons). They all follow the same original deity, they all have different ways of doing so, none of them seem to get along. And if by some chance there was a massive world wide holy war and only one political party remained, eventually that religion would again, split into multiple factions and it would start all over again.

This wouldn't be nearly as bad if it wasn't for the fact that weapon technology evolves at a frightening pace these days. If holy wars were still fought with sticks and rocks, one could hide in the mountains until the various monotheists killed each other. These days, its a little trickier to hide from nuclear fallout and I don't believe some desperate christian magic would help out there either.

Also, it might be worth while to ponder who has the greater value of life? Would it be someone who believes they are going to exist after death or someone who doesn't believe they are going to exist after death?

As I mentioned earlier, religion also has a knack for filling in the gaps of empirical knowledge with superstitious tales of the supernatural. Basically it comes down to what people truly know and what they want to know. Let's face it, those who know everything have the potential to control everything. But since science and true empirical knowledge grows at a slow pace, there have always been and will always be holes in what is truly known. Thus the political power given by what is truly known has always been limited. This is where religion comes in. Religion basically looks over what is truly known and they seek out the blanks (death, what came before written history, the future, etc.) and they fill in the blanks with superstition and the supernatural in the form of prose and poetry. This pseudo-knowledge gives religion a greater political power than what the standard scientific (tested and retested) knowledge has to offer and thus gives the organization that wields it power over those who want to know everything but have no patience - or the stomach - for what the slower scientific methods offer.

In the beginning of civilization, people didn't know any better and it was easy to fill people's heads with poetry and prose. Then as time moved forward, science began to progress. That which was previously unknown or forgotten begins to take shape under the scientific process and the religions have a problem. They've been giving out their version of pseudo-knowledge for so long that if something were to come along and show that they were wrong and that they gave out the wrong information, then perhaps they may lose all their beloved power over those who sought their help in the first place. So religion does the only thing it can do, it digs in, clings to its superstitions and tries to hold back scientific knowledge. While it does slow it down, science typically overcomes religion as religion scrambles tries once again to keep its hold over those who still believe in its "power". Examples of this:

Geocentric Solar System - GONE!
Flat Earth - GONE!
Creationism - Dying Fast!
Irrational Fear of Sexuality (hetero or homo) - Still around in the Americas, alas.

Even now, as science marches forward at incredible speeds thanks to the information age, the religious are digging in their heels and clinging to delusional superstitions about supernatural beings when reality is staring them in the face. But instead of accepting reality, these people choose to stay focused on a fantasy world perpetuated by a fill-in-the-blank political system with their posthumous reward system as they try desperately to fill in the blanks that science currently does not have answers for yet as a way to justify their sticking to their delusions. Examples of this include:

What came before the big bang?
Is there a state of existence after all metabolic processes cease?

Does science have answers for these questions yet? No. Does that give the religious cause for celebration because now they can fill in the blanks with their own brand of superstitious mumbo jumbo? OH, HELL NO! Filling in the blanks with mythological horse manure is what leads people to commit the greater atrocities such as witch burnings and other assorted human sacrifice rituals. There is no reason to accept this kind of behavior in any kind of civilized society. In addition, it is folly for scientific minds to say that just because science hasn't explained everything in their lifetimes, it doesn't mean there must be a supernatural being out there somewhere. There is nothing to suggest that they won’t be able to explain it a couple hundred years or even a couple thousand years from now.

This fill-in-the-blanks pseudo-knowledge isn't faith. It's voluntary schizophrenia.

This is just the short reason as to why I don't believe.

Similarly (and I realise that I'm vastly oversimplifying here) to say that humans evolved from apes which evolved from amphibians which evolved from fish which evolved from amoebae more or less makes sense.
Well, I would just like to clarify that we certainly did not evolve from amoebae. Even modern cyanobacteria are different from their ultimate ancestors. But that's just being nitpicky, though it is a very crucial part of evolutionary biology.

Well, I would just like to clarify that we certainly did not evolve from amoebae. Even modern cyanobacteria are different from their ultimate ancestors. But that's just being nitpicky, though it is a very crucial part of evolutionary biology.

thanks for what you said Gnostikos in that post a couple before this one. I don't get mad very often, mostly because it gets me even more depressed than I currently am, but I get upset when people are nasty to each other.

very upset :(:(:(

The monotheist, by definition, is inherently unable to accept anyone other than those who practices magic in the name of the same central mytho-figure as he does. By magic, I mean general worship and prayer. Its all the same thing when you realize that prayer is nothing more than trying to invoke and obtain favoritism from the supreme mytho-figure in order to impose order over chaos in a favorable manner towards the one invoking the spell or prayer. In truth, it holds no more water than the baseball player who eats chicken before every game because he thinks it'll get him a better batting average. As I was saying earlier, the monotheist is inherently incapable of tolerance because since there is only one god, all other people outside the monotheist's culture are wrong (evil) by default.

To be fair, looking at scripture, the Bible doesn't actually point to a monotheistic deity. The phrasing is actually "and there is no god beside me" ie. there is no god of equal power, not that there are no other gods per se- probably a later modification to the text in the attempt to discourage worship of Asherah, Queen of Heaven, originally the wife of El, who is commonly identified with Yahweh. It's also worth noting that, in the first book of Kings, Elijah never attempts to claim that Baal did not exist, only that Yahweh was more powerful than him- and that's an admission in itself.

[QUOTE=Raust]Good and evil are not carved in stone. Good and evil are merely defined by politics and usually whoever wins the war, writes the book that defines who is evil and who isn't (I would like to add that since the dawn of the information age, the latter condition is no longer an intellectual hindrance and more accurate analyses are available for current conflicts).

im not necessarily religious, but i am a pagan. i believe in afterlives, but for my part, the only thing i want out of death is peace. from my point of view, i'll just be happy when my body is put into the ground to rest once and for all. :(

if anything comes after that, i don't think i care.

I feel that science offers more believable answers to life's big questions than religion does.

A friend of mine once told me that a good philosophy/religion must answer 3 questions:
Where did we come from?
Why are we here?
What happens to us after we die?

I became an atheist after it occured to me that Christianity doesn't answer the 2nd question.
acualy Christianity does the reasen is because we are to enjoy fellowship with God but since we sinned we lost it until we die for the christians as i am we go to heaven while the non-belivers go to hell

This is the Christian god, who's to say that god isn't the god of any of the religions out there today?

Agreed, however, I'm not debating that possibility - I was replying to a specific post regarding the Christian mythology.

acualy Christianity does the reasen is because we are to enjoy fellowship with God but since we sinned we lost it until we die for the christians as i am we go to heaven while the non-belivers go to hell
yep, that's pretty much how coherant the Christian answer is. :P

To be fair, looking at scripture

To be fair, all I said was that it was a monotheistic structure.

I said all required reading (scripture, bible, etc) for the politcal system is irrelevant and it still is. Trying to argue that god doesn't exist by using the politician's own rhetoric is like trying to show that Barney the purple Dinosaur doesn't exist by using the tapes of his television show.

acualy Christianity does the reasen is because we are to enjoy fellowship with God but since we sinned we lost it until we die for the christians as i am we go to heaven while the non-belivers go to hell

Really?

"Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able." (Luke 13:24)

I was brought up undecided like my mum, the idea of religion just never occured to me.

I think I would be most likely to convert to Islam, some of it just makes more sense than Christianity, but that's only from what I learnt in RE lessons.

Really?

"Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able." (Luke 13:24)
for God so loved the world that he gave his only begoten son that whoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life(John 3:16)
For whoesoever shall cal out upon the name of the LORD shall be saved (Romans 13:10)

To be fair, all I said was that it was a monotheistic structure.

I said all required reading (scripture, bible, etc) for the politcal system is irrelevant and it still is. Trying to argue that god doesn't exist by using the politician's own rhetoric is like trying to show that Barney the purple Dinosaur doesn't exist by using the tapes of his television show.

I don't think I'd agree that's it's irrelevant: it's one of the single largest contributing factors to the formation of the society we live in today, and can work to give us a good snapshot of the thought processes of its writers.

And Barney is probably a lot more internally consistent than Yahweh is. :rolleyes:

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.
Because all religious mythical stories just don't make sense. And because religion provides answers beforee one asks questions, adn forbids questions that don't fit the answers. Religion always involves just accepting things instead of having the desire to look into how they work ("God created man, and that's it!").

And also because god is notoriously unreliable when you have a real problem.

urination is not a flaw, just an annoyance

Urination would be a flaw in the concept of a perfect being... how can Jesus be 'perfect', and yet prey to all the same weaknesses of the flesh as other mortals?

Surely, if he had the same genitals as everyone else... he also excreted hundreds of millions of sperm every day?

Which means that he would have been a functional male... which would imply sexual arousal, etc. Nocturnal emission would be pretty much guaranteed.

A version of Jesus who really IS human, is not really capable of being the 'perfect' creation that christian teaching implies.

