NationStates Jolt Archive

I have, and most of the Quran too. Both are viscious books, with obvious undertones of control and manipulation. The history of religion is one of abuse and hatred.

Please explain to me what you mean by the word 'god' otherwise it is as meaningless as the word 'snigglepoob'.
If you have read the Bible, you would see clearly the effort God goes to to ensure that we got the message of the good news that nobody has to try to be good enough to get to heaven. I'm not sure how you found abuse, hatred, control and manipulation in that good message, friend.

Your god seems to be about blind faith and supernatural experience. This is the polar opposite of what science is - the rational and reasoned exploration of the world, developing testable and reproducable theories.

Huh? I'm actually an atheist, my friend. I just happen to look at the world and see that maybe, perhaps, divine influence could be present. Just because we understand it does not squeeze out God. But one of the reasons I'm an atheist is exactly for the reason you put forth; I have no tangible reasons to believe. I can't bring myself to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

If you have read the Bible, you would see clearly the effort God goes to to ensure that we got the message of the good news that nobody has to try to be good enough to get to heaven. I'm not sure how you found abuse, hatred, control and manipulation in that good message, friend.

Yes...and you would also see all the contradictions that the bible has.

Also, you know that God ordered genecide...right? He also made it clear that some people are better than others.

If you have read the Bible, you would see clearly the effort God goes to to ensure that we got the message of the good news that nobody has to try to be good enough to get to heaven. I'm not sure how you found abuse, hatred, control and manipulation in that good message, friend.

I am not your friend, people like you offend me deeply.

How about the threats of an eternity of graphically depicted suffering to keep people in check?

Jesus telling people to abandone their families to follow him?

Hatred towards homosexuals?

Rampant anti-semitism?

The constant degradation and subjigation of women?

Book of love? You make me sick.

You ask most atheists what defines their beliefs and the answer shall come forth:

"I believe that God doesn't exist"

I also know a few atheists, albeit less skilled at debating than you, and that is their definition of their beliefs. Not mine.

Anyway your orginal criticism of my point: I was attempting to show neither atheists or theists have adequate evidence to substantially back their beliefs.

It is also quite inadequate to state that most atheists do not care if God does or does not exist - if they don't care, why do so many of them come to threads like these and scream at the theists who are attacking the idea of God's non-existence?

Theists, if they believe in God (s), need not defend their beliefs as their beliefs are unassailable especially by posters are some half rate topical discussion board. But they still come and assault the walls of atheism time and time again.

I think the reason that Atheists are so prevalent on this forum... no, so VOCAL... is that this forum also has a very vocal theistic movement... mainly Christian.

Thus - every debate about homosexuality or abortion, turns into a platform for the religious right to assert that a thing is 'wrong' because it is forbidden by 'their religion'. For those of other religions, or of NO religion... this is obviously not a good enough argument.

If I am a Seventh-Day Hoppist, and believe that everyone should hop everywhere on Sundays... should all of my society be force to accede to my religious demands?

It is this vocal nature of the mobilised right, that brings the Atheists running.


I agree with your fundamental point... the hard-line religions right, and the hard-line Atheists are standing bouncing rocks on each others heads. Neither has any evidence for a concrete belief.

I disagree, however, that ALL Atheists make that claim. Most of the Atheists I know are Implicit Atheists.... they just don't believe in any gods. They aren't out there beating the fundamentalist christian with assertions of No-God to match his One-True-God rhetoric.

You are confusing ethics with ethos... in assuming that there is 'moral law', that is true for all cultures.

Many cultures have upheld very different moral laws... rape being one of the classic examples. Vikings, the Roman Empire, The Mosaic Hebrews: all accepted rape as morally valid.

I suspect your assertion is based on Lewis?
OK, Jolt is really starting to get on my nerves! This is the THIRD time I've tried to post a reply!

I have read a lot of C.S. Lewis, and I think he explains a lot of concepts from Christianity well, but I'm not making the point I think you think I'm making ( :D ).

I don't think all cultures have the same moral standards (I think Lewis pushes this point too far). I do, however, think that there are absolute standards of morality, defined not by any particular culture, but by God himself. No culture has yet met these standards satisfactorily, though some cultures have done better on a particular issue than others.

I know you don't accept God's existence the way I do. My reply was in the context on Bendoverland's statement:
"What is right for you is not necessarily right for all."
I believe some things are right for all.

P.S. I don't believe the Law given at Sinai implied that rape was morally valid; on the contrary, on some occasions, it specified death as the penalty for rape (Deut. 22:25-27)

Huh? I'm actually an atheist, my friend. I just happen to look at the world and see that maybe, perhaps, divine influence could be present. Just because we understand it does not squeeze out God. But one of the reasons I'm an atheist is exactly for the reason you put forth; I have no tangible reasons to believe. I can't bring myself to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

My sincerist apologies, I got your name confused with the other person posting.

Honestly, have you ever tried reading the Bible for yourself?

Honestly, have you ever tried reading the Bhagavat Gita for yourself?

Have you ever tried reading the Book of Mormon for yourself?

Have you ever tried reading the Qu'ran for yourself?

Get the pattern?

There it is. I now put down the challenge to non-religious atheists, and to those who live a life of immorality and sin, to tell us why they choose the foolish side of the coin, and bet everything on the non-existence of God, when there is nothing to gain from this stance.

I don't live my life in fear of other people's superstitions. I don't fear death, even though I believe there is nothing after it. The idea that I should throw away reason and empiricism for mysticism and dogma because some dead frenchman once decided to toss a metaphorical coin in the air and err on the side of superstition over clarity of thought is risible.

It also damages the currency of faith, which although I don't share with you, I do respect.

I'm surprised you would find such a trivialisation of religious belief acceptable, let alone consider it a good argument for those who don't share it with you to join you.

I believe one day we will be educated enough not to need hero worship. Not everyone needs a hero - I, for one, accept everyone has flaws and try to make the best of my life I can. No-one is my idol.

Are you saying that Christians aren't educated people because they believe in God?

I think you will find many examples, both in history and in modern society, that will contradict such an opinion.

Hero worship is not necessarily the product of a lack of education - it is, in fact, a common trait in humans and rather fundamental to our nature. It is not necessarily desirable but neither is humanity's inclination to violence and selfishness.

God is part of the human psyche, in one form or another. That is why it will never be possible to remove him.

My point was not that beauty equals truth, it was that when I look at a sunset, I appreciate the beauty of it. It seems to me that a divine being could very easily have made the conditions such that the sunset could occur. I would say we have the same viewpoint, but I say there is still room for God in science, and you would seem to be leaning the opposite direction.

No... you are right... we do have a very similar viewpoint.

I think there is much room for religion in science... I do not think that the two have to be enemies, at all.

But - SOME would assert that the sunset IS PROOF of god.

I assert that the sunset can be just as well explained by purely physical mechanisms.

I don't claim that science excises 'god'... but pure science makes NO account of 'god', at all... either to prove OR disprove... since 'god' is not an observable, recordable and repeatable phenomenon.

This is why I am an Implicit Atheist. I don't think science proves 'god' is dead... there just is NO evidence that 'god' is alive.

I think the reason that Atheists are so prevalent on this forum... no, so VOCAL... is that this forum also has a very vocal theistic movement... mainly Christian.

Thus - every debate about homosexuality or abortion, turns into a platform for the religious right to assert that a thing is 'wrong' because it is forbidden by 'their religion'. For those of other religions, or of NO religion... this is obviously not a good enough argument.

If I am a Seventh-Day Hoppist, and believe that everyone should hop everywhere on Sundays... should all of my society be force to accede to my religious demands?

It is this vocal nature of the mobilised right, that brings the Atheists running.


I agree with your fundamental point... the hard-line religions right, and the hard-line Atheists are standing bouncing rocks on each others heads. Neither has any evidence for a concrete belief.

I disagree, however, that ALL Atheists make that claim. Most of the Atheists I know are Implicit Atheists.... they just don't believe in any gods. They aren't out there beating the fundamentalist christian with assertions of No-God to match his One-True-God rhetoric.

Thats fair enough.

The questions I asked here are the ones that I hear coming from other people, quite frequently, particluarly children. My point is that I did not invent the questions. Of course, simply having questions does not prove that God exists, even if he does seem to answer them quite well, for it could mean that people invented God to satisfy such questions. Alternatively, it could mean that God made us with such questions. I favour the second argument, obviously. And I do think there is more merit in it. Lots of people have invented lots of religions. But only one religion decribes a God so full of love as to send His own Heart into the world to reach us. This, I feel, is just too fantastic for any human imagination. Truth is stranger that fiction, they say.

So you are Baha'i, then?

How do you know that YOU are feeling this 'real' christianity of which you speak?

I have talked to other Christians. I have compared my experiences with theirs. I felt that rush of the spirit when I was saved... the cooling suffusion of the spirit into me. I felt the sudden relief from so many trials, so many worries. I felt that love and assurance, the feeling as though I really were in the palm of some other entity... that my steps were being guided.

In the case of your chocolate or music examples... I HAVE tasted the chocolate... and heard the music.

Have you ever lost your faith? If you haven't, you are the one lacking an experience here - I have been both sides of the line.

You can probably find out from some of the people I debate with online, here (not appealing to popularity.. just refering to character witnesses, if you will) that I DO live a Christ-like life. The same sort of life I lived as a Christian. If THAT is the marker of the 'true' christianity... then I was it.

The only thing I don't have - is belief in the God of the bible, or any other entity beyond comprehension.

I did not make a choice to become an Atheist. Atheism is the default position when you don't believe any 'god' story.

Are you saying that you life a Christ-like life? What does that mean? Do you love your enemy? Do you turn the other cheek? Do you pesevere in goodness simply because it is good? Or do you mean that you try not to hurt anybody (I see this as a different category, a product of modern philosophy).

No, I have never lost my faith in God, thank God, though I have been unfaithful many a time. I think that's the worse situation, you know, as far as feelings go. Far better to do wrong, believing it's right, than to to wrong, knowing its wrong.

I think Jesus never lost His faith, although He must have had many sore trials here on earth. At least that is one point in which he and you must have parted.

