NationStates Jolt Archive

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

"Evidence that demands a verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185078552X/qid=1120832431/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785243631/qid=1120832431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"Jesus who is he" Tim LaHaye (cant find a link for this one, but I'm reading it at the moment and its great)

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies.
Depends on what you mean by "the supernatural". Do you realise that the mind is supernatural?

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

If you wish to have a TRUE case, suggest different authors.

Both Josh McDowell AND LeHaye (left behind) have got SERIOUS logical problems.

These two persons are considered sad JOKES by the A/A communities that I know of.

My agnosticism (rather than full-blown atheism) is based on the fact that Christianity, Islam, and the religion from which they sprung: Judaism, were basically started by patricarchal extremists as a reaction to the predominant matriarchal pagan religions of the time.

Men were insecure about their sexual inferiority to women (who can bear children - hence their deification as 'creators' - and have orgasm after orgasm, while men are done after the first, by and large..), thus a small faction of mystics within the nomadic Hebrew people created a 'cult' of followers emphasising a masculine, conservative, logical god ('Yahweh/Jehova') to undermine the social and sexual dominace of women. It took a couple of thousand years, but eventually it gained enough popularity to act as a catalyst for the Hebrews' later escape and exodus from Egypt. Upon returning to Caanan, they found that it was full of Caananites, so slaughtered them all, for the 'Promised Land' in which they'd lived for only a couple of decades years previously.

All laws, politics, dogma, industry and economy are in one way or another based on maintaining a (forcibly seized) masculine dominance of society. It is entirely possible that the god Yahweh (aka 'God', Allah, Jehova) was a cynical artifical construct to bolster the cause of masculine dominance, emphasis on 'Father', 'Lord', 'Saviour' as opposed to 'Mother' 'Mistress' and 'Nature' - tenets common all over the world at that time (and some which remain today). Pagan rituals like sacrificing animals, having orgies, gazing at stars and constellations must have really got to these uptight, insecure, anal patricarch figures.

These modern religions all started off as cults, remember, no more or less credible than the Roman or Greek god panethon. Do you chuckle at stories of Dionysus - god of getting leathered and going on the piss - and his celestial buddies? Do you think: 'did people really and honestly believe that?'? Well, a 500BC Roman citizen would laugh at you for believing in an omnipotent fatherly god.. Who's right? It just so happened that the Yahweh-based religions gained massive popularity over a long drawn-out process of pitching, publicising, prosletysing, cajoling, commonly as a pretext for war or invasion (funny how things change :rolleyes: )..

So, sure, spirituality is important and a natural human instinct. But religion as a concept is a thinly-veiled example of social control, and I always wonder why people just can't seem to realise that. To me it seems glaringly obvious.

In laymens' terms: it's all a crock. Simple as.

NB: I have no feminist axe to grind, feminism became ridiculous after about 5 minutes in the 60's. In any case I'm a guy.

*snip*

I applaud this new perspective, even though I think it is incorrect. :D:D:D:D Thank you for bringing in some fresh air into this argument.

I believe that many 'supernatural' things are entirely possible, I just don't believe in any gods.

Lee Strobel also publishes some nice books dealing with the necessity of a Creator and the biggest challanges to Christianity such as God ordering Israel to slaughter Amalekites and such.

*Atheists, thanks.

God, I love being proselytized by Chrischins.

*snip* [/SIZE]

Bravo.

In a rather ironic situation my agnosticism was culled and turned to full-blown atheism when my father egan to train as a priest.

i though - what god of any sort would want their priests to be in agony because they've had to rip their family out by the roots and drag it away from where it was comfortable. Hey, it sucks having to move halfway through your GCSEs for something you doubt exists.

I love poetic irony.

My agnosticism (rather than full-blown atheism) is based on the fact that Christianity, Islam, and the religion from which they sprung: Judaism, were basically started by patricarchal extremists as a reaction to the predominant matriarchal pagan religions of the time.