And, if he WERE perfect (and thus avoided all those weaknesses)... then WHAT was the point in incarnation in human form? If her never lived as a man, how could he die as one?

I don't believe in a god because I have no need of one and because there is no evidence in support of one.

let me just make a suggestion check out a Bible and read the book of genesis it explains everything in there

let me just make a suggestion check out a Bible and read the book of genesis it explains everything in there
i've read Genesis, and it contains two contradictory creation myths...which one is right?

and they are?

Jesus Christ monkeyballs, Raust. You put it so eloquently and convincingly... Though I am going to make just a few corrections, because that's what I do.

The monotheistic structure is pretty much the same in all cases in western religions... "I am the one true God and there are no gods above me".
What you meant was "Abrahamic religions", not "western". Most western religions were zoolatric, theriolatric, physiolatric, hierolatric, and/or polytheistic, with a few actually being atheistic before Chrsitianity became so dominant. There were even some gynaeolatric Celts! I personally feel an affinity for the physiolatric pre-Christian religions, being a physiolater myself.

This is even apparent in the very name of days: Sun's Day, Moon's Day, Tyr's Day, Woden's Day, Thor's Day, and Freja's Day.

One religion turns into two because one group of monotheists don’t like the way another group of monotheists pray to the same deity (e.g. Catholics, Christians, Lutherans, Muslims, Jewish, Protestants, Southern Baptists, Mormons).
I would just like the point out that Lutherans, Southern Baptists, and Mormons are all Protestant. There are only two macro-denominations in Christianity. Though you could go into all the Abrahamic religions, which are also referred to as desert monotheism who all originally worshipped the same monotheistic God: Chrsitianity (Catholic/Protestant), Judaism, Islam, Mandaeanism, Bahá'í, Sikhism, Rastafarianism, Samaritanism, Druze, and probably others I'm not aware of. All Abrahamic religions are Judaic, however, as that was the original religion that all broke off of.

Also, it might be worth while to ponder who has the greater value of life? Would it be someone who believes they are going to exist after death or someone who doesn't believe they are going to exist after death?
To break off from my criticisms, this is just too precious not to complement. As good as everything is, this has to be the shining beacon of greatness in your post.

Examples of this include:

What came before the big bang?
Is there a state of existence after all metabolic processes cease?

This is just syntactical, but with that latter, there is certainly existence after all metabolic processes cease. What you should have said is "consious existence" or something along those lines. All that really changes immediately are the electro-chemical reactions taking place in the body, which are then replaced by others as the body is decomposed by other organisms.

Still, I think that everyone can agree that the only reason people are so against Christians is because of their proselytism. Kudos again on your post, Raust.

Because there is so much suffering in the world happening to good people. Plus I have not seen anything that can convince me that a higher being does exist.

Something must have created god, it simply could not have existed for all time, and nothing is so powerful as to be able to create an entire universe and all laws governing it.


If you believe that something must have created God, then why don't you believe that something must have created the universe?

Urination would be a flaw in the concept of a perfect being... how can Jesus be 'perfect', and yet prey to all the same weaknesses of the flesh as other mortals?
Even the perfect being has to get the nitrogen out of his system, and urea is how humans do it. With many aquatic animals, they just let pure ammonia seep out, and others, like birds, excrete uric acid. The latter two require less energy to undergo, actually, but are not as efficient.

Surely, if he had the same genitals as everyone else... he also excreted hundreds of millions of sperm every day?

Which means that he would have been a functional male... which would imply sexual arousal, etc. Nocturnal emission would be pretty much guaranteed.
Well, he probably slept with Mary Magdalene regularly, so his sexual lust would have been sated ;).

A version of Jesus who really IS human, is not really capable of being the 'perfect' creation that christian teaching implies.
Well, seeing as Jesus was created through parthenogenesis and was a demigod, he was only half human. (I love twisting words!)

Nice way to avoid the question.
No, I did not avoid the question.

Do you believe everyone who hear voices in their head?

What other "proof" of contact with a god do you have? Any at all?

What other "proof" of contact with a god do you have? Any at all?
Because all experience is subjective, it is impossible for anyone to prove experience with any higher being. There is always the possibility that it is restricted to their own delusional consciousness, so there is no way to offer proof as of yet.

i do i believe God created man so my proof is myself

i do i believe God created man so my proof is myself
I'm so glad that we don't resort to circular logic here!

i do i believe God created man so my proof is myself

Except that that doesn't work. Had you believed that a small, hyperintelligent pig called Eric had sculpted humans from clay, you would still be able to use yourself as "proof" of your assertation.

Even the perfect being has to get the nitrogen out of his system, and urea is how humans do it. With many aquatic animals, they just let pure ammonia seep out, and others, like birds, excrete uric acid. The latter two require less energy to undergo, actually, but are not as efficient.

Well, he probably slept with Mary Magdalene regularly, so his sexual lust would have been sated ;).

Well, seeing as Jesus was created through parthenogenesis and was a demigod, he was only half human. (I love twisting words!)

Well, a 'perfect' being would be self-sustaining and immutable - so wouldn't HAVE any waste prodcuts... nitrogenous or otherwise.

You touched on the basis of my post, in your last line, though...

EITHER Jesus was not human (i.e. a 'perfect being... god like, god incarnate) in which case, his sacrifice was no sacrifice.. not like it would be if one of US dies for the sins of all....

OR: Jesus was a regular guy... and NOT perfect, and NOT a god. Makes a better 'sacrifice' stury to me - but also means that the miracles of the book are most likely illusion or fiction.

Because all experience is subjective, it is impossible for anyone to prove experience with any higher being. There is always the possibility that it is restricted to their own delusional consciousness, so there is no way to offer proof as of yet.
So,. you accept any nutcase that comes up to you and tell you that god talks to him?

If this person claims this god told him to kill all infidels, would you believe him? If not, why not?

Here are my thoughts:

First off, I am an atheist. I have pondered the question a lot, considering my girlfriend is Catholic. I was raised atheist, but my parents taught be about religion in a very neutral way, so I decided on my own.

My first thoughts: God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-existing. He can do anything, knows everything, and is everywhere/thing (This is in reference to the Christian god, obviously). Those facts are undeniable. Here are more facts: There are people dying horrible deaths every day. Now think about this: Suppose you are a super-powerful being that knows EXACTLY what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. You know exactly every single thing ever to be known about everything. You then run an experiment and give your creation "free will". Then, if your creations don't believe in you, they are sent to this place you created called "Hell". Sounds reasonable, right? Wrong. Since you are all-knowing, you KNEW EXACTLY what those people would do. You KNEW that Jim Jones would shoot that poor woman, putting her in incredible pain until she died. You KNEW that Jim Jones won't go to hell because he went to confessional. You KNEW to every minute detail what would happen. SO.... Did you not commit that act? In creating these creatures, you knew that the horrible death of Suzi and the saving of Jim were part of that creation. In not stopping that act when you had the power to, you are guilty of that act.

That is my reason for being an atheist. I cannot believe that a "perfect" god could openly commit such horrors.

So,. you accept any nutcase that comes up to you and tell you that god talks to him?

If this person claims this god told him to kill all infidels, would you believe him? If not, why not?
I think you missed the part where I was saying that people who say they've "experienced" God are just actually weird and suffering some mental trauma. Or are just batshit insane.

Because there is so much suffering in the world happening to good people. Plus I have not seen anything that can convince me that a higher being does exist.

But if there is no God, why is there so much good in the world? To quote Hobbes (the philosopher, not the tiger), life in the state of nature is, "natsy, brutish, and short." And that is all that evolution gives us.

But if there is no God, why is there so much good in the world? To quote Hobbes (the philosopher, not the tiger), life in the state of nature is, "natsy, brutish, and short." And that is all that evolution gives us.

Why wouldn't there?

I feel that science offers more believable answers to life's big questions than religion does.

A friend of mine once told me that a good philosophy/religion must answer 3 questions:
Where did we come from?
Why are we here?
What happens to us after we die?

I became an atheist after it occured to me that Christianity doesn't answer the 2nd question.

I love your thought on Christianity, but remember that there are other religions out there that may answer those questions. That was a very insightful post.

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.
Ok I am probably late and this is probably been said over and over but logically you prove something TRUE not false.

Otherwise EVERYTHING is just as likely to be possible.
(dont make me drag in the pink elephants arguement)

But if there is no God, why is there so much good in the world? To quote Hobbes (the philosopher, not the tiger), life in the state of nature is, "natsy, brutish, and short." And that is all that evolution gives us.
I would think that parenthetical clarification would be unnecessary, but such is the state of the world that Thomas Hobbes could be confused with a comic character. And evolution gives us what it does. Darwinism is by definition nasty and brutish, but there is more beauty in that than in any god one may contrive.

I would think that parenthetical clarification would be unnecessary, but such is the state of the world that Thomas Hobbes could be confused with a comic character. And evolution gives us what it does. Darwinism is by definition nasty and brutish, but there is more beauty in that than in any god one may contrive.
Well to be fair people can contrive gods with lots of beauty … maybe even as beautiful.