The chocolate of true Christianity is not a feeling of the filling of the spirit, or a spirit. True, this is a part of Christianity. Also a part of many other religions, I believe. Doesn't prove authenticity. The chocolate of Christianity is to recognise God, not a feeling. You may ask, how does one know the difference between a feeling and such 'recognition of God', if recognition of God is not necessarily a feeling. A very good question. And to answer that, I have to refer to a part of you that you probably don't believe in. But if I am to give an answer, you should at least consider what I am to say. Simply this.....God is spirit...so are you. Only spirit can recognise spirit. Not a physical body. So the bodily feeling of being 'filled with the spirit' can be quite misleading, if you are using it to determine an authentic experience of God.
You may argue that your spirit did recognise God. If so, does that mean you still believe in spirit? Do you see my point? The fact that you no longer believe casts some serious doubt on the authenticity of your claim to recognise God with your spirit, since you no longer believe in God, and possibly not a human spirit.

Are you saying that Christians aren't educated people because they believe in God?

I think you will find many examples, both in history and in modern society, that will contradict such an opinion.

Hero worship is not necessarily the product of a lack of education - it is, in fact, a common trait in humans and rather fundamental to our nature. It is not necessarily desirable but neither is humanity's inclination to violence and selfishness.

God is part of the human psyche, in one form or another. That is why it will never be possible to remove him.

Perhaps 'educated' was a bad choice of word. I mean to say that one day mankind will be beyond hero worship. I hope so anyway.

Yes, but I don't see how that is relevent. Drunk Commies is referring to actual evidence, not a book with a bunch of stories.

Would it sufice you to travel back in time? Since that is not possible, so far anyway, to my knowledge, you will have to rely on historical accounts, and eye witnesses. Such is what the Bible claims to be. Yes it does have stories, but since the history of your life so far makes a story, does that mean it isn't true?

My sincerist apologies, I got your name confused with the other person posting.

no problem, it just had me scratching my head for a second

I am not your friend, people like you offend me deeply.

How about the threats of an eternity of graphically depicted suffering to keep people in check?

perhaps eternity is simply the truth, and not invented to keep people in check? Would you hate a man because he told you the truth?

Jesus telling people to abandone their families to follow him?

If Jesus created humans, it follows that He knows what is best for them, and it also follows that His advice for people to follow Him is in the best interests of not only those poeple, but also their families

Hatred towards homosexuals?

Jesus never mentioned homosexuals...and certainly did not teach hatred towards any man. I think you need to get your facts right. He taught hatred towards the ugly rebelliousness that keeps each one of us from God. It's mislead 'Christians' who perhaps gave you that idea.

Rampant anti-semitism?

Wasn't Jesus a Jew? Why would he teach anti-semitism? Why do you smear the Bible with such atrocities that the Bible teaches against?

The constant degradation and subjigation of women?
Acutally, I think this comes from a misunderstanding of the culture of the time. In the culture of Jesus' time, women were little more than the value of animals. This is never what God intended, who created man and woman to be equal. I think if you were to study the Bible in the context of the surrounding culture, you would see that Jesus goes a long way to elevate women. It is, once again, the mislead 'Christians' that I blame for inserting their wrongs and mixing up Christianity. You need some sort of clarity to see the difference.

Book of love? You make me sick.

Sorry to make you feel sick. I've never had that effect on anyone before, to my knowledge. But I wonder, could it be that you are getting sick over things that simply are not true?

You ask most atheists what defines their beliefs and the answer shall come forth:

"I believe that God doesn't exist"

I also know a few atheists, albeit less skilled at debating than you, and that is their definition of their beliefs. Not mine.If so, that's just being sloppy. I define myself as Agnostic-Atheist (or Atheist-Agnostic) but perhaps more rightly as a 'soft' Athiest and I would say "I don't believe that God exists" (which is different) and may further qualify (for the sake of completeness) by saying "...and I don't know how it could be proved He did."

Anyway your orginal criticism of my point: I was attempting to show neither atheists or theists have adequate evidence to substantially back their beliefs.I don't have beliefs. Lestways not regarding a God. Unless you count "I believe it is imposssible to know", but that's where I allow the possibility that "Agnostic" is flagged up in my description...

It is also quite inadequate to state that most atheists do not care if God does or does not exist - if they don't care, why do so many of them come to threads like these and scream at the theists who are attacking the idea of God's non-existence?I don't care about whether God exists or not (I suspect He doesn't, but that's different), what I do care about is people falling for false logic. As such, someone who says "All you Atheists are really st000pid, and here's the proof why..." (e.g. in this thread, though not in terms so crass as I indicate) attracts my attention (mainly my Agnosticly-inclined tendencies) as I see wilfull misunderstandings abound... I'm equally wilfull against hard-line Atheists, I hope, but you tend not to spot these as easily and (besides) the Theist arguments are generally more misguided so in picking sides I tend to slide their way (perhaps unfairly).

Theists, if they believe in God (s), need not defend their beliefs as their beliefs are unassailable especially by posters are some half rate topical discussion board. But they still come and assault the walls of atheism time and time again.Yes... Dunno why.

Honestly, have you ever tried reading the Bhagavat Gita for yourself?

Have you ever tried reading the Book of Mormon for yourself?

Have you ever tried reading the Qu'ran for yourself?

Get the pattern?
The Bhagavat Gita, I have only seen the cover, but I intend to go deeper one day. The Book of Mormon, I have read parts. The same with the English version of the Qu'ran. My intension is to read more of them, not because I feel that what I believe may be wrong, but that I am happy to accept that many religions have truths in them, and I realize that I have much to learn about the religions of humans. At least it can tell me much about humans, even if not about God.
What made you think that I would not have read such books? Do I sound wilfully ignorant to you?

Honestly, have you ever tried reading the Bible for yourself?I can't quote chapter and verse* but I have. The New Testament, at least, which is a shame as the OT sounds like a much more juicy read.

I honestly wouldn't know how to review it for a Sunday Supplement** but it doesn't strike me as a coherant basis of belief... Rather rough and ready saga, perhaps...

(* - a purely coincidental use of the phrase, but how apposite that I use it in its original context!)
(** - i.e. weekend paper additional insert, usually including book reviews... Nothing Sabbath-related, save for it being on a Sunday.)

OK, Jolt is really starting to get on my nerves! This is the THIRD time I've tried to post a reply!

I have read a lot of C.S. Lewis, and I think he explains a lot of concepts from Christianity well, but I'm not making the point I think you think I'm making ( :D ).

I don't think all cultures have the same moral standards (I think Lewis pushes this point too far). I do, however, think that there are absolute standards of morality, defined not by any particular culture, but by God himself. No culture has yet met these standards satisfactorily, though some cultures have done better on a particular issue than others.

I know you don't accept God's existence the way I do. My reply was in the context on Bendoverland's statement:
"What is right for you is not necessarily right for all."
I believe some things are right for all.

P.S. I don't believe the Law given at Sinai implied that rape was morally valid; on the contrary, on some occasions, it specified death as the penalty for rape (Deut. 22:25-27)

Sorry that Jolt was such a pain... it just IS like that... :(

I'm glad to hear that you doubt the accuracy of Lewis' assertion.. it always seemed to me to be the weakest link in his "Case for Christianity", and one very easily refuted by someone who was NOT looking to be converted... if you understand what I mean.

I am curious as to what you believe are the things that are "right" for all... not that I wish to stray too far into relativism... but it is hard to imagine a series of 'ideas' that COULD be universally applicable, in ALL situations.

Regarding the laws at Sinai... I don't see how you can argue against the Hebrews seeing rape as morally valid, when it is given as equivalent to betrothal...

Deuteronomy 22:29 "Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days".

So - if a rapist can find an unmarried virgin, raping her is the mechanism that legitimises paying a small dowry to the family, and then gaining her as wife?

Certainly seems that there is some moral ambiguity.

Also - Deuteronomy 20:14 "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee".

So - the women of a conquered city are 'taken' by the conquering army, forcibly, as 'spoils'.

Are you saying that you life a Christ-like life? What does that mean? Do you love your enemy? Do you turn the other cheek? Do you pesevere in goodness simply because it is good? Or do you mean that you try not to hurt anybody (I see this as a different category, a product of modern philosophy).

No, I have never lost my faith in God, thank God, though I have been unfaithful many a time. I think that's the worse situation, you know, as far as feelings go. Far better to do wrong, believing it's right, than to to wrong, knowing its wrong.

I think Jesus never lost His faith, although He must have had many sore trials here on earth. At least that is one point in which he and you must have parted.

The chocolate of true Christianity is not a feeling of the filling of the spirit, or a spirit. True, this is a part of Christianity. Also a part of many other religions, I believe. Doesn't prove authenticity. The chocolate of Christianity is to recognise God, not a feeling. You may ask, how does one know the difference between a feeling and such 'recognition of God', if recognition of God is not necessarily a feeling. A very good question. And to answer that, I have to refer to a part of you that you probably don't believe in. But if I am to give an answer, you should at least consider what I am to say. Simply this.....God is spirit...so are you. Only spirit can recognise spirit. Not a physical body. So the bodily feeling of being 'filled with the spirit' can be quite misleading, if you are using it to determine an authentic experience of God.
You may argue that your spirit did recognise God. If so, does that mean you still believe in spirit? Do you see my point? The fact that you no longer believe casts some serious doubt on the authenticity of your claim to recognise God with your spirit, since you no longer believe in God, and possibly not a human spirit.

First - Jesus did lose his faith - at least twice.

Second - Your definition of Christ-like is acceptable.

Third - At the time I was a Christian, I believed in spirit, in a 'soul'... just as I believed in the Holy Spirit... just as I believed in the Trinity, just as I believed in 'god'.

Now - I no longer believe in some immortal, purely spritual component.

I wonder how it is you manage to get to the conclusion that my not believing NOW, means that I couldn't have been really 'feeling it', then?

Surely, by that logic, the fact that you have had moments of doubt, must also invalidate any 'pretense' you might make at faith?

If you have read the Bible, you would see clearly the effort God goes to to ensure that we got the message of the good news that nobody has to try to be good enough to get to heaven.But he has read the Bible. Yet he hasn't seen what you have seen. Why is that? Could it be because it is subjective, not objective?

I'm not sure how you found abuse, hatred, control and manipulation in that good message, friend.I found none of that, but I found lods of other things (boring bits, inconsistent bits, interesting bits) but I find them in any series/work of fiction with multiple authors (the Batman films, for example...)

Ok, so my house on fire perhaps wasn't the brightest idea of an example. How about if you were a little boy playing by making mud pies in a slum, and someone came along and offered to take you to a really nice beach, but because you had never seen one, you refused, and was even insulted at the suggestion of a lovely beach. And then someone else came along and gave you another offer of a ride through a safari, but since you had stopped believing in safari's since you were a small child, you laughed at them. Then someone else suggested a day at the snow resort. Then you got annoyed at all these people asking you, because you felt that they wanted to take you along to a place that didn't exist.
My point is that how do you know they don't exist if you have never been there?