Men were insecure about their sexual inferiority to women (who can bear children - hence their deification as 'creators' - and have orgasm after orgasm, while men are done after the first, by and large..), thus a small faction of mystics within the nomadic Hebrew people created a 'cult' of followers emphasising a masculine, conservative, logical god ('Yahweh/Jehova') to undermine the social and sexual dominace of women. It took a couple of thousand years, but eventually it gained enough popularity to act as a catalyst for the Hebrews' later escape and exodus from Egypt. Upon returning to Caanan, they found that it was full of Caananites, so slaughtered them all, for the 'Promised Land' in which they'd lived for only a couple of decades years previously.

All laws, politics, dogma, industry and economy are in one way or another based on maintaining a (forcibly seized) masculine dominance of society. It is entirely possible that the god Yahweh (aka 'God', Allah, Jehova) was a cynical artifical construct to bolster the cause of masculine dominance, emphasis on 'Father', 'Lord', 'Saviour' as opposed to 'Mother' 'Mistress' and 'Nature' - tenets common all over the world at that time (and some which remain today). Pagan rituals like sacrificing animals, having orgies, gazing at stars and constellations must have really got to these uptight, insecure, anal patricarch figures.

These modern religions all started off as cults, remember, no more or less credible than the Roman or Greek god panethon. Do you chuckle at stories of Dionysus - god of getting leathered and going on the piss - and his celestial buddies? Do you think: 'did people really and honestly believe that?'? Well, a 500BC Roman citizen would laugh at you for believing in an omnipotent fatherly god.. Who's right? It just so happened that the Yahweh-based religions gained massive popularity over a long drawn-out process of pitching, publicising, prosletysing, cajoling, commonly as a pretext for war or invasion (funny how things change :rolleyes: )..

So, sure, spirituality is important and a natural human instinct. But religion as a concept is a thinly-veiled example of social control, and I always wonder why people just can't seem to realise that. To me it seems glaringly obvious.

In laymens' terms: it's all a crock. Simple as.

NB: I have no feminist axe to grind, feminism became ridiculous after about 5 minutes in the 60's. In any case I'm a guy.



:rolleyes:

hmmm, i'm sorta atheist (by that i mean that i think god is an a-hole) and i believe in the supernatural

I'm agnostic. Well, more like agnostic humanist. I don't consider it possible to know one way or the other, honestly.

Furthermore, I am not going to go out and buy some books by authors whose credibility is lacking for the purpose of discussing it in this thread. Perhaps if, instead of simply saying "read this and your questions will be answered" (which in itself is highly unlikely) you could provide a short summary of the principle points in these books that make them so convincing.

:rolleyes:
You think that sounds any more rediculous than your entire religion?

i though - what god of any sort would want their priests to be in agony because they've had to rip their family out by the roots and drag it away from where it was comfortable. Hey, it sucks having to move halfway through your GCSEs for something you doubt exists.
Yeah, same here, 6 moves and 8 schools by the age of 18, up and down the country. Here lies the root of my issues with the church.

You think that sounds any more rediculous than your entire religion?



I don't believe my religion sounds ridiculous at all. I just find it funny when kids reach that age where they have this personal vendetta against Christianity and believe they are enlightened and the rest of the world is full of neanderthalic sheep. I give it a year or two before his common sense is restored.

I don't believe my religion sounds ridiculous at all. I just find it funny when kids reach that age where they have this personal vendetta against Christianity and believe they are enlightened and the rest of the world is full of neanderthalic sheep. I give it a year or two before his common sense is restored.
For teens, that applies to more than just religion. :)

It's difficult to "refuse to believe" in something for which there is no evidence of. Of course, it's also foolish to not accept a proposal that is entirely supported by logical fallacies.

Guess I'll be difficult and foolish.....

I think your trying to start an argument, Seeing how as your evidence you post nothing but extremists christians authors, I could be wrong. An Athiest thread is started at least once a week. Most athiests are athiests becuase of logical flaws.