Imagination is a wonderful thing

Well to be fair people can contrive gods with lots of beauty … maybe even as beautiful.

Imagination is a wonderful thing
Yes, imagination is wonderful. But what is even more wonderful is how that imagination came about. As beautiful as any god is, I do not believe that it can rival Nature. Nature in all its harsh and unforgiving beauty!

Yes, imagination is wonderful. But what is even more wonderful is how that imagination came about. As beautiful as any god is, I do not believe that it can rival Nature. Nature in all its harsh and unforgiving beauty!
I agree but again the imagination is apparently limitless therefore theoretically able to contrive infinite beauty (though no one can agree what “beauty” is necessarily)

I feel that science offers more believable answers to life's big questions than religion does.

A friend of mine once told me that a good philosophy/religion must answer 3 questions:
Where did we come from?
Why are we here?
What happens to us after we die?

I became an atheist after it occured to me that Christianity doesn't answer the 2nd question.

Why must science and religion always be at odds with each other? :headbang: Jeez, I'm a Christian, but I also like science as well. Am I some sort of anomaly? There must be a singularity distorting space-time around me because I seem to defy all conventional logic. :D

Yes, imagination is wonderful. But what is even more wonderful is how that imagination came about. As beautiful as any god is, I do not believe that it can rival Nature. Nature in all its harsh and unforgiving beauty!

You must be a big fan of Baudaliere.

Why must science and religion always be at odds with each other?
Because science and faith are fundamentally mutally exclusive. Science requires incessant skepticism, and faith, by definition, requires a lack of skepticism.

You must be a big fan of Baudaliere.
No, but I've heard a little about him, and am intending on reading some of his stuff when I remember to.

Ok I am probably late and this is probably been said over and over but logically you prove something TRUE not false.

Otherwise EVERYTHING is just as likely to be possible.
(dont make me drag in the pink elephants arguement)

Done that arguement a dozen times.

Vaguely on topic.
Some of our nice, local Southern Baptists came to my brothers' door. Asked him if he was "saved." He explained to them that he is an athiest. Now they ask him "Aren't you afraid you'll go to hell?"
"No, you don't understand, I'm an athiest."
"But aren't you afraid of going to hell?"

The conversation went on, but didn't really improve.

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.

well:
1) higher dieties aren't needed to explain anything in the universe. When you use them to explain something, it just creates more questions about the diety itself.
2) One can explain how dieties were created by man.

God???

What is this God thing you guys talk about?

Some kind of a cartoon figure like Superman?

God is like superman, with better PR. He can (apparently) walk on water and turn some fish into even more fish. Superman has laser eyes. In my mind, its no contest!

Don't have time to waste beleiving in nothing. Well I have plenty of time, i just think its stupid and a big guilt trip of discrimination.

Ok I am probably late and this is probably been said over and over but logically you prove something TRUE not false.

Otherwise EVERYTHING is just as likely to be possible.
(dont make me drag in the pink elephants arguement)

Nope. The basis of Science is trying to prove things false, not proving things true, by making testable predictions. The addition of requiring something to have testable predictions before it is accepted as a scientific theory takes away the pink elephants problem ;)

Because science and faith are fundamentally mutally exclusive. Science requires incessant skepticism, and faith, by definition, requires a lack of skepticism.

And that's exactly my reason for embracing agnosticism.

Not atheism, because after all I don't *know*, do I? That would be unscientific and counter to empiricism. At any rate, faith does not require a lack of scepticism - most organized faiths demand a lack of scepticism. I'm willing to accept the possibility that there may be a higher power, but only at the condition he/she/it accepts that I continue to question their existence and authority.

no im answering the question with a question
The answer to the question of how do you justify your claim that no one can ever hear, see, etc. god is to ask if I have ever seen Santa Claus? I have not only seen him, I've been him. I sat children on my knee and gave them presents. I brought smiles to their faces. Have I seen a real Santa, or elves or pink elephants? No, but that's rather irrelevant. It addresses the personal experience of only one human out of billions. I can hardly use my own experiences as evidence of how everyone else interacts with the world. Your question doesn't answer mine at all... how is it you can make a claim on behalf of all humanity that no one can hear, see, etc. god?

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.

I think that gods and religions are nothing more than a cop-out for people who can't bear to live without having easy answers to everything. Nobody can prove the existence of gods, I've never had an experience that I couldn't explain in rational terms, and, quite frankly, I'm not inclined to kneel and worship anything other than my wife.

Because all religious mythical stories just don't make sense.
Myths can make sense if you study the symbolism of the mythology. Where they don't make sense is when you try to take the symbolism literally --the myth totally breaks down into garbage. It's not meant to be read that way.

And also because god is notoriously unreliable when you have a real problem.
Evidence that, perhaps, he doesn't exist for your benefit. ;-)

Nope. The basis of Science is trying to prove things false, not proving things true, by making testable predictions. The addition of requiring something to have testable predictions before it is accepted as a scientific theory takes away the pink elephants problem ;)
But you start at a default of nothing and put forth e hypothisis and find backing for it ... you are not proving it true so much as testing a hypothesis ... and really if you are a good scientist you are trying to sink the idea as much as prove it true

No, I did not avoid the question.

Do you believe everyone who hear voices in their head?

What other "proof" of contact with a god do you have? Any at all?
I believe them until I have reason to disbelieve.

I have no objective proof of contact with a god.

And all this is irrelevant to the question I asked.

Well, a 'perfect' being would be self-sustaining and immutable - so wouldn't HAVE any waste prodcuts... nitrogenous or otherwise.

You touched on the basis of my post, in your last line, though...

EITHER Jesus was not human (i.e. a 'perfect being... god like, god incarnate) in which case, his sacrifice was no sacrifice.. not like it would be if one of US dies for the sins of all....

OR: Jesus was a regular guy... and NOT perfect, and NOT a god. Makes a better 'sacrifice' stury to me - but also means that the miracles of the book are most likely illusion or fiction.
Why is immutable more "perfect" than perfect mutability?

I look at the world around me and the way that things are and I think, if there is someone who controls us and sees everything going on in the world and allows this to happen he does not deserve to be worshipped. Where was God on September 11th, in the bathroom?

a good book - "i dont have enough faith to be an atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

ever wonder why so many people start to investigate the existance of a God, then when faced with so much evidence, they start to believe that one exists?

Well I used to believe, and I used to pray to him to help make things happen, and then one day I prayed to him, and I realized, why the hell am I praying to try to make things happen, when I can just go out and do it myself, so I stopped believing in a god and just started doing things myself, I guess you could say I am my own god.

Done that arguement a dozen times.

Vaguely on topic.
Some of our nice, local Southern Baptists came to my brothers' door. Asked him if he was "saved." He explained to them that he is an athiest. Now they ask him "Aren't you afraid you'll go to hell?"
"No, you don't understand, I'm an athiest."
"But aren't you afraid of going to hell?"

The conversation went on, but didn't really improve.
Ow makes my head hurt from here

But you start at a default of nothing and put forth e hypothisis and find backing for it ... you are not proving it true so much as testing a hypothesis ... and really if you are a good scientist you are trying to sink the idea as much as prove it true

Nitpick: the scientific method likes you to start with an observation - not with 'nothing' ;) . But the rest of your post is indeed exactly what science does (or is supposed to do, since some scientists indeed dislike discrediting their own theories): testing hypotheses. If the hypothesis is proved wrong it is adjusted to conform to the results of the test - or thrown out completely. If it survives a lot of testing - by different persons- without requiring change the hypothesis becomes a theory - like evolution or relativity. A theory is not proven right, but it has been shown to be damn hard to prove wrong and also to actually work (work as in: 'give accurate predictions')

Unfortunately belief can not be treated as a hypothesis in this model because it offers no possibility of testing. That does not mean religion is wrong -just that as far as the scientific method is concerned it is the same as pink elephants...
Aside: some things of course can be proven right - mathematically for instance. Which is why we also have laws of physics ;)

Geocentric Solar System - GONE!
Flat Earth - GONE!
Creationism - Dying Fast!
Irrational Fear of Sexuality (hetero or homo) - Still around in the Americas, alas.



First two were easy. The third is a little harder to wedge from people, but they'll eventually figure it out. I'm rooting for the fourth to go. Personally, I am not affected since I'm going to marry a beautiful woman whom I love very much. However, I also don't think it fair to those who are homosexual and can't get what the heteros have simply becase they are homos. Many people are just using homosexuality as a reason to be intolerant.


But if you don't believe in God and there is a God, well I hope your beliefs will allow you to enjoy an eternity of fire and flames and endless pains.