I find strangers asking little boys to come with them to the beach highly dubious.

But it's a crappy analogy, someone asking you to join them on a trip to planet xy-486 of the zegatroid system is more like it.

So you are Baha'i, then?

You should know, as a once-Christian, that if Jesus made the great sacrifice for us humans, and if it was at such great cost to himself, why was it necessary when any old religion would do.
A religion where God is described as the one paying the price most certainly cannot allow another entirely different religion as another way to that same God. It's not logical, and a totally unfair expectation. I say another entirely different religion because I want to avoid saying that one form of Christianity (eg Catholicism) is more right than another form (Protestant).

Also - Deuteronomy 20:14 "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee".

So - the women of a conquered city are 'taken' by the conquering army, forcibly, as 'spoils'.

Of course that was merciful compared to what they were asked to do to the Caananites, which was to destroy every living thing and burn all of the spoil as an act of God's judgment against their sins. Which of course, seems harsh to us, but we are rather fond of sin so I'm not sure our perspective is entirely valid...

The Bhagavat Gita, I have only seen the cover, but I intend to go deeper one day. The Book of Mormon, I have read parts. The same with the English version of the Qu'ran. My intension is to read more of them, not because I feel that what I believe may be wrong, but that I am happy to accept that many religions have truths in them, and I realize that I have much to learn about the religions of humans. At least it can tell me much about humans, even if not about God.
What made you think that I would not have read such books? Do I sound wilfully ignorant to you?

No... not at all... but you assumed that the other poster must be lacking in spiritual knowledge... perhaps because he hadn't read the bible...?

On top of that, you asked me earlier about my chosing to be an Atheist... why I would forsake all religion, if one faith failed me.

You seem to assume that nobody has read the Bible... so, I questioned whether YOU had read any of the other main Holy Texts.

One thing you'll probably find out, here... MANY (maybe even MOST) of the people on this forum that claim to be Atheistic or Agnostic, are very well read on religion... and not always just on Christian religion.

Most have arrived at their current 'point' through a long process of looking for truth, in ALL kinds of places.

Of course that was merciful compared to what they were asked to do to the Caananites, which was to destroy every living thing and burn all of the spoil as an act of God's judgment against their sins. Which of course, seems harsh to us, but we are rather fond of sin so I'm not sure our perspective is entirely valid...

YAY! Personal Responsibilit! Welcome to the thread!

:fluffle:

Indeed, if you look at Joshua's little soujourn... he left a far from pretty trail...

You should know, as a once-Christian, that if Jesus made the great sacrifice for us humans, and if it was at such great cost to himself, why was it necessary when any old religion would do.
A religion where God is described as the one paying the price most certainly cannot allow another entirely different religion as another way to that same God. It's not logical, and a totally unfair expectation. I say another entirely different religion because I want to avoid saying that one form of Christianity (eg Catholicism) is more right than another form (Protestant).

Which doesn't mean that you don't think it, though?

Not revealing your belief about the superiority of one faith, isn't the same as believing that they are equal.

Regarding Jesus' sacrifice... if it ever happened, which has yet to be even loosely 'proved'... what did it cost Jesus?

He is 'god'... thus immortal. So - death, even by crucifixion, is nothing more than a mere inconvenience.

Now - if he was a mortal man.... THEN I might be impressed by sacrifice.

First - Jesus did lose his faith - at least twice.

Second - Your definition of Christ-like is acceptable.

Third - At the time I was a Christian, I believed in spirit, in a 'soul'... just as I believed in the Holy Spirit... just as I believed in the Trinity, just as I believed in 'god'.

Now - I no longer believe in some immortal, purely spritual component.

I wonder how it is you manage to get to the conclusion that my not believing NOW, means that I couldn't have been really 'feeling it', then?

Surely, by that logic, the fact that you have had moments of doubt, must also invalidate any 'pretense' you might make at faith?

Can you refer me to the parts in the Bible where Jesus lost his faith? I want to have a look at these.

I have no doubt you were feeling something at the time. It may have even been the same God that you are I are discussing. But my point is that when a spirit recognises God, there simply cannot be any regress from this point. This is what I am maintaining. You may ask me to prove this. I cannot. But from it is simply based on my own experiences and those of others, and what I have observed in the Bible (of course my own interpretations of the Bible are subjective, as anyones are......a person's response to the Bible is simply a product of the heart of that person, be it honest or dishonest---that is assuming the Bible is true. If the Bible is false, then one man's criticism is as valid as anothers. If the Bible is true, then beware, for your response towards it tells everyone what condition your heart is in.)

My moments of doubt are not that God exists, but that He has nothing but love towards me and my best interests at heart.

You should know, as a once-Christian, that if Jesus made the great sacrifice for us humans, and if it was at such great cost to himself, why was it necessary when any old religion would do.
A religion where God is described as the one paying the price most certainly cannot allow another entirely different religion as another way to that same God. It's not logical, and a totally unfair expectation. I say another entirely different religion because I want to avoid saying that one form of Christianity (eg Catholicism) is more right than another form (Protestant).

But you do know that Christianity was not the only religion that had a "god" that dies and came back from the dead (and all that other stuff associated with main stream christianity)? There were religions known as "Mystery Religions (or mystery cults) that were very popular for at least 1500 years before Jesus was even born.

Here's a quote for you:
http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/PaganChrists_mysteries.html

The Gods of the Mystery religions had differing names and myths, but the faiths themselves had features in common:

their Gods died and came back to life;

they were personal religions entered into voluntarily via initiation ceremonies that reenacted the God's death and rebirth and were often described by ancient writers as giving rebirth and salvation and
their Gods have miraculous power to heal illness;
initiates took food and drink in ceremonies that reenacted a holy meal established by the God;
they had secret teachings brought the faithful closer to an understanding of God.
The mystery religions date from at least 1,500 BC.

Pagan writers wrote about a Pagan Mystery God "incognito, disguised as a man"; about Pagan Gods dying and being reborn with the meaning that "the God is saved, and we shall have salvation."; about initiation ceremonies described as "a voluntary death"; about sacred meals; ceremonial washing; Pagan miracles; the Pagan God who changed water into wine; the Pagan version of the great flood. And much more.

The miracle of Jesus's birth, his death and his ministry (as described by Paul) are very rooted in Mystery Religions. As a scientist, look at these facts and tell me what you think?

YAY! Personal Responsibilit! Welcome to the thread!

:fluffle:

Indeed, if you look at Joshua's little soujourn... he left a far from pretty trail...

Thanks for the welcome, but I don't know that I have much to add that we haven't already discussed at length. You're right about Joshua, but it wasn't just Joshua. Many of the things that happened were God's direct actions or aided by them (walls falling, sun stopping etc.). The real issue is whether or not God has/had the right to judge and was His judgment righteous and who if any has the where with all to judge or question God's judgment like Job tried to do with little response other than to be made to recognize his complete in ability to debate, much less understand the infinite creator of the universe, God.

Can you refer me to the parts in the Bible where Jesus lost his faith? I want to have a look at these.

I have no doubt you were feeling something at the time. It may have even been the same God that you are I are discussing. But my point is that when a spirit recognises God, there simply cannot be any regress from this point. This is what I am maintaining. You may ask me to prove this. I cannot. But from it is simply based on my own experiences and those of others, and what I have observed in the Bible (of course my own interpretations of the Bible are subjective, as anyones are......a person's response to the Bible is simply a product of the heart of that person, be it honest or dishonest---that is assuming the Bible is true. If the Bible is false, then one man's criticism is as valid as anothers. If the Bible is true, then beware, for your response towards it tells everyone what condition your heart is in.)

My moments of doubt are not that God exists, but that He has nothing but love towards me and my best interests at heart.

Not to put words in GI's mouth, but if you chose to look at things from a, IMO, incorrect perspective, it is possible to argue that both in the Garden and at the Cross Christ lost faith. However, I see both of these as examples of His greatest faith in that He clung to His mission in spite of feeling abbandoned and hopeless.

Thanks for the welcome, but I don't know that I have much to add that we haven't already discussed at length. You're right about Joshua, but it wasn't just Joshua. Many of the things that happened were God's direct actions or aided by them (walls falling, sun stopping etc.). The real issue is whether or not God has/had the right to judge and was His judgment righteous and who if any has the where with all to judge or question God's judgment like Job tried to do with little response other than to be made to recognize his complete in ability to debate, much less understand the infinite creator of the universe, God.

Indeed... how did I even get here...?

Ah.. a spin-off from 'universal morality' as proof of a god-given conscience... that was it. :)

Actually, for me, this has turned out to be a pretty good thread, so far... You have turned up, we've had an appearance from FutureExistence... If I can just hold out long enough, maybe Aluminia (spell?) will turn up - and this will be my dream religion-thread. :)

I try to avoid debates about knowing the will of 'god'... or questioning his mysterious ways... like you say, if 'god' exists, we all have to accept the fact that Job is an object lesson.

Regarding the topic... how does Pascal grab you? (If you don't mind).

Indeed... how did I even get here...?

Ah.. a spin-off from 'universal morality' as proof of a god-given conscience... that was it. :)

Actually, for me, this has turned out to be a pretty good thread, so far... You have turned up, we've had an appearance from FutureExistence... If I can just hold out long enough, maybe Aluminia (spell?) will turn up - and this will be my dream religion-thread. :)

I try to avoid debates about knowing the will of 'god'... or questioning his mysterious ways... like you say, if 'god' exists, we all have to accept the fact that Job is an object lesson.

Regarding the topic... how does Pascal grab you? (If you don't mind).
Pascal?? Not sure what you're referring to so I guess He, She, It, doesn't really grab me. If it is a new arrival here, I haven't had time to keep up with this place as much as I'd like to. My work place is getting progressively more restrictive of internet usage.

Not to put words in GI's mouth, but if you chose to look at things from a, IMO, incorrect perspective, it is possible to argue that both in the Garden and at the Cross Christ lost faith. However, I see both of these as examples of His greatest faith in that He clung to His mission in spite of feeling abbandoned and hopeless.
See - just one more reason why I love debating with PR... he can step outside far enough to see from the other perspective... even if he doesn't 'accept' that perspective.

Perfectly right, PR... those were the two instances. I agree with you, that those two episodes are examples of his greatest faith... and (possibly for slightly different reasons) that it was because he carried on despite his fears... the difference, I suspect, is that I see strength here in a mortal losing faith in the divine, and still going forward, despite his impending death.

Yes - these are examples of his greatest faith, but ALSO, of the moments where (even if only for a moment) he loses faith... he questions his purpose and his divine cause.