I don't believe my religion sounds ridiculous at all. I just find it funny when kids reach that age where they have this personal vendetta against Christianity and believe they are enlightened and the rest of the world is full of neanderthalic sheep. I give it a year or two before his common sense is restored.
With all due repect, you don't know how old I am, I'm not a teenager in any case. The basis of my initial post was actually a condensed account of Tom Robbins' novel 'Skinny Legs and All', written 15 years ago (just before the first Gulf War). I think it sums up this branch of the religions quite nicely.

I don't believe my religion sounds ridiculous at all. I just find it funny when kids reach that age where they have this personal vendetta against Christianity and believe they are enlightened and the rest of the world is full of neanderthalic sheep. I give it a year or two before his common sense is restored.
I bet I'm older than you... unless you just act like a 15 year old on the forums.
So should I be coming to my senses any time then?

You are aware that different people have different opinions on what is common sense and what is not, correct? You are also aware that your faith appears quite blind and unquestioning, correct? As though you have done little or no self-examination at any point in your life?

Also, the poster you claim musy be young expresses him or herself much better than you do.

Lee Strobel also publishes some nice books dealing with the necessity of a Creator and the biggest challanges to Christianity such as God ordering Israel to slaughter Amalekites and such.

You forgot to mention that Lee Strobel was, at one point, an atheist himself. In The Case For Christ, he explains how he came to believe in God and Christ. He also, brilliantly, explains point by point how the story of Christ is logical in itself.

I suggest that atheists and agnostics read both The Case For Christ, and The Case For a Creator.

So, sure, spirituality is important and a natural human instinct. But religion as a concept is a thinly-veiled example of social control, and I always wonder why people just can't seem to realise that. To me it seems glaringly obvious.

Wrong. Spirituality is not a natural human instinct. Also, the only redeeming facet of religion to me is the social control. I judge religions based on their social merits - the service they provide to members and to the world. I used to be Catholic, and even though I am no longer a believer by any means, I do admire much of the Catholic social doctrine, especially on work, the dignity of man*, and the sanctity of life.
On the other hand, I don't think that religion was by any means engineered as social control. I think most people in control of religions really do believe.

*Man = humanity.

I don't believe my religion sounds ridiculous at all. I just find it funny when kids reach that age where they have this personal vendetta against Christianity and believe they are enlightened and the rest of the world is full of neanderthalic sheep. I give it a year or two before his common sense is restored.

His "personal vendetta" seemed to be against all forms of social control through religion, focusing on Christianity for the sake of this topic. And as for the topic, what started (started) me on the road to atheism was elitist and arrogant buffoons like you who feel so superior for believing something entirely on the premise that there is no proof of it.

I bet I'm older than you... unless you just act like a 15 year old on the forums.
So should I be coming to my senses any time then?

You are aware that different people have different opinions on what is common sense and what is not, correct? You are also aware that your faith appears quite blind and unquestioning, correct? As though you have done little or no self-examination at any point in your life?

Also, the poster you claim musy be young expresses him or herself much better than you do.

Do not question anyone's faith. It is highly offensively.

I'm sorry, but no Christian that I know has 'blind' faith. I have no doubt in my mind that she's thought long and hard about her faith in God, and I'm quite sure it's waivered at some points (I know mine has), but no doubt she's taken a good look at what is presented to her physically and spirtiually. You have no authority to call anyone's faith 'blind'.

Why does it even matter? You give an argument that assumes your audience is in need of a conversion to your belief system, invalidating thier own intellect and feelings. Just stop already.

I think your trying to start an argument, Seeing how as your evidence you post nothing but extremists christians authors, I could be wrong. An Athiest thread is started at least once a week. Most athiests are athiests becuase of logical flaws.

which are.......?

Personally I could read 50 books and it wouldn't sway me.

ID is xians strongest argument and even that isn't a very good one.

I believe God can never be proven to exist so I'm in a state of limbo. Rejecting the idealogy of organized religion and going off to find my own standards. Like Nietzche told me to, and before anyone calls me a Nazi, if you ever read any of his work, they are usually very anti-Nazi, with praise for the Jews, mixing blood for genetic strength, etc. It was his demented sister that altered his work to support her Nazi friends. Whatever proof you offer about God existing or not existing is flawed because our very reality is flawed.