As I don't believe in Hell, I guess I'm fine then, huh? To me, the only reason Hell was created was to scare people into going to church and believing a certain way. Plus, I don't think a god would be THAT stupid. Really. Why would he make a place for people just to punish them? We have prisons to punish people and prisoners get out all the time. All sorts of stories have been made about Hell breaking loose. Why would a deity make such a mistake? Plus, from some of the things I've heard, people who are the closest thing to saints that don't believe don't make it into heaven, yet heavy sinners who "pray for forgiveness" make it without a hitch. What kind of fool do those people take me or any god for? Who in their right mind would stick good people in a Hell and let all the people who "believe" after countless sins into Heaven? (FYI, my sisters had heard this when going to the local Baptist church exhibit during Halloween. Had this guy who had basicly done nothing but good all his life but went to Hell 'cause he didn't believe in god, and a woman who had done much sinning yet prayed for forgiveness and gotten into Heaven.)

Because we can ask questions we must have answers. Soon our ignorance overwhelms us and we need to protect our sanity.

Faith is our solution, which soon leads to dogma. Then not only dont we need questions...... they are forbidden!

1) higher dieties aren't needed to explain anything in the universe. When you use them to explain something, it just creates more questions about the diety itself.
2) One can explain how dieties were created by man.
That's so true, and strong evidence to support the position that the purpose of deity it not to explain things.

Why don't I believe? Because I can't. Sure have tried enough, seemed a nice idea. But it's just totally beyond me, something that goes against scientific nature and reasoning, a higher being that doesn't exist in the material world, that is all knowing and all seeing, that is all powerful and created this world, that is beyond time.... It's just over my head, I don't have enough faith in something which I see no proof for.

I look at the world around me and the way that things are and I think, if there is someone who controls us and sees everything going on in the world and allows this to happen he does not deserve to be worshipped. Where was God on September 11th, in the bathroom?
Where should he have been?

if there is no god, then why is there 'something' rather than 'nothing'? something cannot come from nothing, and its easy to see that today, we have something (the universe).

I believe there might be a god but I do not believe he created everything or that he interfears in our live whatsoever. If you were like god's biggest fan and you jumped in a lion pit, an invisible hand is not going to come swooping down to save you. I think god is just a name used to describe what you believe in. :eek:

if there is no god, then why is there 'something' rather than 'nothing'? something cannot come from nothing, and its easy to see that today, we have something (the universe).

Ok then following your argument then what was that 'something' that created god? For according to your logic nothing (therefore god) cannot exist without a creating force. Does god have a god?

In essence following your logic something must break the cycle and be created without a creator, barring proof to the otherwise we (non-creationists) choose to belive that our current universe is said layer.

A.) Cosmological Argument -
1. everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. the universe had a beginning.
3. therefore the universe had a cause.

the Law states that everything that has a beginning has a cause. God did not have a beginning, therefore he needs no cause.

if there is no god, then why is there 'something' rather than 'nothing'? something cannot come from nothing, and its easy to see that today, we have something (the universe).
Maybe because the answer is beyond our current understanding ... you are saying because we don’t know the origin now that there is no process to derive it.

Why? Because I have no evidence of a God. In fact, evidence seems to suggest that there is no God and so to accept one would be purely an act of faith. I don't believe in ungrounded faith, or faith which runs counter to evidence (which I guess is to say I don't believe in faith at all). I can trust a friend to come through in a pinch, I can trust my brakes to stop me in a given distance, but this sort of trust is based on history, experience, and evidence. Not on blind optimistic faith. I just don't think faith is a reliable way to get through the world. You can have faith that you will stay healthy, or you can buy health insurance. You can have faith that if you jump out the window, gravity won't draw you down to the pavement. But all the same, evidence suggests gravity will win, ten times out of ten.

Why? Because I have no evidence of a God. In fact, evidence seems to suggest that there is no God and so to accept one would be purely an act of faith. I don't believe in ungrounded faith, or faith which runs counter to evidence (which I guess is to say I don't believe in faith at all). I can trust a friend to come through in a pinch, I can trust my brakes to stop me in a given distance, but this sort of trust is based on history, experience, and evidence. Not on blind optimistic faith. I just don't think faith is a reliable way to get through the world. You can have faith that you will stay healthy, or you can buy health insurance. You can have faith that if you jump out the window, gravity won't draw you down to the pavement. But all the same, evidence suggests gravity will win, ten times out of ten.
Maybe closer to 9.9999999... times out of 10 ... (no way to say 100%) but close enough :)

evidence seems to suggest that there is no God

actually i believe its the other way around. look at what science has produced. the fine tuned universe that makes life on earth possible. the fact that we are alive today and talking. how did we get here? blind chance? i dont think so, if you say there is evidence for no God, show it to me.

A perfect, all-loving, omnipotent man who lives in the sky, watches over us and helps us all in daily life because he loves us. Then he sends us to a firey pit when we die if we didn't do what he said to. You've all heard this argument before but it makes sense.
there are three things we all know about god:
he is all loving
he is omnipotent
yet evil still exists
Really only two of those things can be true at the same time. but all three are supposedly true.
God does NOT exist. People just want someone to care about them and to fix their problems. Belief is fine, but believe in something plausible.

actually i believe its the other way around. look at what science has produced. the fine tuned universe that makes life on earth possible. the fact that we are alive today and talking. how did we get here? blind chance? i dont think so, if you say there is evidence for no God, show it to me.

Hello? You just asked me to show you "no evidence."

And to illustrate your point, you basically say that because science does not have a theory, God must be the answer.

Here's one scrap of evidence against God (against a benevolent God, at any rate): Tsunami.

actually i believe its the other way around. look at what science has produced. the fine tuned universe that makes life on earth possible. the fact that we are alive today and talking. how did we get here? blind chance? i dont think so, if you say there is evidence for no God, show it to me.
I would say that is ambigious data ... could just as easily say look at what my kitty cat has done.
I would say that does not count on either side of the arguement

Here's one scrap of evidence against God (against a benevolent God, at any rate): Tsunami.

Care to expand upon that? Or are you someone who still clings onto the logical falacy that an omnibenevolent god and nautral suffering are mutualy exclusive?

God doesnt send us to hell, we send ourselves there. God didnt create a race of robots. he wants his creation to love him. we have free will. we can listen to him and obey him, or we can rebel. if man rebels and doesnt do what god wants, he sins. sin has a punishment, which is hell. if you dont ask for forgiveness, you go to hell. God wants you to be with him, but hes given you a choice, because he loves you, to make up your own mind.

and before just dissmissing God, you might want to do alittle investigation. is it smart to say blindly there is no God? if there is no God, then nothing matters, but if there is a God, and the Bible is true about heaven and hell, what does that mean? it means that hell awaits you. personally, i decided to investigate to find the truth. jsut saying there is no God is not enough for me.

Hi ,


> For some there is and some not !!!! Maybe he does he doesn't its just on yyour religion !!!!!

Greecelot :)

Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.
There is no logic behind belief or non-belief. Like there is no logical explanation for why some one likes the taste of e.g. peanut butter and another does not.
I like peanut butter and dont believe.
Why dont i believe?

1. The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.

To believe in the existence of a god is an act of faith. To believe in the nonexistence of a god is likewise an act of faith. There is no evidence that there is a Supreme Being nor is there evidence there is not a Supreme Being. Faith is not knowledge. We can only state with assurance that we do not know.

2. If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.

All events in our Universe, including its creation, can be explained with or without the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if there is indeed a God, then that god has had no more impact than no god at all. To all appearances, any purported Supreme Being is indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants.


3. We are apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being.

If there is a God, and that God does not appear to care, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with whether or not a Supreme Being exists, nor should we have any interest in satisfying the purported needs of that Supreme Being.

There is no logic behind belief or non-belief. Like there is no logical explanation for why some one likes the taste of e.g. peanut butter and another does not.
I like peanut butter and dont believe.
Why dont i believe?

1. The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.

To believe in the existence of a god is an act of faith. To believe in the nonexistence of a god is likewise an act of faith. There is no evidence that there is a Supreme Being nor is there evidence there is not a Supreme Being. Faith is not knowledge. We can only state with assurance that we do not know.

2. If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.

All events in our Universe, including its creation, can be explained with or without the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if there is indeed a God, then that god has had no more impact than no god at all. To all appearances, any purported Supreme Being is indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants.


3. We are apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being.

If there is a God, and that God does not appear to care, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with whether or not a Supreme Being exists, nor should we have any interest in satisfying the purported needs of that Supreme Being.


And thats why I am agnostic/soft athiest

1. The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.

To believe in the existence of a god is an act of faith. To believe in the nonexistence of a god is likewise an act of faith. There is no evidence that there is a Supreme Being nor is there evidence there is not a Supreme Being. Faith is not knowledge. We can only state with assurance that we do not know.


Fair enough


2. If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.

All events in our Universe, including its creation, can be explained with or without the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if there is indeed a God, then that god has had no more impact than no god at all. To all appearances, any purported Supreme Being is indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants.