Oh, and as for universal or objective truth... here's a question for you:

If universal truth exists, how would it be possible for a finite individual to be certain they had found it?

I am curious as to what you believe are the things that are "right" for all... not that I wish to stray too far into relativism... but it is hard to imagine a series of 'ideas' that COULD be universally applicable, in ALL situations.

Regarding the laws at Sinai... I don't see how you can argue against the Hebrews seeing rape as morally valid, when it is given as equivalent to betrothal...

Deuteronomy 22:29 "Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days".

So - if a rapist can find an unmarried virgin, raping her is the mechanism that legitimises paying a small dowry to the family, and then gaining her as wife?

Certainly seems that there is some moral ambiguity.

Also - Deuteronomy 20:14 "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee".

So - the women of a conquered city are 'taken' by the conquering army, forcibly, as 'spoils'.
I can't give a definitive list of the things I believe are morally right for all, but if I started composing a list, it would include the three I already listed in a previous post (generosity, forgiveness, unconditional love), and would also contain honesty, faithfulness within marriage, refusing bribes, and undivided loyalty to God.

On the Sinai laws, Deut. 22:29 does contain the penalty that the husband may NEVER divorce the woman who became his wife as a result of his rape of her. That definitely was a penalty in those days. This situation is not seen as equivalent to a normal betrothal, when the husband could divorce his wife by writhing her a certificate of divorce.

On the slave-girl issue, Deut. 21:10-14 says that if an Israelite rapes a slave-girl taken as captive after battle, then he can't sell her (as one could normally do with one's slaves) but must let her go free, or marry her. The woman gains more personal rights than if she had not not been raped, at the expense of the man who raped her.

I'm not saying we should have Sinai laws today; the covenant at Sinai was given to a particular people at a particular point in history, and some rules ARE culture-specific. Specifically, I'm saying rape was not considered morally valid.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]No... not at all... but you assumed that the other poster must be lacking in spiritual knowledge... perhaps because he hadn't read the bible...?


The other poster was saying something like God had never made an effort to contact the humans that He had made. Why would he say something like that if he had read the Bible? Did he miss Jesus?

This is my first attempt to enjoy such a discussion online. I see that many people are quite educated...this I have enjoyed.

Unfortunately, I now have to leave all you folk. I have a wife at home who is wating for me. It's been most enjoyable. I will come back to visit again one day hopefully.

In particular, I have enjoyed Grave_n_idle's discussions. You certianly have a good and tempered ability to discuss. I wish you all the best.

Before I go......

As for pulling apart the scriptures that show God commanding genocide, and so forth, it takes a good understanding of the times and the culture of the Bible to understand why God did this. I don't claim to have this, though I can understand more little by little, as I come to understand both God and human nature. I suppose there are many things that adults do that seem quite crazy, even wrong, to children, but later will one day appear good in their right sense. Particularly for children who live a long time after, and know next to nothing of the culture and background of the times. Ignorance should not make such bold judgements.

If the Bible was written to convince people into a false religion, the chaps who were responsible would certainly have done a whole lot better to leave out the blood and gore.....but I suspect they were committed to the truth, as they understood it, and when they wrote the Bible it was in hopes that the people who would read it would strive to understand rather than ridicule and condemn and discount. It has been said that ridicule is the refuge of the ignorant. I readily accept that I, like anyone else, am ignorant mostly of God's ways. I doubt that I know more than the average person. But perhaps my belief in God has taught me not to ridicule something I don't understand.

See - just one more reason why I love debating with PR... he can step outside far enough to see from the other perspective... even if he doesn't 'accept' that perspective.

Perfectly right, PR... those were the two instances. I agree with you, that those two episodes are examples of his greatest faith... and (possibly for slightly different reasons) that it was because he carried on despite his fears... the difference, I suspect, is that I see strength here in a mortal losing faith in the divine, and still going forward, despite his impending death.

Yes - these are examples of his greatest faith, but ALSO, of the moments where (even if only for a moment) he loses faith... he questions his purpose and his divine cause.

Well, if nothing else in my time here I have figured out how the mind of a learned athiest works. I think I'd describe what happened in those two instances as the definition of faith. They are when He continued on in the absense of evidence that His mission would be fulfilled. His actions were "the evidence of things hoped for" at that point in time.

Pascal?? Not sure what you're referring to so I guess He, She, It, doesn't really grab me. If it is a new arrival here, I haven't had time to keep up with this place as much as I'd like to. My work place is getting progressively more restrictive of internet usage.

Howdy, PR. I've been following this thread off and on, and I was wondering what your view would be of "Pascal's Wager" as rendered in the first post of the thread. If you've covered it elsewhere, I apologize and please disregard.
I realize some of these threads get so big, its very easy to miss stuff in the shuffle.
:)

Oh, and as for universal or objective truth... here's a question for you:

If universal truth exists, how would it be possible for a finite individual to be certain they had found it?

There is only one universal truth and that is that there is only one universal truth.

Howdy, PR. I've been following this thread off and on, and I was wondering what your view would be of "Pascal's Wager" as rendered in the first post of the thread. If you've covered it elsewhere, I apologize and please disregard.
:)

I should've known this is what we were discussing... I've covered it in threads many months past. I suppose I should have read the first post. I usually do, but I just jumped into this thread because my friend G_n_I happened to be here and I thought I'd see what he was discussing.

There are some senses in which Pascal's conclusion is valid. The problem is, if you are taking the gamble on a whim, rather than with the conviction of the truth about God it probably won't do you much good. The reason being is that it is more based on self-preservation than self-disinterested benevolence (love in its truest form). Taking the wager may lead to a true relationship with God, but the construct is really little more than one philosophers attempt to win other philosophers to his point of view, IMO.

Is that clear as mud??

There is only one universal truth and that is that there is only one universal truth.

According to whom or what and how can you be so certain?

Yes - these are examples of his greatest faith, but ALSO, of the moments where (even if only for a moment) he loses faith... he questions his purpose and his divine cause.
I see these as laying down the ground rules for some of the best parts of Christianity.

You're allowed to question, even bluntly demand answers (God's big, he can take it). But not doubt. You can't break the faith. The faith is it's own reward.

Oh, and as for universal or objective truth... here's a question for you:

If universal truth exists, how would it be possible for a finite individual to be certain they had found it?
Well that's how science works. You take two things that purport to be true, and explain the same things, find a contradiction, and design an experiment only one of them can survive. It's like when you have a bag of M&M's. You take two and squish them together, the first to break is the loser and is eaten. At the end you'll be left with one M&M, assuming two titans don't destroy each other, which is then sent back to Mars for breeding stock.

The problem is, if you are taking the gamble on a whim, rather than with the conviction of the truth about God it probably won't do you much good.

If you had/have "the conviction of the truth about God", I don't think you'd need the gamble in conjunction. And if the wager is only worthwhile in concert with the conviction, the wager seems unnecessary as the conviction would seem to be sufficient (and in my opinion necessary, if you were going to be sincerely and genuinely religious). I don't mean you personally, btw.

There is only one universal truth and that is that there is only one universal truth.

The universal truth is that there is no universal truth.

Wangle your heads around that one.

The universal truth is that there is no universal truth.

Wangle your heads around that one.

Doesnt work, the two parts of the sentence contradict each other.

Doesnt work, the two parts of the sentence contradict each other.

But isn't that the essence of religion? Believing in paradoxes?

Well that's how science works. You take two things that purport to be true, and explain the same things, find a contradiction, and design an experiment only one of them can survive. It's like when you have a bag of M&M's. You take two and squish them together, the first to break is the loser and is eaten. At the end you'll be left with one M&M, assuming two titans don't destroy each other, which is then sent back to Mars for breeding stock.


But even in science, you have only a "degree of certainty" as to whether or not your final conclusion is correct. The other problem is, that it assumes that there isn't something completely immeasurable by us finite humans that dictates the outcomes we see. That assumption is still faith, just not faith in God. There is nothing objective about our conclusions and or what they tell us about reality. They are only a subjective interpretation of our observations.

If you had/have "the conviction of the truth about God", I don't think you'd need the gamble in conjunction. And if the wager is only worthwhile in concert with the conviction, the wager seems unnecessary as the conviction would seem to be sufficient (and in my opinion necessary, if you were going to be sincerely and genuinely religious). I don't mean you personally, btw.

Sometimes though, the gamble may preceed the conviction, thus making it useful to some...

But isn't that the essence of religion? Believing in paradoxes?

I wouldn't say it is the essence of it, but it is something that happens in many religions. Of course, I believe there are no real paradoxes in true religion... just things that we have yet to attain the capacity to understand how they can co-exist.

But even in our uncertainty, we're able to describe just how uncertain we are, or at least should be. Science doesn't assume that everything can be measured. Rather when things can't be measured, not even through the contrivances of devious beings such as we, science tends to be suspicious of such occurances and tends to call them "religion" unless there is a particularly compelling reason not to. Science knows it's domain. Religion cannot, nor could it ever, make the same claim. And that is its great failing.

But even in our uncertainty, we're able to describe just how uncertain we are, or at least should be. Science doesn't assume that everything can be measured. Rather when things can't be measured, not even through the contrivances of devious beings such as we, science tends to be suspicious of such occurances and tends to call them "religion" unless there is a particularly compelling reason not to. Science knows it's domain. Religion cannot, nor could it ever, make the same claim. And that is its great failing.

For religion to have a "domain" it would cease to be religion. All experience, all data, all of life are interpreted through religion. In those instances when scientists interpretation become a filter for life and behavior they have become religion. And in neither case is it possible for finite beings to, with any real certainty, define "objective reality". To claim to do so is little more than an arrogant bluff to convince others that we know what we are talking about...

Dear God.

:headbang:

I'm actually a big fan of Pascal, and there have been billions of unsufferable stupidities that have been said about the Wager throughout the years. Here's a hint: if you can think of an objection in less than thirty seconds, Pascal probably thought of it too, and you're missing the point.

The Wager can't be explained without referring to Pascal's work with Fermat on probability theory. But, most importantly, Pascal doesn't ask for a rational decision for God but a wager, i.e. a gamble: a leap of faith.

Sometimes though, the gamble may preceed the conviction, thus making it useful to some...

I suppose its not impossible for the gamble to come before the conviction, but if the gamble in any way was the source of the conviction, I'd look at it as fruit of a tainted tree. If somebody was religious because they sensed or felt God in some way they can't completely explain, I'd believe them far more than somebody who came to believe after taking Pascal's Wager.

Dear God.