Which I can prove mathematically.

let a = b

a?= ab Multiply both sides by a
a?+ a?- 2ab = ab + a?- 2ab Add (a?- 2ab) to both sides
2(a?- ab) = a?- ab Factor the left, and collect like terms on the right
2 = 1 Divide both sides by (a?- ab)

2=1? Well therefore Algebra is a lie.

Here is another one

Theorem: A positive integer n is equal to any positive integer which does not exceed it.

Proof by induction:

Case n = 1. The only positive integer which does not exceed 1 is 1 itself and 1 = 1.

Assume true for n = k. Then k = k-1. Add k to both sides and get

k+1=k.

Well lets just screw all of math then. Math is supposed to reflect our reality. Therefore I believe that what I consider to be math is actually insanity on my part. So this "reality" is subjective and everything is interconnected. If I think so, then it is so. Merely because I think so. Thats my two cents, if they exist.

I would say I am an atheist, and it's not that I don't want to believe but rather i just can't get my head around believing. It seems like there are so many contradictions in religion and so many different beliefs to choose from which whilst sharing some characteristics differ on many others. Religion seems the perfect reason to control people as they believe by following rules they will one day get to a better place but is that not just using a person's fear of death to create an environment that some people, somewhere, a long time ago decided would be a beneficial one to have? The idea of basic social rules to live by, with others in harmony, based on rewards that won't be seen in this life is fantastical and as such unrealistic to my mind. Obviously I understand that some find it easier to have faith than others and as religion can never be proved or disproved I would never dream of trying to convert anyone around to my way of thinking, whilst at the same time would also expect others to respect my (lack of) beliefs. Perhaps 'Neo Regolia's' observation that people start to question Christianity when they reach their teenage years is because that is when they start to question everything in their lives, and for many Christianity doesn't have the strength to survive their scrutiny?

which are.......?
Which what?
The authors that were suggested are fundmentalist christians!

I would say I am an atheist, and it's not that I don't want to believe but rather i just can't get my head around believing. It seems like there are so many contradictions in religion and so many different beliefs to choose from which whilst sharing some characteristics differ on many others. Religion seems the perfect reason to control people as they believe by following rules they will one day get to a better place but is that not just using a person's fear of death to create an environment that some people, somewhere, a long time ago decided would be a beneficial one to have? The idea of basic social rules to live by, with others in harmony, based on rewards that won't be seen in this life is fantastical and as such unrealistic to my mind. Obviously I understand that some find it easier to have faith than others and as religion can never be proved or disproved I would never dream of trying to convert anyone around to my way of thinking, whilst at the same time would also expect others to respect my (lack of) beliefs. Perhaps 'Neo Regolia's' observation that people start to question Christianity when they reach their teenage years is because that is when they start to question everything in their lives, and for many Christianity doesn't have the strength to survive their scrutiny?
It can only control people if the buy into the illusion that the image of God is God.

When you subtract (a-b) to solve for a & b it equals zero.

So dividing by (a-b) which is zero is impossoble.

Which makes that math invalid.

It doesn't disprove algebra at all, it's just a slip up thats hard to see

I bet I'm older than you... unless you just act like a 15 year old on the forums.
So should I be coming to my senses any time then?

You are aware that different people have different opinions on what is common sense and what is not, correct? You are also aware that your faith appears quite blind and unquestioning, correct? As though you have done little or no self-examination at any point in your life?

Also, the poster you claim musy be young expresses him or herself much better than you do.



Have you even read the Bible? Your opinion of it couldn't be farther from the truth!

I believe God can never be proven to exist so I'm in a state of limbo. Rejecting the idealogy of organized religion and going off to find my own standards. Like Nietzche told me to, and before anyone calls me a Nazi, if you ever read any of his work, they are usually very anti-Nazi, with praise for the Jews, mixing blood for genetic strength, etc. It was his demented sister that altered his work to support her Nazi friends. Whatever proof you offer about God existing or not existing is flawed because our very reality is flawed.