Funny. How about the virgin birth, the resurection and any number of other biblical events. I dont think those can be explained without the existance of God. Also there is the problem of the Big bang breaking the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

I feel that science offers more believable answers to life's big questions than religion does.

A friend of mine once told me that a good philosophy/religion must answer 3 questions:
Where did we come from?
Why are we here?
What happens to us after we die?

I became an atheist after it occured to me that Christianity doesn't answer the 2nd question.
yes it does. in a simplyfied term we are here because God wanted some one to take delite in. he was lonely i gess you could say. if you dont understan try reading the bible and really read it for info not just to say you did and still did not get it. thats what i did and now i have a better understanding.

A.) Cosmological Argument -
1. everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. the universe had a beginning.
3. therefore the universe had a cause.

the Law states that everything that has a beginning has a cause. God did not have a beginning, therefore he needs no cause.

I don't really want to get into the argument as a whole, but I felt compelled to point out the misuse of logic here.

In using a syllogism such as you did, you can only draw positive conclusions. You can't set up a series of logical statements, deny the antecedent, and then claim the conclusion is also denied. Here's a clearer example:

1. (Antecedent) If I am in Texas, then I am in the US.
2. I am NOT in Texas.
3. (Conclusion) Therefore, I am NOT in the US.

As you can see, by denying the Antecedent, you don't actually ascribe truth to any other part of the statement. By not being in Texas, you could very easily be in Colorado, and thus still be in the US. (Note: your conclusion COULD be true, but there is no way to prove it via this line of logic.)

If you're looking for more information, you can search on 'logical fallacies' or 'denying the antecedent fallacy'.


On this issue, the claim that "[Because] the Law states that everything that has a beginning has a cause[, and since] God did not have a beginning, he needs no cause" is false, at least in terms of logic. You'd have to set up a corollary that states that things without beginnings do not have causes. Then you can advance your argument again. At that point, though, I think you will need to provide some proof for you claims that beginningless things have no causes, that such things exist, and/or why God has no beginning.
This is, of course, the challenge; had it been surmounted, we wouldn't be having so many problems with faith, as there would be a Proof of Gods Existence.

Anyway, that's my point. Good luck with your arguing.

Fair enough



Funny. How about the virgin birth, the resurection and any number of other biblical events. I dont think those can be explained without the existance of God. Also there is the problem of the Big bang breaking the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Maybe the “laws” of thermodynamics are incomplete? They still are theory’s if so they can always be modified

Also you are working under the assumption that the events occurred as “recorded” there is a simple way to explain them without a god … they were miss recorded (pretty simple)

I don't really want to get into the argument as a whole, but I felt compelled to point out the misuse of logic here.

In using a syllogism such as you did, you can only draw positive conclusions. You can't set up a series of logical statements, deny the antecedent, and then claim the conclusion is also denied. Here's a clearer example:

1. (Antecedent) If I am in Texas, then I am in the US.
2. I am NOT in Texas.
3. (Conclusion) Therefore, I am NOT in the US.

As you can see, by denying the Antecedent, you don't actually ascribe truth to any other part of the statement. By not being in Texas, you could very easily be in Colorado, and thus still be in the US. (Note: your conclusion COULD be true, but there is no way to prove it via this line of logic.)

If you're looking for more information, you can search on 'logical fallacies' or 'denying the antecedent fallacy'.


On this issue, the claim that "[Because] the Law states that everything that has a beginning has a cause[, and since] God did not have a beginning, he needs no cause" is false, at least in terms of logic. You'd have to set up a corollary that states that things without beginnings do not have causes. Then you can advance your argument again. At that point, though, I think you will need to provide some proof for you claims that beginningless things have no causes, that such things exist, and/or why God has no beginning.
This is, of course, the challenge; had it been surmounted, we wouldn't be having so many problems with faith, as there would be a Proof of Gods Existence.

Anyway, that's my point. Good luck with your arguing.


Thank you :) I remember denying the antecedent … entry level philosophy is great stuff

Care to expand upon that? Or are you someone who still clings onto the logical falacy that an omnibenevolent god and nautral suffering are mutualy exclusive?

Yeah, I still cling to that fallacy.

I'm plenty willing to believe in an indifferent watchmaker, but that isn't what organized religion is selling. The God Christianity is peddling doesn't line up with the world as it is. Not without a lot of theological bean-counting and word-wrangling to explain why an omnibenevolent God is so hands-off in regards to his creation. Sorry, I'm not interested in that sort of lit interp bunko.

I dont know what to believe any more. GOd has taken away so many things from me and aslo has given me a great thing my boyfriend. But he is being taken away for two years it pisses me off. i dont know what to do.

I don't really want to get into the argument as a whole, but I felt compelled to point out the misuse of logic here.

In using a syllogism such as you did, you can only draw positive conclusions. You can't set up a series of logical statements, deny the antecedent, and then claim the conclusion is also denied. Here's a clearer example:

1. (Antecedent) If I am in Texas, then I am in the US.
2. I am NOT in Texas.
3. (Conclusion) Therefore, I am NOT in the US.

As you can see, by denying the Antecedent, you don't actually ascribe truth to any other part of the statement. By not being in Texas, you could very easily be in Colorado, and thus still be in the US. (Note: your conclusion COULD be true, but there is no way to prove it via this line of logic.)

If you're looking for more information, you can search on 'logical fallacies' or 'denying the antecedent fallacy'.


On this issue, the claim that "[Because] the Law states that everything that has a beginning has a cause[, and since] God did not have a beginning, he needs no cause" is false, at least in terms of logic. You'd have to set up a corollary that states that things without beginnings do not have causes. Then you can advance your argument again. At that point, though, I think you will need to provide some proof for you claims that beginningless things have no causes, that such things exist, and/or why God has no beginning.
This is, of course, the challenge; had it been surmounted, we wouldn't be having so many problems with faith, as there would be a Proof of Gods Existence.

Anyway, that's my point. Good luck with your arguing.

if we had proof that God exests then that would take away the need for faith. faith is knowing with out seeing. i know that God is god because of things that have happened in my life.

Yeah, I still cling to that fallacy.

I'm plenty willing to believe in an indifferent watchmaker, but that isn't what organized religion is selling. The God Christianity is peddling doesn't line up with the world as it is. Not without a lot of theological bean-counting and word-wrangling to explain why an omnibenevolent God is so hands-off in regards to his creation. Sorry, I'm not interested in that sort of lit interp bunko.

So tell me, what should God do if he is like the Christian God you think he is?

On a lighter note, I had a somewhat amusing moment a minute ago...

I was reading Justifidians' post, where he was replying to the statement "evidence seems to suggest there is no God" with the line "actually I believe it's the other way around." I believe he meant that evidence suggests there IS a God, but I read the "other way around" as meaning that God seems to suggest there is no evidence.

Apparently I'm not yet quite as awake as I think I am.. ;)

Well, I would suppose that my atheism simply stems from not having a religious upbringing... I was never trained to be religious, and therefore, I am not...

Why do I choose to remain an atheist (as opposed to converting, being "born again", etc)?

To be blunt about it, I simply have no need for a God, and no desire to worship one...

Then after that, you can sprinkle in generous amounts of all of the other various arguments that others have brought up... I just consider these to be secondary to the above reason, because they'd be easily overlooked if the above reason wasn't there...

Why do I consider myself an atheist rather than an agnostic?

Being a loyal fan of logic, science, and reason, intellectualy I simply must ackowledge the possiblity that a God exists (and any or all of the related trappings)... So I do leave a small door open to this possibility...

However, for all practical purposes, I truly don't believe that God exists... Sure, I can entertain the possibility, but I don't put any stock in it whatsoever... The same "purple unicorns" argument can be used... I can't know that they don't exist, but honestly speaking, as far as I'm concerned, they do not exist...

So I do have a somewhat agnostic lean (if only for the sake of remaining rational and moderate), but when it comes down to it, I wholeheartedly believe that there is no God, so I am very much an atheist...

There is no logic behind belief or non-belief. Like there is no logical explanation for why some one likes the taste of e.g. peanut butter and another does not.
I like peanut butter and dont believe.
Why dont i believe?

1. The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.

To believe in the existence of a god is an act of faith. To believe in the nonexistence of a god is likewise an act of faith. There is no evidence that there is a Supreme Being nor is there evidence there is not a Supreme Being. Faith is not knowledge. We can only state with assurance that we do not know.

2. If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.

All events in our Universe, including its creation, can be explained with or without the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if there is indeed a God, then that god has had no more impact than no god at all. To all appearances, any purported Supreme Being is indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants.


3. We are apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being.

If there is a God, and that God does not appear to care, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with whether or not a Supreme Being exists, nor should we have any interest in satisfying the purported needs of that Supreme Being.

And that just about sums me up.

if we had proof that God exests then that would take away the need for faith. faith is knowing with out seeing. i know that God is god because of things that have happened in my life.
You dont KNOW you THINK you know

There is no logic behind belief or non-belief. Like there is no logical explanation for why some one likes the taste of e.g. peanut butter and another does not.
I like peanut butter and dont believe.
Why dont i believe?