:headbang:

I'm actually a big fan of Pascal, and there have been billions of unsufferable stupidities that have been said about the Wager throughout the years. Here's a hint: if you can think of an objection in less than thirty seconds, Pascal probably thought of it too, and you're missing the point.

The Wager can't be explained without referring to Pascal's work with Fermat on probability theory. But, most importantly, Pascal doesn't ask for a rational decision for God but a wager, i.e. a gamble: a leap of faith.

The problem with the frame work of his arguement, IMO, is that it is a "what have I got to lose?" position. The leap of faith is as minimized as it can possibly be. His conclusion is, essentially, that you have nothing to lose by taking the gamble. He is saying it's a no risk proposition, so you might as well take it.

The reality is that there are risks, particularly in this life for taking it. Some have been more severe at other times in earth's history and some are more or less important depending on an individual's priorities. I'm sorry, but I don't see his position as being particularly accurate, much less a leap of genuine faith.

I suppose its not impossible for the gamble to come before the conviction, but if the gamble in any way was the source of the conviction, I'd look at it as fruit of a tainted tree. If somebody was religious because they sensed or felt God in some way they can't completely explain, I'd believe them far more than somebody who came to believe after taking Pascal's Wager.

But for some, they become exposed to true religion and chose true religion because they have taken Pascal's wager. It isn't that the wager=true religion, but it can be, in the words of Paul, a use "of all means, that if by any means I might save some."

But for some, they become exposed to true religion and chose true religion because they have taken Pascal's wager. It isn't that the wager=true religion, but it can be, in the words of Paul, a use "of all means, that if by any means I might save some."

Since Pascal was speaking of the Catholic religion and you mention Paul's quote,the assumption is made that christianity is the "true religion" that could save me if I 1)took the wager or 2) saw the truth.
It has been asked,why christianity and their triune godhead?Why not any of the other religions in the world?What makes it true?Number of adherents,age of the religion,global moral tenets,verity of writings,accuracy of prophecies?

Humans choose to believe and revel in the emotional "proof" of transferrance.
Humans choose not to believe and revel in their reason.
If there is a God and you don't believe,the loss is God's,not yours.

But for some, they become exposed to true religion and chose true religion because they have taken Pascal's wager. It isn't that the wager=true religion, but it can be, in the words of Paul, a use "of all means, that if by any means I might save some."

Based on your posts, I believe that when you say ALL means, you are referring to all ethical, fair, and respectful means of conversion. You seem like that sort to me. But I can see where some might be concerned about the phrase "use of all means, that if by any means I might save some".

I'm not referring to Pascal's Wager, just saying that I have some reservation about the idea of "all means, that if by any means" as it is practiced by some.

pascal's wager can't get you anywhere.
1) there are an infinite number of possible dieties
2) each of those infinite dieties has an infinite variety of choices in terms of reward and punishment
3) each of those infinite dieties have an infinite number of criteria for deciding how to dish out that infinite variety of rewards and punishments.

your chances of picking the right diety are vanishingly small; non-existent really. even if you happen to guess right, that doesn't guarantee you get a reward. the real god may just punish everybody. or maybe they reward everybody. or maybe they only punish those who believe in them. etc. the wager gives no rational reason to choose any particular god over another.

it certainly wouldn't lead you to the proper faith. after all, the only reward you can hope for in the true faith is to be eaten first

http://img254.echo.cx/img254/3083/cthulhu166ed.jpg
:p
I have wagered on them all as I am a recovering wageraholic.Please send enough money to let me ride the Pink Unicorn. :D

Aetheriumina of the Dead See Rolls

But for some, they become exposed to true religion and chose true religion because they have taken Pascal's wager. It isn't that the wager=true religion, but it can be, in the words of Paul, a use "of all means, that if by any means I might save some."

Isn't one of the myriad excuses they used for enslaving various peoples?

I can't give a definitive list of the things I believe are morally right for all, but if I started composing a list, it would include the three I already listed in a previous post (generosity, forgiveness, unconditional love), and would also contain honesty, faithfulness within marriage, refusing bribes, and undivided loyalty to God.

On the Sinai laws, Deut. 22:29 does contain the penalty that the husband may NEVER divorce the woman who became his wife as a result of his rape of her. That definitely was a penalty in those days. This situation is not seen as equivalent to a normal betrothal, when the husband could divorce his wife by writhing her a certificate of divorce.

On the slave-girl issue, Deut. 21:10-14 says that if an Israelite rapes a slave-girl taken as captive after battle, then he can't sell her (as one could normally do with one's slaves) but must let her go free, or marry her. The woman gains more personal rights than if she had not not been raped, at the expense of the man who raped her.

I'm not saying we should have Sinai laws today; the covenant at Sinai was given to a particular people at a particular point in history, and some rules ARE culture-specific. Specifically, I'm saying rape was not considered morally valid.

Morally valid - just on a slightly different level, surely?

It wasn't considered morally INVALID to rape a slave, for example... you just had to accord her a different set of parameters to those you had to accord a non-raped slave girl. Okay - you don't get to sell the slave you raped (which most cultures consider as two sins already), but you do get to free her or marry her... nobody is getting killed or castrated, here... or, in fact, suffering any punishment, really.

So - you rape a slave, you have to let her go when you are finished... hardly a punishment. What is HER recourse? See my point?

You are confusing 'equal' treatment with 'accepted' treatment. The man who rapes the girl and has to marry her.. his action is accepted, but not equal to the normal betrothal. Still - it IS a morally accepted route.

I agree with you that, if there WERE a table of paragon virtues... forgiveness SHOULD be on it, unconditional love is less certain, since I believe it is beyond the capacity of most people in most situations. Generosity... I'm not so sure about... to be 'perfectly' generous, would require a communist society, and most Christians seem to fear communism.

I think refusal to take bribes is PART of honesty, and I agree - that would be an 'ideal' virtue.

There are two of your assertions that I don't believe could EVER be considered as universally moral...

I have to disagree on the undivided loyalty to 'god', since 'god' is an irrelevence to the life of many people... many other people have numerous gods (which situation DEMANDS divided loyalty) - and, I hardly think that any religion can ever be described as morally right FOR ALL.

Regarding your other 'morally right' virtue - faithfulness in marriage? Isn't that a little arbitrary? What about cultures that don't marry? What about those that do not practice monogamy?

The other poster was saying something like God had never made an effort to contact the humans that He had made. Why would he say something like that if he had read the Bible? Did he miss Jesus?


Many people do not find the same 'truth' in Jesus, that you find. I have been there, and seen that truth... but now feel that I was deceived... that Jesus (if he lived) was mortal man, only... and that (while he MAY have been wise) he was unlikely to have been any kind of true 'messenger' of 'god', much less the 'son of god'.


This is my first attempt to enjoy such a discussion online. I see that many people are quite educated...this I have enjoyed.

Unfortunately, I now have to leave all you folk. I have a wife at home who is wating for me. It's been most enjoyable. I will come back to visit again one day hopefully.

In particular, I have enjoyed Grave_n_idle's discussions. You certianly have a good and tempered ability to discuss. I wish you all the best.


Why, thank you. :)


As for pulling apart the scriptures that show God commanding genocide, and so forth, it takes a good understanding of the times and the culture of the Bible to understand why God did this. I don't claim to have this, though I can understand more little by little, as I come to understand both God and human nature. I suppose there are many things that adults do that seem quite crazy, even wrong, to children, but later will one day appear good in their right sense. Particularly for children who live a long time after, and know next to nothing of the culture and background of the times. Ignorance should not make such bold judgements.

If the Bible was written to convince people into a false religion, the chaps who were responsible would certainly have done a whole lot better to leave out the blood and gore.....


Actually - many cultures have religions heavily accentuating those particular aspects of the religion. Many 'religious' people seem to LIKE the idea of vengeful gods, tides of blood, etc.


but I suspect they were committed to the truth, as they understood it, and when they wrote the Bible it was in hopes that the people who would read it would strive to understand rather than ridicule and condemn and discount. It has been said that ridicule is the refuge of the ignorant. I readily accept that I, like anyone else, am ignorant mostly of God's ways. I doubt that I know more than the average person. But perhaps my belief in God has taught me not to ridicule something I don't understand.

You assume that most of the people who do not agree with the bible 'ridicule' it because they are 'ignorant'... I believe this is a flawed assumption.

Firstly - because saying 'the book is full of rape and murder' is a matter of perception... and the opinion of someone else is just as valid as your own... even if you do not agree with them.

Secondly - most of the people you are likely to debate with (ignoring those who hop in and out, throwing 'flame' comments) are likely to have read the bible, and are likely to be quite well educated... many of them are also ex-Christians... giving them even deeper insight. Thus - ignorance is hardly a sustainable claim.

Well, if nothing else in my time here I have figured out how the mind of a learned athiest works. I think I'd describe what happened in those two instances as the definition of faith. They are when He continued on in the absense of evidence that His mission would be fulfilled. His actions were "the evidence of things hoped for" at that point in time.

I utterly agree. He continued on in the absence of evidence, and thus - truly lived what 'faith' is.

I still hold, that those moments were ALSO a 'losing' of faith... but I don't see that as a bad thing.

If God REALLY wanted Jesus to be perfect, he would never have clothed him in human skin. The secret was for Jesus to OVERCOME the weaknesses of the flesh, not to ignore them.

At least - that's the way my 'Christian-brain' sees it. :)

Am I now a "Learned Atheist"? Rats.. that means I have to replace my "Godles Heathen" bumper sticker....

Doesnt work, the two parts of the sentence contradict each other.
Honestly, you humans think in such three-dimensional terms....

I should've known this is what we were discussing... I've covered it in threads many months past. I suppose I should have read the first post. I usually do, but I just jumped into this thread because my friend G_n_I happened to be here and I thought I'd see what he was discussing.

There are some senses in which Pascal's conclusion is valid. The problem is, if you are taking the gamble on a whim, rather than with the conviction of the truth about God it probably won't do you much good. The reason being is that it is more based on self-preservation than self-disinterested benevolence (love in its truest form). Taking the wager may lead to a true relationship with God, but the construct is really little more than one philosophers attempt to win other philosophers to his point of view, IMO.

Is that clear as mud??

Makes perfect sense to me. :)

Enlightenment can never really come from a either/or decision.

But even in science, you have only a "degree of certainty" as to whether or not your final conclusion is correct. The other problem is, that it assumes that there isn't something completely immeasurable by us finite humans that dictates the outcomes we see. That assumption is still faith, just not faith in God. There is nothing objective about our conclusions and or what they tell us about reality. They are only a subjective interpretation of our observations.