Which I can prove mathematically.

let a = b

a?= ab Multiply both sides by a
a?+ a?- 2ab = ab + a?- 2ab Add (a?- 2ab) to both sides
2(a?- ab) = a?- ab Factor the left, and collect like terms on the right
2 = 1 Divide both sides by (a?- ab)

2=1? Well therefore Algebra is a lie.


Wrong, the third line is equivalent to 0=0 and therefore any modification of this will be useless.


Here is another one

Theorem: A positive integer n is equal to any positive integer which does not exceed it.

Proof by induction:

Case n = 1. The only positive integer which does not exceed 1 is 1 itself and 1 = 1.

Assume true for n = k. Then k = k-1. Add k to both sides and get

k+1=k.

Well lets just screw all of math then. Math is supposed to reflect our reality. Therefore I believe that what I consider to be math is actually insanity on my part. So this "reality" is subjective and everything is interconnected. If I think so, then it is so. Merely because I think so. Thats my two cents, if they exist.

I have no idea how you got k=k-1, care to explain?

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

"Evidence that demands a verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185078552X/qid=1120832431/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785243631/qid=1120832431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"Jesus who is he" Tim LaHaye (cant find a link for this one, but I'm reading it at the moment and its great)

LOL.

You are truly kidding yourself if you think an athiest would find this tripe persuasive.

Just for reference:
The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/)
'Evidence' That Demands a Refund (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/newetdav.html)
The Great Preposterous (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/preposterous.html)
Josh McDowell's Charade (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/charade.html)
Skepticism and McDowell's "Proof"
A Critique of Evidence That Demands a Verdict (http://www.islandnet.com/~luree/evidence.html)
Evidence That Doesn't Demand a Verdict (http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/jc=zombie/evidence_demand_verdict.htm)

Which what?
The authors that were suggested are fundmentalist christians!

LOL. They meant the flaws in religion.

Face it, there are logical flaws in everything.

Our existence in itself, is illogical.

When you subtract (a-b) to solve for a & b it equals zero.

So dividing by (a-b) which is zero is impossoble.

Which makes that math invalid.

It doesn't disprove algebra at all, it's just a slip up thats hard to see

Ding! You win a cookie and a 15% discount on my storefront for getting that. When someone figures out the falsehood behind the second proof I'll give them half of my liver.

Which what?
The authors that were suggested are fundmentalist christians!

You said most atheists are only atheists because of logical fallacies, what are they?

all god-devil- heaven-hell religions are the same, and they're all bullshit. end of.
Polythiest religions are even more laughable.

Man is weak, and the sooner we all die, the better.

I'm more or less an atheist or agnostic, though not really in the "mainstream" sense. I just don't see any reason to believe that Christianity is true, though I certainly don't dismiss all possibility.

Personally I could read 50 books and it wouldn't sway me.

ID is xians strongest argument and even that isn't a very good one.



It's much better than any theory science has managed to conceive :D

I believe God can never be proven to exist so I'm in a state of limbo. Rejecting the idealogy of organized religion and going off to find my own standards. Like Nietzche told me to, and before anyone calls me a Nazi, if you ever read any of his work, they are usually very anti-Nazi, with praise for the Jews, mixing blood for genetic strength, etc. It was his demented sister that altered his work to support her Nazi friends. Whatever proof you offer about God existing or not existing is flawed because our very reality is flawed.

Which I can prove mathematically.

let a = b

a?= ab Multiply both sides by a
a?+ a?- 2ab = ab + a?- 2ab Add (a?- 2ab) to both sides
2(a?- ab) = a?- ab Factor the left, and collect like terms on the right
2 = 1 Divide both sides by (a?- ab)

2=1? Well therefore Algebra is a lie.

Here is another one

Theorem: A positive integer n is equal to any positive integer which does not exceed it.