1. The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.

To believe in the existence of a god is an act of faith. To believe in the nonexistence of a god is likewise an act of faith. There is no evidence that there is a Supreme Being nor is there evidence there is not a Supreme Being. Faith is not knowledge. We can only state with assurance that we do not know.

2. If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.

All events in our Universe, including its creation, can be explained with or without the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if there is indeed a God, then that god has had no more impact than no god at all. To all appearances, any purported Supreme Being is indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants.


3. We are apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being.

If there is a God, and that God does not appear to care, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with whether or not a Supreme Being exists, nor should we have any interest in satisfying the purported needs of that Supreme Being.

This whole thing assumes that there is required an active decision to not believe in any gods. This, of course, is not true, as atheism, or at least apatheticism, is Man's default state.

if we had proof that God exests then that would take away the need for faith. faith is knowing with out seeing. i know that God is god because of things that have happened in my life.

Yes, I realize that. I was speaking only in terms of logic. If someone wishes to construct a logical argument for God's existence, as Justifidians did, then they will have to provide evidence for their claims. If they could successfully do that, they would have a logical proof supporting Gods existence.

However, I realize that most people understand that such belief does not rely upon logical proofs, and thus do not bother with it. I was simply making a logical correction, not trying to sway the argument. In matters such as this, I don't try to change the beliefs of others; everyone will come to the conclusion that is best for them, one way or another.

So tell me, what should God do if he is like the Christian God you think he is?

The problem that is being brought forth here is this:

If God created everything, then God created suffering and sin...

Why did he do so? If God is all-powerful, and all-knowing, and all-loving, then why would he do such a thing?

And, if he didn't create suffering and sin, then what did? Some higher power above God? Were they just "always there"? In which case, why does God have no power to control them? Is this an admission that God really isn't omnipotent?

The problem lies in the fact that God defined as he is by most religions (Christianity being the most prevalent for this), contradicts the true state of things...

Which either suggests that he doesn't exist, or that the definition is wrong...

Either way, it doesn't lend any credibility to these religions...

The problem that is being brought forth here is this:

If God created everything, then God created suffering and sin...

Why did he do so? If God is all-powerful, and all-knowing, and all-loving, then why would he do such a thing?

And, if he didn't create suffering and sin, then what did? Some higher power above God? Were they just "always there"? In which case, why does God have no power to control them? Is this an admission that God really isn't omnipotent?

The problem lies in the fact that God defined as he is by most religions (Christianity being the most prevalent for this), contradicts the true state of things...

Which either suggests that he doesn't exist, or that the definition is wrong...

Either way, it doesn't lend any credibility to these religions...

I was hoping you were going to say this

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html

Read this, it will help explain that to you. Although in a more direct answer to your individual question, sin is our creation. We create it by disobeying God.

So tell me, what should God do if he is like the Christian God you think he is?

Who am I to tell God what to do?

Like I said, I'm perfectly willing to believe in a watchmaker. It would explain why we've heard and seen so little of him/her/it. I'm not so willing to buy shares in a program that features miracles and feats such as global floods, foot washing, the destruction of cities, burning bushes, the parting of seas, and a divine birth, followed by . . . two thousand years of silence. Why is there all this ridiculous apparatus around the creator? Why is God so mutable, given that he's omniscient and infallible? Why does he change his approach? It's not like God needs to switch from the driver to the niblick on his way to the green. He ought to triple-birdie it on the first friggin' swing.

if you do not beleave then where do you think you will go after you die? i know where i am going and where my family and most of my friends are. if you dont beleave then you are missing out on one of the best things there is. i dont beleave that God has anything to do with magic and to this day there are things i dont understand about him but thats all a part of faith. some people say well with everything that has happened to me then he must not be loving. well do you have a house, or a computer, or friends, or a family (i dont mean loving)? i have met people who dont have any of that and still believe. it is up to each person indivigualy what they choose but i have no doubts in what i have choosen and thoughs of you who are skeptics have doubts or you would not be skeptics.

Would you believe that theirs a gnome in the stop light, telling you when you can or can not go?
Of course not.
Would you believe that their is a man on the moon, watching your every step?
Nope.
Would you believe that at night, giant furry animals crawl across your face and protect your dreams?
I hope not.


So then why would you believe in a mysterious father figure, telling you what to do, what to say, where to go and what to think? I think I have a bigger problem with people who do believe. Religious people seem to have some stripe of a mental disorder. Sure, its one thing to have an imaginary friend at 5, its another if your still talking to him at 50.

Hey, while I’m at... saying, Look at all the good christ has done, is a lot like saying, look at all the good Hitler did. Even if he did spread peace and love/resurrect Germanys failing economy, it doesn’t make up for cursing three towns with leprosy/the holocaust.

Who am I to tell God what to do?


Well you seem unable to accept the Biblical account, but you have an idea as to what he is so what do you think he is?


I'm not so willing to buy shares in a program that features miracles and feats such as global floods, foot washing, the destruction of cities, burning bushes, the parting of seas, and a divine birth, followed by . . . two thousand years of silence


Why exactly? You havent rearly explained yourself. The basic reason behind this is that Jesus solved the problem of sin with his death. Now God is waiting for us. He wants as many people to turn to him as is possible. He is a very patient God.

I do not believe (agnostic, not atheist) because I do not find mankind to be fit for the task of telling me the existence, or lack thereof, of something that it cannot back up with anything tangible, as mankind is far too fallible for such a task.

You all talk as if God is as solid as one of us.

Is that so?

Or could God, or Allah, or Dagda just be part of us? Perhaps God is hope? Maybe God is just a feeling?

Nobody religious ever stated God was anything else.

The human mind cannot comprehend a God in God's true form, because it is limited to knowledge by trial of error only.

I was hoping you were going to say this

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html

Read this, it will help explain that to you. Although in a more direct answer to your individual question, sin is our creation. We create it by disobeying God.
Great another linky to someone who is telling you how to argue (traditionally linking information is a good thing when supporting your argument … but really no longer really your argument it is theirs)

As for your summary why did he give us the option to sin (and I know you will say that there is no free will without a choice) but really it is not completely “free” will

I mean if I had total free will I would be able to breathe under water because I choose to do so … that is my choice but god did not give me that option. So therefore he is limiting my free will. He would have to create infinite possibilities in order to have infinite free will. He has not done so

Really free will is a sham

if you do not beleave then where do you think you will go after you die? i know where i am going and where my family and most of my friends are. if you dont beleave then you are missing out on one of the best things there is. i dont beleave that God has anything to do with magic and to this day there are things i dont understand about him but thats all a part of faith. some people say well with everything that has happened to me then he must not be loving. well do you have a house, or a computer, or friends, or a family (i dont mean loving)? i have met people who dont have any of that and still believe. it is up to each person indivigualy what they choose but i have no doubts in what i have choosen and thoughs of you who are skeptics have doubts or you would not be skeptics.

This is why people believe. Theres no reason to be scarred of death you know.

Well you seem unable to accept the Biblical account, but you have an idea as to what he is so what do you think he is?



Why exactly? You havent rearly explained yourself. The basic reason behind this is that Jesus solved the problem of sin with his death. Now God is waiting for us. He wants as many people to turn to him as is possible. He is a very patient God.
and what changed him from the impatient god that threw a hissyfit when people did not follow him... he could have waited and just been there for us that would have changed most peoples mind and brought them back to the good side (agan arguement against free will here)

God: well you dont follow me I will kill everyone that does not do so.
Really what sort of free choice is that? believe or die

Why dont i believe?

[QUOTE=Jester III]1. The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.

To believe in the existence of a god is an act of faith. To believe in the nonexistence of a god is likewise an act of faith. There is no evidence that there is a Supreme Being nor is there evidence there is not a Supreme Being. Faith is not knowledge. We can only state with assurance that we do not know.
God(s) is not unknowable and unknown in all religions. There are people who accept the evidence of their senses, and so faith does not have to factor into their belief in a god.

2. If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.

All events in our Universe, including its creation, can be explained with or without the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if there is indeed a God, then that god has had no more impact than no god at all. To all appearances, any purported Supreme Being is indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants.
Occam's Razor is a fine reason to create a leaning towards one belief or another. I hope this isn't meant to suggest a reason why you believe there is no god, though; appearances aside, arguments of apathy and indifference imply the existence of a god, because they imply the existence of their opposites. A state of "lack of interest" and a "lack of emotion" imply something that was there that is lacking.

3. We are apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being.

If there is a God, and that God does not appear to care, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with whether or not a Supreme Being exists, nor should we have any interest in satisfying the purported needs of that Supreme Being.
This is true for certain individuals.

Who am I to tell God what to do?