Actually - I disagree. (I know, I know... you're shocked to hear ME say that...)


The scientist, if truly following the Scientific Method, never expects to be certain. You can only ever make an educated guess, based on as much information as you can find that is connected, related or parallel to the situation.

It is unscientific to assume that there isn't "something completely immeasurable" - it is just not scientific to INCLUDE such a parameter in a mechanism or theory.

So - there is no 'belief' that there is no 'god'... not in true science - by which I mean, Science carried out true to the Scientific Method. All there is, is the practise of observing a phenomenon, recording and hopefully repeating that phenomenon, and then trying to ascertain a mechanism by which that phenomenon COULD be explained.

Perhaps the ONLY answer in a given situation WOULD be 'god'? This is a possibility... although not a suituation that I am aware has really happened thus far.... but it is not scientific to factor that 'immeasurable' possibility in as a base assumption.

I have a problem with the word aetheist, in that an aetheist BELIEVES that there is no God. In this case Pascals Wager always works.

I prefer the term agnostic. No belief, because one knows that he can't get a provable answer either way.

Being a fan of christian morality, though not a beliver in the spirtuality, I have always thought that God, should he exist, would prefer people not to believe in him, but just the validity of his morals/wisdom.

Do people believe that rape is wrong because God says so or because it is an evil act that transcends the word of God?

Agnosticism is the future. We are imperfect, we are falliable, so any man or woman who claims that God exists, that they have faith, must have a good chance of being wrong (looking at the history of all theoretical beliefs - the world is flat, non-whites are subhuman). The only person who cannot be wrong is the agnostic, who puts his hand on his heart and says "I dunno". Which, in my mind, gets rid of pointless thoughts about the existence of an unprovable god, and instead allows one to focus on the nature of morality, the man-monkey, etc.

Which makes me think I am going to post another thread...

I have a problem with the word aetheist, in that an aetheist BELIEVES that there is no God. In this case Pascals Wager always works.

I prefer the term agnostic. No belief, because one knows that he can't get a provable answer either way.

Being a fan of christian morality, though not a beliver in the spirtuality, I have always thought that God, should he exist, would prefer people not to believe in him, but just the validity of his morals/wisdom.

Do people believe that rape is wrong because God says so or because it is an evil act that transcends the word of God?

Agnosticism is the future. We are imperfect, we are falliable, so any man or woman who claims that God exists, that they have faith, must have a good chance of being wrong (looking at the history of all theoretical beliefs - the world is flat, non-whites are subhuman). The only person who cannot be wrong is the agnostic, who puts his hand on his heart and says "I dunno". Which, in my mind, gets rid of pointless thoughts about the existence of an unprovable god, and instead allows one to focus on the nature of morality, the man-monkey, etc.

Which makes me think I am going to post another thread...

Flawed assumption, friend.

Not ALL Atheists "believe that there is no god".

Explicit Atheists believe there are no gods...

Implicit Atheists just do NOT believe that there ARE gods...

It's a subtle difference.

An interesting discussion on another forum: http://www.selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?f=33&i=124284&t=124284

Anyway, I agree. We can never tell if ALL descriptions of gods are impossible, but we can certainly tell that 'certain' descriptions of gods are. ;)

Here's what I've wrote sometime back.
Pardon my English. =)

http://wadejq.blogspot.com/2004/11/certainty-illusion-of-self-deluding.html
http://wadejq.blogspot.com/2005/02/fear-of-god.html

I'm a 'fallable Atheist'...I believe that it is highly unlikely that there is a god. But will certainly believe in one if irrefutable evidence exists.

Cheers,
Wade

I'll let you in on a little secret. I am God. I hate you, and I'm planning on sending you to hell in the afterlife, but I will reconsider if you send me a one-off payment of $50.

Think about it
If you send me the money and I'm God, you win bigtime.
If you don't send me the money and I'm God, you lose bigtime.
If you send me the money and I'm not God, all you lose is 50 measely bucks. Compared to, say, the Christian religion, which requires a couple of hours of worship every week and 10% of your income, that's pretty cheap.

I look forward to recieving your payment.

Sincerely, God. (Sventria)


*hack*New Age thinking blasphemer*cough*

[...]Atheists are risking the loss of a finite life of happiness followed by an infinity of happiness, in exchange for a finite life of pleasure.[...]

Endure the hardships of your opressed lives, was the message told to the serfs by the Orthodox priests in Imperial Russia, endure this life, for in the next you will be rewarded.

Or so it was while the church allied itself with the oppressive government ...

Here's what I've wrote sometime back.
Pardon my English. =)

http://wadejq.blogspot.com/2004/11/certainty-illusion-of-self-deluding.html
http://wadejq.blogspot.com/2005/02/fear-of-god.html

I'm a 'fallable Atheist'...I believe that it is highly unlikely that there is a god. But will certainly believe in one if irrefutable evidence exists.

Cheers,
Wade


well, you can knock out Islam as a choice. Islam clearly contradicts itself. It says Jesus was a prophet, yet says that prophets do not lie. Jesus says he was the Son of God, so he wasn't lying, but Islam says he was. explanation?

you know the "Greek gods"? it says in exodus that the Sons of God (meaning the angels) had intercourse with human woman, and their children became the heroes of old, referring to the Greek "gods". the Greeks, and Romans for that matter, understood that they had great power, but they were worshiping beings who served the one meant to be worshipped

Grave_n_idle-

Flawed assumption, friend.

Not ALL Atheists "believe that there is no god".

Explicit Atheists believe there are no gods...

Implicit Atheists just do NOT believe that there ARE gods...

It's a subtle difference.


I'd actually challenge your assumptions about the word atheist.

The implcit athesit (your definition) does not believe one way or the other - this would mean he is actually an agnostic.

"Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God." - from the Skeptics dictionary - http://www.skepdic.com/atheism.html


When one has no belief one is an agnostic (willing to argue almost anything).

My own personal problem is that I believe in reality - something which has put me at odds with agnostic arguments about the possibility that nothing exists at all (not belief, but possibility).


Wade Gabriel -

Anyway, I agree. We can never tell if ALL descriptions of gods are impossible, but we can certainly tell that 'certain' descriptions of gods are.

How so. What certain description can be proved wrong, when the gods are not governed by the scientific laws... could you ever prove that a spirit does not reside in your computer, even though we know that at no point in the computer's construction was a spirit added?

well, you can knock out Islam as a choice. Islam clearly contradicts itself. It says Jesus was a prophet, yet says that prophets do not lie. Jesus says he was the Son of God, so he wasn't lying, but Islam says he was. explanation?

Show me where Jesus explicitly refers to himself as the Son of God, in terms that cannot be used by any practising christian. As far as my understanding of the bible goes is that all humans are children of the God-father, and if Jesus calls God 'dad' it is only because we all can.

At no point does Jesus say that he is not 100% human; he simply has welcomed God into his heart, and benefits where others do not.

I am sure Jesus would have been more than happy to call you a '
Son of God', as would he have called Mohammed the Prophet, Buddha and Hitler.

In my mind the early christian church mis-taught this because they needed a symbolic figurehead, and when one is trying to convert followers of Zeus and Thor, it is useful to have a supreme being saying the words, than an observant human.

Perhaps this has been addressed already (Too many pages here to read). If you choose to profess belief in God because you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, is this not hypocracy. True belief can not come from fear of losing something if you are wrong, it must come because of your personal conviction. If an intelligent person comes to the conclusion that God does not exist the bigger sin would be to profess a belief in something that is contrary to what they have logically surmised.

If God does exist do you think He doesn't know the difference between a true believer and someone who professes a belief for whatever is to be gained by that lie? Do you believe in a God that would punish someone for thinking and coming to a reasonable conclusion based on available facts? Do you believe in a God who would smite those who inocently follow a different religious path than your own? If you answered yes to any of these questions then I want no part of your God. Apparently he is a stupid, thoughtless, evil being who punishes those who are innocent of any real crime.

Can I as a human be more compasionate than God? No.
Can I be more forgiving than God? No.
Can I be more intelligent than God? No.

If I were God I would be compasionate and forgiving toward those who did not believe in my existance because I would have the intelligence to know that belief (other than blind belief) is nearly impossible given the limited abilities of mankind to prove my existence. I would look at the deeds of the individual rather than religious affiliation.
Can I as a human be greater than God. No.
So if God is greater than me he knows and understands all of these things and loves those who does good regardless of their affiliation if any.

Grave_n_idle-




I'd actually challenge your assumptions about the word atheist.

The implcit athesit (your definition) does not believe one way or the other - this would mean he is actually an agnostic.

"Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God." - from the Skeptics dictionary - http://www.skepdic.com/atheism.html


When one has no belief one is an agnostic (willing to argue almost anything).

My own personal problem is that I believe in reality - something which has put me at odds with agnostic arguments about the possibility that nothing exists at all (not belief, but possibility).

Ah, you're making an age-old mistake, one that pretty much every one makes.

Agnostism is not in any way a middle ground where you simply do not believe, agnostism is the active belief that we don't know or cannot know whether or not a god or gods exist. You can have Agnostic Christians, Agnostic Hindus, and Agnostic Atheists. Because Christians and Hindus are both theists, they take their god(s) on faith, not requiring any absolute knowledge on the existance of their god to still believe.

In the same way, you have agnostic atheists, who don't believe in a god or gods and say it is impossible to know. This is kind of the same as the traditional middleground assumption, but it still maintains the active belief that it is impossible to know.

The other guy got the two types of atheism right.

Invisible Pink Unicorn?

How utterly ridiculous.

The only true god is Eris.


ALL HAIL DISCORDIA!!!!!

I can't give a definitive list of the things I believe are morally right for all, but if I started composing a list, it would include the three I already listed in a previous post (generosity, forgiveness, unconditional love), and would also contain honesty, faithfulness within marriage, refusing bribes, and undivided loyalty to God.

On the Sinai laws, Deut. 22:29 does contain the penalty that the husband may NEVER divorce the woman who became his wife as a result of his rape of her. That definitely was a penalty in those days. This situation is not seen as equivalent to a normal betrothal, when the husband could divorce his wife by writhing her a certificate of divorce.

On the slave-girl issue, Deut. 21:10-14 says that if an Israelite rapes a slave-girl taken as captive after battle, then he can't sell her (as one could normally do with one's slaves) but must let her go free, or marry her. The woman gains more personal rights than if she had not not been raped, at the expense of the man who raped her.

I'm not saying we should have Sinai laws today; the covenant at Sinai was given to a particular people at a particular point in history, and some rules ARE culture-specific. Specifically, I'm saying rape was not considered morally valid.