Proof by induction:

Case n = 1. The only positive integer which does not exceed 1 is 1 itself and 1 = 1.

Assume true for n = k. Then k = k-1. Add k to both sides and get

k+1=k.

Well lets just screw all of math then. Math is supposed to reflect our reality. Therefore I believe that what I consider to be math is actually insanity on my part. So this "reality" is subjective and everything is interconnected. If I think so, then it is so. Merely because I think so. Thats my two cents, if they exist.


I really don't care if you're joking or not. But saying anything like that about mathematics voids everything you will ever say about anything.

LOL. They meant the flaws in religion.

Face it, there are logical flaws in everything.

Our existence in itself, is illogical.

Does that mean we should embrace everything illogical? No, no it doesn't.

I don't believe my religion sounds ridiculous at all. I just find it funny when kids reach that age where they have this personal vendetta against Christianity and believe they are enlightened and the rest of the world is full of neanderthalic sheep. I give it a year or two before his common sense is restored.


And here I thought pride was sinful. :rolleyes:

FYI, not all athiests or critics of Christianity are teenagers. Some are much older and wiser than you.

Let's see, you have a "Creator" that threatens to torture me and everyone I know forever unless we all waste our lives continually praising His mercy.
What blows me away is that you Christians (and Muslims) somehow manage to live with the cognitive dissonance that your imaginary author of all righteousness makes Hitler and Stalin look like a couple of Boy Scouts. It's disappointing for those of us who expect some kind of, I don't know, sense from people.
It's the revolting, servile moral relativism (it's okay if we Christians/Muslims/Whatever torture and murder people, but not if "they" do it) of your religion that causes me to reject it. Beyond that, your "evidence" isn't convincing for anyone who doesn't need to be convinced. There may be uncertainty in science, but that's still far better than the demonstrable falsehoods and absurdities in religion. The human mind is fallible, so science is at best only an approximation, or better yet, a pursuit, of the truth. And I've always found it strange that you faithful types seem to think that recorders of your Scriptures, even if they were taking direct dictation from God, were immune to ordinary human fallibility. Are you trying to tell me that God won't use His infinite power to prevent the Holocaust, but He will make sure that Moses dots all the i's and crosses all the t's in the Pentateuch? If that's really the case, God's priorities are screwed. Such a sadistic bully would not be worth my worship, even if He were real.
I hope that answers your question.

I would say I am an atheist, and it's not that I don't want to believe but rather i just can't get my head around believing. It seems like there are so many contradictions in religion and so many different beliefs to choose from which whilst sharing some characteristics differ on many others. Religion seems the perfect reason to control people as they believe by following rules they will one day get to a better place but is that not just using a person's fear of death to create an environment that some people, somewhere, a long time ago decided would be a beneficial one to have? The idea of basic social rules to live by, with others in harmony, based on rewards that won't be seen in this life is fantastical and as such unrealistic to my mind. Obviously I understand that some find it easier to have faith than others and as religion can never be proved or disproved I would never dream of trying to convert anyone around to my way of thinking, whilst at the same time would also expect others to respect my (lack of) beliefs. Perhaps 'Neo Regolia's' observation that people start to question Christianity when they reach their teenage years is because that is when they start to question everything in their lives, and for many Christianity doesn't have the strength to survive their scrutiny?



Few people really have enough knowledge of Christianity to reach an intelligent conclusion when questioning it. It takes a lot of time studying apologetics to multiple interpretations of biblical passages before one can really come to any decent conclusion.

ID isn't even a real science. Natural selection is totally plausable considering the earth is much older then 6000 years.

The belief in God is an effect of a personaity flaw. ANd it helps people deal with death.

The fear of god, and guilt is what keeps em comin.

I really don't care if you're joking or not. But saying anything like that about mathematics voids everything you will ever say about anything.

I felt like screwing with math today. Personally I never take any of these threads seriously and make long winded jokes and arguements that get nowhere. The first proof is obvious if you get a good look at it, the second one is a problem in Mathematical Induction which proves things that doesn't exist. I hate these threads.