Like I said, I'm perfectly willing to believe in a watchmaker. It would explain why we've heard and seen so little of him/her/it. I'm not so willing to buy shares in a program that features miracles and feats such as global floods, foot washing, the destruction of cities, burning bushes, the parting of seas, and a divine birth, followed by . . . two thousand years of silence. Why is there all this ridiculous apparatus around the creator? Why is God so mutable, given that he's omniscient and infallible? Why does he change his approach? It's not like God needs to switch from the driver to the niblick on his way to the green. He ought to triple-birdie it on the first friggin' swing.

If you dont beleave in God then you probably do not want God to show himself again untill after you beleave. you would understand what i mean if you read the book of Revelation in the Bible its the last book. its all about all the horable things that will happen b4 Jesus comes back for the beleavers. God has told the would when he will come back and i am looking forward to it but all unbelievers should fear it. God lets people choose. He lets the person have free will and with that comes sin. (the bible refers to God as a he.)

A perfect, all-loving, omnipotent man who lives in the sky, watches over us and helps us all in daily life because he loves us. Then he sends us to a firey pit when we die if we didn't do what he said to. You've all heard this argument before but it makes sense.
there are three things we all know about god:
he is all loving
he is omnipotent
yet evil still exists
Really only two of those things can be true at the same time. but all three are supposedly true.
God does NOT exist. People just want someone to care about them and to fix their problems. Belief is fine, but believe in something plausible.
Good point but as I said before, God is not a being, it is a name for things people believe in!

God: well you dont follow me I will kill everyone that does not do so.
Really what sort of free choice is that? believe or die

Actually its more like

Doctor: This pill will save your life. If you dont take it you will die
Patient: What kind of choice is that? Where's the free will in that?

Replace the doctor with God and the pill with salvation and you get what I am getting at.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/meorburn.html

If you dont beleave in God then you probably do not want God to show himself again untill after you beleave. you would understand what i mean if you read the book of Revelation in the Bible its the last book. its all about all the horable things that will happen b4 Jesus comes back for the beleavers. God has told the would when he will come back and i am looking forward to it but all unbelievers should fear it. God lets people choose. He lets the person have free will and with that comes sin. (the bible refers to God as a he.)
Ok then explain the flood question

Where was free will then … believe or die … be good or die?

What sort of free choice is that
But god had no qualms about limiting free will and whipping all the sinners off the face of the planet

When you mean non-belivers, do you mean that you don't belive in a Higher Being or that you aren't Christian?

Also, would Buddhists be considered "Non-belivers", seeing how they don't have an Uber-Mastah like most other religions?

i think of a obeliever as someone who God/Jesus. what would put Jews in the nonbelever catagory and in a sence they are but they believe in the same God as i do. it all depends on your definishion of a nonbeliever.

Actually its more like

Doctor: This pill will save your life. If you dont take it you will die
Patient: What kind of choice is that? Where's the free will in that?

Replace the doctor with God and the pill with salvation and you get what I am getting at.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/meorburn.html
That is the choice in belief for salvation … I was making reference to the “flood”

As far as the analogy if you want it to be complete then you have to have created the disease along with giving it to everyone.

Its not like he was saving you … he actively killed you if you didn’t take the pill … it is not because of some unknown force but the patient god got impatient with everyone and killed everyone that did not believe (not let them live life and let the decision be made on what they did in life) those people could have CHANGED but he chose to just kill them off instead

What I'm saying is that there has not been any evidence or manifestation of God that corroborates the mythology of any of the major religions. Everybody's got their book, everybody's got their legions of defenders and interpreters. But nobody's got an edge. There's no reason to select one over the other. Pascal's wager is a crock because it isn't a yes-or-no proposition, but rather like a roulette wheel. What, like faith is going to lead me to the right one, to know that Christianity is somehow "right" over Judiasm and Buddhism? Gimme a break. That's not faith either. That's conditioning and upbringing. That's your parents sending you to Sunday school or the salesmanship of a door-to-door missionary.

This whole thing assumes that there is required an active decision to not believe in any gods. This, of course, is not true, as atheism, or at least apatheticism, is Man's default state.
Lack of knowledge is man's default state.

If you dont beleave in God then you probably do not want God to show himself again untill after you beleave. you would understand what i mean if you read the book of Revelation in the Bible its the last book. its all about all the horable things that will happen b4 Jesus comes back for the beleavers. God has told the would when he will come back and i am looking forward to it but all unbelievers should fear it. God lets people choose. He lets the person have free will and with that comes sin. (the bible refers to God as a he.)

Don't give me that Left Behind static. If that's the way the table's going to break, so it goes. Until then, why don't you do your own time?

Lack of knowledge is man's default state.

Including any lack of knowledge of a god or gods, thus leading to soft atheism, not agnosticism. Agnosticism is an active belief that such things are unknowable, soft atheism is just being apathetic about the matter, not caring.

Including any lack of knowledge of a god or gods, thus leading to soft atheism, not agnosticism. Agnosticism is an active belief that such things are unknowable, soft atheism is just being apathetic about the matter, not caring.
Agnosticism can also be apathetic … “Cant know but don’t care”

Great another linky to someone who is telling you how to argue (traditionally linking information is a good thing when supporting your argument … but really no longer really your argument it is theirs)

As for your summary why did he give us the option to sin (and I know you will say that there is no free will without a choice) but really it is not completely “free” will

I mean if I had total free will I would be able to breathe under water because I choose to do so … that is my choice but god did not give me that option. So therefore he is limiting my free will. He would have to create infinite possibilities in order to have infinite free will. He has not done so

Really free will is a sham
Um, you have some weird ideas of what free will and choice are. Free will is the ability to choose; choice is making a decision between available options. Nothing says that free will creates options that cannot ordinarily exist.

That is the choice in belief for salvation … I was making reference to the “flood”


The flood was pre crucifixtion. I have explained about this several times to several people but I will go again just for you.

1) Precrucifixtion state of Earth
- Sin = Death
- No question. No way to avoid it.
- Only way to avoid spiritual death along with physical death was through a series of sacrifices (Set out in the old testement law) and even these couldnt actually deal with Sin. They just held back sin untill Jesus
- Because of this, there being no way out of the loop, God was entirely justified to kill anyone whenever he liked (the fact that he allowed the human race to exist at all was a great level of mercy on his part)

2) Postcrucifixtion state of Earth
- The Sin - Death cycle has been broken (Note: Spirtiual not physcial death)
- Jesus did not sin yet died. The cycle is broken and so others can exit the loop via Jesus

The flood was pre crucifixtion. I have explained about this several times to several people but I will go again just for you.

1) Precrucifixtion state of Earth
- Sin = Death
- No question. No way to avoid it.
- Only way to avoid spiritual death along with physical death was through a series of sacrifices (Set out in the old testement law) and even these couldnt actually deal with Sin. They just held back sin untill Jesus
- Because of this, there being no way out of the loop, God was entirely justified to kill anyone whenever he liked (the fact that he allowed the human race to exist at all was a great level of mercy on his part)

2) Postcrucifixtion state of Earth
- The Sin - Death cycle has been broken (Note: Spirtiual not physcial death)
- Jesus did not sin yet died. The cycle is broken and so others can exit the loop via Jesus


I ask again (apparently the driver-niblick line was unclear): If God is omniscient and infallible, why does he change up his game more often than RuPaul?

Um, you have some weird ideas of what free will and choice are. Free will is the ability to choose; choice is making a decision between available options. Nothing says that free will creates options that cannot ordinarily exist.
but god is "holding" the cards what I was trying to say is the traditional “why evil exists” is because god gave free will (as with your argument he had to create the choice for evil) but why did he only create that one choice (or sliding scale between the choices depending on if you believe a binary “good” or “evil”)

I don’t know if I am explaining this clearly

God created free will
To do so he would have to have created choices … free will depending really on having a choice. (though really there wouldn’t have to be a choice to still have free will)

But god punishes those who do not make the correct choice … is it really “free” will if you are punished for making an available choice?

The flood was pre crucifixtion. I have explained about this several times to several people but I will go again just for you.