The laws or suggestions quoted give no redress to the victim.Women were equated as possessions and being a slave was doubly harsh.
Today,many societies and the majority of christians believe it morally reprehensible to treat any human as a possession. :rolleyes:

The enlightenment we believe we have learned from God's word to reject the idea of slavery and genocide is the same word the prophets supposedly wrote after contact with this God.If he were God and was against slavery and rape or genocide,why did he allow and legitimize these sins of the Bedouin culture? :confused:

These rules were created by man,ascribed to a god,and administered by rulers for control of the populace.Just as laws enacted in the early history of the United States pandered to wealthy and powerful landowners,these rules pandered to the wealthy and powerful of that era. :headbang:

Has it never bothered you that the forbidden fruit was knowledge?Reminds one of the same ruse used against the populace by the Catholic Church.The goal is control. :eek:

Aetheriumina

Shadowrider, you hit the nail on the head with that one. :D

Grave_n_idle-

I'd actually challenge your assumptions about the word atheist.

The implcit athesit (your definition) does not believe one way or the other - this would mean he is actually an agnostic.

"Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God." - from the Skeptics dictionary - http://www.skepdic.com/atheism.html


When one has no belief one is an agnostic (willing to argue almost anything).


I have found a very good source regarding the classifications of Atheism and Agnosticism, which has the potential to explore the subject a little deeper than a 'dictionary' reference.

An Agnostic is one that believes that it is impossible to know if there is a god. Logically, a sound argument... since there is no DEFINITE proof either way.

"Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being.

The term "agnostic" does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic".

Clearly, this is more than just 'not knowing either way'... many Agnostics are ALSO Atheists of one kind, or another... OR theists of one denomination, or another.

The Implicit Atheist does not REJECT the possibility of god - merely does not BELIEVE that there are any gods. Thus - the position is very close to Agnosticism, but differs on the knowledge element... the 'gnosis'. The Agnostic denies the possibility of gnosis, the Implicit Atheist does not.

"An implicit atheist is a person who does not believe in a god, but who has not explicitly rejected or denied the truth of theism. Implicit atheism does not require familiarity with the idea of a god.

For example, a person who has no knowledge of theistic belief does not believe in a god, nor does he deny the existence of such a being. Denial presupposes something to deny, and one cannot deny the truth of theism without first knowing what theism is. Man is not born with innate knowledge of the supernatural; until he is introduced to this idea or thinks of it himself, he is unable to affirm or deny its truth -- or even to "suspend" his judgment.
"

The Explicit Atheist believes that there ARE NO gods... rather than just 'disbelieving' those presented.

"An explicit atheist is one who rejects belief in a god. This deliberate rejection of theism presupposes familiarity with theistic beliefs and is sometimes characterized as anti-theism.

There are many motivations for explicit atheism, some rational and some not. Explicit atheism may be motivated by psychological factors. A man may disbelieve in god because he hates his religious parents, or because his wife deserted him for the neighborhood minister. Or, on a more sophisticated level, one may feel that life is futile and helpless, and that there is no emotional room for god in a tragic universe".

References: The Scope of Atheism

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smith.htm

Ah, you're making an age-old mistake, one that pretty much every one makes.

Agnostism is not in any way a middle ground where you simply do not believe, agnostism is the active belief that we don't know or cannot know whether or not a god or gods exist. You can have Agnostic Christians, Agnostic Hindus, and Agnostic Atheists. Because Christians and Hindus are both theists, they take their god(s) on faith, not requiring any absolute knowledge on the existance of their god to still believe.

In the same way, you have agnostic atheists, who don't believe in a god or gods and say it is impossible to know. This is kind of the same as the traditional middleground assumption, but it still maintains the active belief that it is impossible to know.

The other guy got the two types of atheism right.

Exactly. Thank you. :)

{There it is. I now put down the challenge to non-religious atheists, and to those who live a life of immorality and sin, to tell us why they choose the foolish side of the coin, and bet everything on the non-existence of God, when there is nothing to gain from this stance.}

While you don't specifically accuse all atheists of living a life of immorality and sin,the inference is definitely there.For your information,my morals and style of living is better than 60% of the "christians" I know.Their excuse? I'm not perfect,just forgiven.I have never cheated on my wife,not even when we were dating.I do not use illicit,illegal drugs,drink in moderation and never have abused my children. :eek:

Now,you tell me what you have gained,actually gained,not have faith you will gain,by taking the wager in fear of being wrong.The idea of a creator is plausible.The idea of the bible/jewish/christian/muslim god being real is not only illogical but patently ridiculous.Does Homers Illiad prove the existence of cyclops because the cities mentioned are real? :confused:

Humans were both honest and dishonest long before some priest decided to exert control by claiming to have heard from the gods.While some may need the threat of imminent and eternal harm to act morally and judiciously in society,others don't.

The wager smacks of condescension and sophism.Using an invalid yet widely believed premise to prey on the fear of the decieved for the purpose of sounding philosophically correct is the height of arrogance and sophistry. :p

Aetheriumina

Why don't you believe in any number of other religions? Why not believe in Shinto beliefs? You're not Japanese, but why take that chance? Pray to Zeus so you don't get hit by thunderbolts? It may not help, but why risk it? Ah, but both Zeus and Yahova will smite thee if you worship anyone else...

Christians should make life for themselves easier: children, after their first prayer, are murdered, so they end up in the good afterlife for sure. That speeds things up considerably and the kids get into heaven. That reminds me of the gay marriage argument - If no-one is allowed to marry, it’ll all be fair! And Christians’ll die out, as they can’t have sex before marriage!

Lol. ^_^

It just gives you all something contentious to dispute in this forum. And to flash your rapier wit at someone's expense. Atheists just love to do that. Or so it seems. I could do that as well, for that matter, but it is kinda pointless to do so. But it’s fun V_V

Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. Forgive the pun, but: Hell yeah!

In addition to this, it is mathematically incorrect to use infinity as a number: An integral from n (where n is a real number) to infinity is classified as an indefinite integral and cannot be calculated unless a limit is taken. And the problem with infinity in Mathematical philosophy is that technically we wouldn’t exist if we use it. Y’know, the old humanity has a finite population, and if the universe is infinite then the population density is finite number/ infinity, which is 0.

3. Ja in place of yeah. Stolen by thee. Now I will learn how to copy right these phrases but it will do me no good since well technically um Oh yeah I am to cheap to pay. How can you copy write the German language?


Okay, I don’t think that religion is all about the afterlife. Sure, most of the propaganda is, but there are other elements as well (elements in all senses of the word).


Hey, if someone drags a dead horse into the town square, don't be surprised if other people leap into the square to beat it. Isn’t the saying to kicka dead horse?

Do you know other forums where it is the other way round? TvTome. Hi5. Hotmail.

A question for anyone out there interested.......would people hate God (those who do hate him) so much if there were no Christians around? Probably not.

My point is that there are many things that scientists believe, indeed, know to exist, but that have never been observed directly. You mean like that particle that was supposed to have decomposed right after the big bang, and they are now spending 10 billion on a particle accelerator to find it? That’s theoritisising.

Let's take, for example, the origin of life. A very old example, but serves my purpose. Since science cannot explain it, much less demonstrate it, how is it that millions of people are convinced that life arose from non-life? *rips out hair* I am fed up of people not understanding this! Ammonia, Carbon Dioxide + Hydrogen (or Ammonia and Methane) dissolved in water. Add energy. Amino Acids are formed. Okay????

Mercury has been observed to break the 'Law' as the predcted motion of that planet is different from the measured path of the planet. What?

My personal viewpoint... (and I don't want any other Christians out there to be insulted by this, it IS my personal view) is that I was Christian because I was immature.

As I learned more about the way I worked, and the world worked around me... I realised that many things I had been 'told' were not true... and many things I had been told were 'evidence' of 'god', were equally explainable in other ways. I have to agree there.

OMG, God doesn’t exist! *thinks about what OMG actually means* Lol!

if they don't care, why do so many of them come to threads like these and scream at the theists who are attacking the idea of God's non-existence? Because theists do the same in the real world.

Conscience and even the belief in a superior diety is something we as humas evolved into. Because of fear. Once humans were sentient enough to realise that they would one day die, they became afraid of it and invented gods to help them and to give them courage.

Has it never bothered you that the forbidden fruit was knowledge?Reminds one of the same ruse used against the populace by the Catholic Church.The goal is control. Yeah, and the snake told the truth while the god told lies...

*Snip*

I hate that quote. "If you loose, you loose nothing"? How about your livelyhood on this Earth? How about our freedoms? I don't want to spend every Sunday in a building for something that doesn't exist. That's wasting my time.

Christians are risking the loss of immortality in Valhalla, where roast boar and mead abound. The heavy, sinful souls of Christians will outweigh the Feather of Truth placed on the scales by Anubis, and they will be devoured by Ammet, Eater of Souls.

See where I'm going with this? It's just a flawed argument. And I HAVE read the whole thing--look, think of it this way. Can you believe in leprechauns? There's no evidence but a bunch of fables, but can you believe in them? No? Well, I can't believe in a god with no evidence behind it but a bunch of stories that have as much validity as the tales of Thor and the words of a few people who say "Well gosh, the world's really pretty, so God must have made it right?"

First of all you mixed religions and second of all I believe in leprechauns.

Based on your posts, I believe that when you say ALL means, you are referring to all ethical, fair, and respectful means of conversion. You seem like that sort to me. But I can see where some might be concerned about the phrase "use of all means, that if by any means I might save some".

I'm not referring to Pascal's Wager, just saying that I have some reservation about the idea of "all means, that if by any means" as it is practiced by some.

Your are correct in your assumptions about how I would use that phrase. And I agree with your latter statement, there are people, particularly in the history of the Catholic church during the Dark Ages, though there are other good examples as well, where that use of "all means" has been taken grossly out of the context that Paul intended.

I utterly agree. He continued on in the absence of evidence, and thus - truly lived what 'faith' is.

I still hold, that those moments were ALSO a 'losing' of faith... but I don't see that as a bad thing.

If God REALLY wanted Jesus to be perfect, he would never have clothed him in human skin. The secret was for Jesus to OVERCOME the weaknesses of the flesh, not to ignore them.

At least - that's the way my 'Christian-brain' sees it. :)

Am I now a "Learned Atheist"? Rats.. that means I have to replace my "Godles Heathen" bumper sticker....


I guess, I'd just say it was losing a rational or emotional connection to evidence, rather than a giving up of faith, but that is probably a semantical arguement and re-defining faith to get that straight is probably of little value a this point as I think we understand each other well enough.

It is interesting that you mention the nature of Christ arguement here. I have a rather unusual belief on that subject in that I see Christ having been both Perfect and having the weaknesses of 4000 years worth of the degeneration caused by sin. But, of course that is a paradox I'm willing to accept until I can understand it more fully...

Oh, I almost forgot to respond to the latter phrases from your post... The Bumper sticker is probably a step in the right direction from Godless Heather :p ;) At least you have a "Christian Brain". :fluffle:

Actually - I disagree. (I know, I know... you're shocked to hear ME say that...)


The scientist, if truly following the Scientific Method, never expects to be certain. You can only ever make an educated guess, based on as much information as you can find that is connected, related or parallel to the situation.

It is unscientific to assume that there isn't "something completely immeasurable" - it is just not scientific to INCLUDE such a parameter in a mechanism or theory.

So - there is no 'belief' that there is no 'god'... not in true science - by which I mean, Science carried out true to the Scientific Method. All there is, is the practise of observing a phenomenon, recording and hopefully repeating that phenomenon, and then trying to ascertain a mechanism by which that phenomenon COULD be explained.

Perhaps the ONLY answer in a given situation WOULD be 'god'? This is a possibility... although not a suituation that I am aware has really happened thus far.... but it is not scientific to factor that 'immeasurable' possibility in as a base assumption.

But saying that even a majority of "scientists" practice science in that manner is kind of like the issue of "C"hristians and 'c'hristians don't you think??

Show me where Jesus explicitly refers to himself as the Son of God, in terms that cannot be used by any practising christian. As far as my understanding of the bible goes is that all humans are children of the God-father, and if Jesus calls God 'dad' it is only because we all can.

At no point does Jesus say that he is not 100% human; he simply has welcomed God into his heart, and benefits where others do not.

I am sure Jesus would have been more than happy to call you a '
Son of God', as would he have called Mohammed the Prophet, Buddha and Hitler.

In my mind the early christian church mis-taught this because they needed a symbolic figurehead, and when one is trying to convert followers of Zeus and Thor, it is useful to have a supreme being saying the words, than an observant human.

Please see John chapter 1 verses 1-3 and 14. Also, and I can look up the text if you really need it as I don't remember at the moment, there is the passage where the Pharisee's ask who Jesus believes He is and He invokes the most sacred name for God when his response was "before Abraham was, I AM." At which point they tried to kill Him.

There is a finite chance that the following is true:
A species of superintelligent extra-terrestrials has mathematically proven that there is not a God. They absolutely despise anyone who believes that there is a God and are very nice to those who agree with them on the subject. Because of their great intelligence, they have discovered a method for raising humans from the dead and then keeping them alive indefinately in a state of infinite happiness or infinite sadness. At some unknowable time in the future, these extra-terrestrials will come to Earth and grant all atheists, deceased and living, eternal infinite happiness, and subject all theists, deceased and living, to eternal infinite sadness.

Since the probability of this statement being true is finite, and since the possible risk or reward is infinite, it is entirly unwise to believe in God.

Of course, what this argument and Pascal's Wager neglect is the possiblity of infinite reward in favor of the other viewpoint.

-Note: I am a theist, but Pascal's wager is rediculous.

I guess, I'd just say it was losing a rational or emotional connection to evidence, rather than a giving up of faith, but that is probably a semantical arguement and re-defining faith to get that straight is probably of little value a this point as I think we understand each other well enough.


Indeed - I see the angle you are playing, you see the angle I am playing... we both accord some value to the other perspective... and everyone is happy. :)


It is interesting that you mention the nature of Christ arguement here. I have a rather unusual belief on that subject in that I see Christ having been both Perfect and having the weaknesses of 4000 years worth of the degeneration caused by sin. But, of course that is a paradox I'm willing to accept until I can understand it more fully...


Personally - when using my 'christian-brain', I always find myself faced with the necessity for Jesus to be human. The sacrifice of life is much more significant if he was ONLY mortal. The suffering at the hands of Roman soldiers is much more visceral if he was ONLY mortal. The attempt to live a 'perfect' life is much more incredible if he was ONLY mortal.

A man who spreads wisdom and love, only - who is willing to die for those values, is a poignant reminder of what we COULD all be... but so many fall so short.

A man who dies for love seems much more heroic than an immortal that casts aside mortal flesh.

Does that mean that Jesus cannot be resurrected? Not at all - on the contrary, my 'christian-brain' would insist that Jesus followed the precedent of his fore-fathers, and was 'translated'.

A son of God before his death, perhaps... and THE son of God, after... maybe?


Oh, I almost forgot to respond to the latter phrases from your post... The Bumper sticker is probably a step in the right direction from Godless Heather :p ;) At least you have a "Christian Brain". :fluffle:

And, I believe I shall take that as a compliment. :) :fluffle:

But saying that even a majority of "scientists" practice science in that manner is kind of like the issue of "C"hristians and 'c'hristians don't you think??

Oh, indeed, I absolutely agree.

We are both persuing ideals, and perhaps, seldom-met ideals at that.

Pseudo-scientists are the same ilk as pseudo-Christians... both are (ultimately) nothing but harm to their 'own side', and nothing but sand-in-the-gears of their 'opposition'.

Indeed - I see the angle you are playing, you see the angle I am playing... we both accord some value to the other perspective... and everyone is happy. :)



Personally - when using my 'christian-brain', I always find myself faced with the necessity for Jesus to be human. The sacrifice of life is much more significant if he was ONLY mortal. The suffering at the hands of Roman soldiers is much more visceral if he was ONLY mortal. The attempt to live a 'perfect' life is much more incredible if he was ONLY mortal.

A man who spreads wisdom and love, only - who is willing to die for those values, is a poignant reminder of what we COULD all be... but so many fall so short.

A man who dies for love seems much more heroic than an immortal that casts aside mortal flesh.

Does that mean that Jesus cannot be resurrected? Not at all - on the contrary, my 'christian-brain' would insist that Jesus followed the precedent of his fore-fathers, and was 'translated'.

A son of God before his death, perhaps... and THE son of God, after... maybe?



And, I believe I shall take that as a compliment. :) :fluffle:

It was meant to be a compliment, though not necessarily with the typo... :rolleyes:

I think what your missing in Christ (God) becoming both God and Human is that He willingly gave up Immortality and suffered a death that He could not see beyond, at least at the Cross, hence "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me". I see this sacrifice as being even beyond that which any "ONLY" human could give and there is the other issue of it taking one equal to the law (it's creator) to pay the penalty of the law for others.

Oh, indeed, I absolutely agree.

We are both persuing ideals, and perhaps, seldom-met ideals at that.

Pseudo-scientists are the same ilk as pseudo-Christians... both are (ultimately) nothing but harm to their 'own side', and nothing but sand-in-the-gears of their 'opposition'.

G_n_I, I'm getting a little worried... we're agreeing far to often here. Aren't we supposed to be on opposite sides :confused: ;) :p :fluffle: :D

It was meant to be a compliment, though not necessarily with the typo... :rolleyes:

I think what your missing in Christ (God) becoming both God and Human is that He willingly gave up Immortality and suffered a death that He could not see beyond, at least at the Cross, hence "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me". I see this sacrifice as being even beyond that which any "ONLY" human could give and there is the other issue of it taking one equal to the law (it's creator) to pay the penalty of the law for others.

I see your point... if you think of it in those terms, the sacrifice was giving up mortal life AND surrendering an eternity as 'god'... which is definitely a bigger loss... although I think the mortal loss would be the more emotionally charged issue.

However (didn't see that coming, huh?), I think, perhaps, this wouldn't have been too worrying... since Jesus preached absolute forgiveness. Thus - he could envision that all of his sins would be forgiven, and he would STILL inherit the Kingdom after his death.

And, the way I see it - he wouldn't have feared the loss of 'godhood' before his death, because he wouldn't have been translated through apotheosis until after his death.... kind of... a reward scheme for being a good boy. :)

Regarding the 'one equal to the law'.... could it not be argued that a person bearing ALL the transgressions against the law, was 'equal' to the law?

G_n_I, I'm getting a little worried... we're agreeing far to often here. Aren't we supposed to be on opposite sides :confused: ;) :p :fluffle: :D

I THINK we are allowed to agree... it's in the fineprint somewhere....

:)

Personally - it's the exchange of ideas that I find stimulating... whether it be by argument or by agreement... so, it's all good. :)

:fluffle:

I see your point... if you think of it in those terms, the sacrifice was giving up mortal life AND surrendering an eternity as 'god'... which is definitely a bigger loss... although I think the mortal loss would be the more emotionally charged issue.

However (didn't see that coming, huh?), I think, perhaps, this wouldn't have been too worrying... since Jesus preached absolute forgiveness. Thus - he could envision that all of his sins would be forgiven, and he would STILL inherit the Kingdom after his death.

And, the way I see it - he wouldn't have feared the loss of 'godhood' before his death, because he wouldn't have been translated through apotheosis until after his death.... kind of... a reward scheme for being a good boy. :)

Regarding the 'one equal to the law'.... could it not be argued that a person bearing ALL the transgressions against the law, was 'equal' to the law?

That's just the thing though. He did preach forgiveness, but that was for those who accept His substitutionary sacrifice. He was uncertain, at least at the cross that His sacrifice would sufficient for Himself. He knew it would work for us, but not for Himself. He didn't know that He personally would see the other side of death which is the anguish He expressed when crying out "My God My God..."

As for the equal to the law issue, lets consider U.S. Law for a moment. If I commit murder and am sentenced to death and you volunteer to take my place, do you think that would be accepted? To make that kind of exception there would have to be new statutes and provisions in the law made, by the law maker. With God's law, "the wages of sin is death", only God Himself could provide an execption to that. Of course, if He provided an execption to that, Lucifer's position that God's law was unfair, unjust and unreasonable would be substantiated. So, in an act that both irrevocably establishes the validity of the law and at the same time provides for loving forgiveness to those that acknowledge that the Law is perfect and accept that a sacrifice had to be made in their place, God has done what humanity is incapable of doing for itself. And, it took a combination of God and humanity to pull it off.

I THINK we are allowed to agree... it's in the fineprint somewhere....

:)

Personally - it's the exchange of ideas that I find stimulating... whether it be by argument or by agreement... so, it's all good. :)

:fluffle:

Actually, I am glad we are able to find agreement. And, yes, the exchange of ideas by reasonable arguement or agreement is quite enjoyable. :D

First of all you mixed religions and second of all I believe in leprechauns. I think that that was the idea...