1) Precrucifixtion state of Earth
- Sin = Death
- No question. No way to avoid it.
- Only way to avoid spiritual death along with physical death was through a series of sacrifices (Set out in the old testement law) and even these couldnt actually deal with Sin. They just held back sin untill Jesus
- Because of this, there being no way out of the loop, God was entirely justified to kill anyone whenever he liked (the fact that he allowed the human race to exist at all was a great level of mercy on his part)

2) Postcrucifixtion state of Earth
- The Sin - Death cycle has been broken (Note: Spirtiual not physcial death)
- Jesus did not sin yet died. The cycle is broken and so others can exit the loop via Jesus

But we got on this because you said he is a patient god (which does not seem true in the OT)… what changed him? Or his he only withholding his wrath for now till he decides to make another covenant with his people and kill some more off

The debate that rages here on NS nearly every day on whether God exists or not is one that will continue on for inifinity, most likely. Still it is a debate that deserves to be discussed because it is important to so many people. I doubt if the actual proof of the existence of God can be found anywhere but in the residence of the human heart.
O SON OF DUST!
All that is in heaven and earth I have ordained for thee, except the human heart, which I have made the habitation of My beauty and glory; yet thou didst give My home and dwelling to another than Me; and whenever the manifestation of My holiness sought His own abode, a stranger found He there, and, homeless, hastened unto the sanctuary of the Beloved. Notwithstanding I have concealed thy secret and desired not thy shame.
(Baha'u'llah, The Persian Hidden Words)
The proof that that can be offered of God's existence is best found through the works of those Messengers sent by God to educate His creatures. The Divine Educators such as Moses, Christ, Muhammed, Baha'u'llah give moral guidance to those in need of that guidance. As "proof" of the success of that mission is offered the civilization that grows up around the teachings of each Messenger. An easy example is what happened when Muhammed arrived amongst the people of Arabia. They were considered very barbaric people who would take new born female babies into the dessert and bury them alive because they had such little value. With the influence of Muhammed these people developed a civilization that atheists, agnostics, Christians today take advantage of. Just as Christ educated the region Europe.

"For this reason the holy, divine Manifestations are the first Teachers and Educators of humanity; Their traces are the highest evidences, and Their spiritual tuition is universal in its application to the world of mankind. Their influence and power are immeasurable and unlimited. One heavenly Personage has developed many nations. For example, Jesus Christ, single and unassisted, educated the Roman, Greek and Assyrian nations and all of Europe. It is evident, therefore, that the greatest education is that of the Spirit."

(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 330)

But we got on this because you said he is a patient god (which does not seem true in the OT)… what changed him? Or his he only withholding his wrath for now till he decides to make another covenant with his people and kill some more off

Nothing "Changed him" he changed the ciricumstances. He was patient in the Old Testement. He alowed us to exist at all, which as I have pointed out we had no right to do seing as we had sinned and all sin is death. He did not change. He did what he had to do to fix the problem of sin.

Nothing "Changed him" he changed the ciricumstances. He was patient in the Old Testement. He alowed us to exist at all, which as I have pointed out we had no right to do seing as we had sinned and all sin is death. He did not change. He did what he had to do to fix the problem of sin.

Wait. When you say "he allowed us to exist," are you talking about the global reboot that was the flood? Because it seems to me that we see a definite shift in God's tactics in the books of the Bible.

In one case, he sees that the world is full of sin, so he wipes everything out and starts over. In the other case, he sees that the world is full of sin, so he sends Jesus to offer salvation.

Why didn't he send Jesus in the first place? Or rather, why did he send Jesus instead of another flood? Was the flood a mistake? Was Jesus a mistake? Was God incapable of fixing the problem of sin with a flood? If so, why did he send the ineffectual flood? I'm seeing some glaring continuity errors here, though this might not be God's fault. It might just be his biographer and editor.

but god is "holding" the cards what I was trying to say is the traditional “why evil exists” is because god gave free will (as with your argument he had to create the choice for evil) but why did he only create that one choice (or sliding scale between the choices depending on if you believe a binary “good” or “evil”)

I don’t know if I am explaining this clearly

God created free will
To do so he would have to have created choices … free will depending really on having a choice. (though really there wouldn’t have to be a choice to still have free will)

But god punishes those who do not make the correct choice … is it really “free” will if you are punished for making an available choice?
God did not create free will in the sense that he created the world or created humans. He didn't create the choice for evil; he grants us the ability to choose it. He created the universe, and the options arise from what we observe of what's here and now; we have free will to choose between all available options at any given moment. God "gives" us this by stepping back and not interfering; in other words, not making the choice for us. Free will isn't the ability to choose anything at any time, just to choose between what's here, now, and even then only what we perceive as being the options ("I wanted to back away but I had no choice; my pride held me fixed to the spot.").

God does not punish people by sending them to hell; belief in heaven and hell as literal places is (I believe) an Evangelical literalist interpretation. Correct me if I'm wrong, there. A Catholic friend of mine explained it this way to me: When it comes to spiritual matters, we create the options. Good behaviour and sin are things we choose to do. Good is in line with what is right; sin is the opposite. God is love. Evil isn't a force that manipulates us into doing bad things; evil is making a choice that is not in line with the loving, i.e. with god. Your conscience kicks in and you feel 'bad' things, wracked with torment as they say. Gone to hell as they say, but you're already there. Hell is a consequence of bad behaviour, not a punishment; or rather, the only one who punishes you is you.

I hope this isn't meant to suggest a reason why you believe there is no god, though; appearances aside, arguments of apathy and indifference imply the existence of a god, because they imply the existence of their opposites. A state of "lack of interest" and a "lack of emotion" imply something that was there that is lacking.

When you follow the sentence closely, you will recognize it starts with an "if". This takes the place of "lets assume, for the sake of argument". In this light, there is still place for the not-being of a god, as well as the acceptance of an existant god who appears indifferent.
I also do not believe that there is no god, it should have become quite obvious that i am an agnostic. I do not know. And i do not believe. At least i can be sure of my lack of knowledge. Based on that i conclude that i should get on with life and dont care.

Wait. When you say "he allowed us to exist," are you talking about the global reboot that was the flood? Because it seems to me that we see a definite shift in God's tactics in the books of the Bible.

In one case, he sees that the world is full of sin, so he wipes everything out and starts over. In the other case, he sees that the world is full of sin, so he sends Jesus to offer salvation.

Why didn't he send Jesus in the first place? Or rather, why did he send Jesus instead of another flood? Was the flood a mistake? Was Jesus a mistake? Was God incapable of fixing the problem of sin with a flood? If so, why did he send the ineffectual flood? I'm seeing some glaring continuity errors here, though this might not be God's fault. It might just be his biographer and editor.

I am jumping in here and perhaps I shouldn't, but I am home sick today and bored. "The Flood" is best understood in a strictly symbolic sense even though there is evidence that a rather large flood did happen at some point in the geologic history of the region. Just as geology and other areas of science have been understood over many years and through progressive waves of knowledge so to is spiritual education given to humanity in progessive relevations from Divine Revealors. God sends to humanity educators with a level and degree of education when humanity has the capacity to understand the messege. Thus Christ came when humanity was capable of understanding "turn the other cheek" before that Moses said, "an eye for an eye." As the capacity to understand increases the message is renewed through a new Divine Educator, therefor one can think of all of the Messengers as speaking with the same voice, coming from the same source with the same mission.

Funny. How about the virgin birth, the resurection and any number of other biblical events. I dont think those can be explained without the existance of God. Also there is the problem of the Big bang breaking the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
What about the speaking wolf in Little Red Riding Hood? If i dont accept the Bible as anything more than a nice collection of maybe-historic events, fairy tales, hygenic advices and the general almanach for the modern jew 2500 BC, with added comment from 2000 years ago, than there is no proof of the great flood, no virgin birth etc, no resurrection. Accepting the Bible as divine truth and arguing the existance of divine wonders, or divinity as such, with it is a logical circle that bears no value.
Also consider that i never said anything about the Big bang, where did that come from? I know that my limitations regarding anything in physics more complex than simple mechanics and basic electrical stuff, so i am not going anywhere near astrophysics. I simply dont care where this very Earth came from, it is. That is enough for me. So i dont see a need to believe in God or the Big bang or hold my breath for whatever scietific explanaton comes next.

God did not create free will in the sense that he created the world or created humans. He didn't create the choice for evil; he grants us the ability to choose it. He created the universe, and the options arise from what we observe of what's here and now; we have free will to choose between all available options at any given moment. God "gives" us this by stepping back and not interfering; in other words, not making the choice for us. Free will isn't the ability to choose anything at any time, just to choose between what's here, now, and even then only what we perceive as being the options ("I wanted to back away but I had no choice; my pride held me fixed to the spot.").

God does not punish people by sending them to hell; belief in heaven and hell as literal places is (I believe) an Evangelical literalist interpretation. Correct me if I'm wrong, there. A Catholic friend of mine explained it this way to me: When it comes to spiritual matters, we create the options. Good behaviour and sin are things we choose to do. Good is in line with what is right; sin is the opposite. God is love. Evil isn't a force that manipulates us into doing bad things; evil is making a choice that is not in line with the loving, i.e. with god. Your conscience kicks in and you feel 'bad' things, wracked with torment as they say. Gone to hell as they say, but you're already there. Hell is a consequence of bad behaviour, not a punishment; or rather, the only one who punishes you is you.


Again note I was talking about flood times not salvation (there are differing arguments about that) where he actively killed those who chose evil (and I know you will get into new covenant ... for some reason he changed his attitude which kind of proves he is not infallible otherwise why did he choose the original attitude ... because if he is infallible he could have not made the originating mistake)

Then if god did not create the options who did?

I am jumping in here and perhaps I shouldn't, but I am home sick today and bored.
"Get well soon!" -Hallmark