Let's see, you have a "Creator" that threatens to torture me and everyone I know forever unless we all waste our lives continually praising His mercy.
What blows me away is that you Christians (and Muslims) somehow manage to live with the cognitive dissonance that your imaginary author of all righteousness makes Hitler and Stalin look like a couple of Boy Scouts. It's disappointing for those of us who expect some kind of, I don't know, sense from people.
It's the revolting, servile moral relativism (it's okay if we Christians/Muslims/Whatever torture and murder people, but not if "they" do it) of your religion that causes me to reject it. Beyond that, your "evidence" isn't convincing for anyone who doesn't need to be convinced. There may be uncertainty in science, but that's still far better than the demonstrable falsehoods and absurdities in religion. The human mind is fallible, so science is at best only an approximation, or better yet, a pursuit, of the truth. And I've always found it strange that you faithful types seem to think that recorders of your Scriptures, even if they were taking direct dictation from God, were immune to ordinary human fallibility. Are you trying to tell me that God won't use His infinite power to prevent the Holocaust, but He will make sure that Moses dots all the i's and crosses all the t's in the Pentateuch? If that's really the case, God's priorities are screwed. Such a sadistic bully would not be worth my worship, even if He were real.
I hope that answers your question.


I have a book for you that deals with that question: The Case for Faith.

ID isn't even a real science. Natural selection is totally plausable considering the earth is much older then 6000 years.

The belief in God is an effect of a personaity flaw. ANd it helps people deal with death.

The fear of god, and guilt is what keeps em comin.



Yes, and I suppose you, in all your wisdom, have a nice theory for the origin of matter that you would show us?

Who cares? Some people beleive in god. Some people say that there's not enough evidence to know either way. Some people, like me, think the lack of evidence makes god unlikely, so we don't beleive that there is one. Without hard evidence one way or the other this discussion just goes around in circles.

:rolleyes:

And yet another logical reply.

I cant understand people who believe in the supernatural. Like some rocks millions of miles away are gonna affect whether you wake up cranky. And if you think dead people talk to you, you need treatment for schizophrenia. If you think ghosts exist (either for no reason but bedtime stories you were told at the age of 3), you need to stop being so bloody paranoid and stupid.

C'mon people, if you believe in God you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Whats more likely,

a) life evolved naturally according to laws of physics determined by the inherent properties of matter, that have been proven, and can be tested at all times, for billions of years

b) all things were created 7000 years ago (despite nearly every rock being at least 3.9 billion years old) by a supernatural, all powerful, all seeing deity that likes to change things (creation of a whole bloody planet...), whom we have no evidence, cannot test for , and for whom there is NO evidence, but a book written by a bunch of peasants who had no idea of science & no idea of the world.

I mean, these people had no idea of how a human body worked, yet they claimed to understand how the entire universe was created, just because someone in the pub (aka the village well) told them so. And the main character of the book, a person (for whom no evidence even exists) who simply performed a few magic tricks and spoke in fables and parables so that people could misinterpret the story at will. How many times have you been amazed by a coin or card trick, and then feel stupid when you find out how easy it is?

Feel stupid yet god-lovers?

And thats just christianity. I wont even start on islam. Ive never heard of such a round-about bullshit story to cover up the meglo-maniacle intent of subjugation and domination.

I felt like screwing with math today. Personally I never take any of these threads seriously and make long winded jokes and arguements that get nowhere. The first proof is obvious if you get a good look at it, the second one is a problem in Mathematical Induction which proves things that doesn't exist. I hate these threads.

The first one is old and tired. The second one isn't anything, at least not the way you presented it. Just garbage.

I have a book for you that deals with that question: The Case for Faith.

Couldn't I just take the Matrix movies and use them as a basis for a faith? I could then write a book on it baised toward my viewpoint and use it as proof too can't I?

And yet another logical reply.



I have to leave for work in 5 minutes. I could either be late and write a loooong refutation of each of his points that will most likely be ignored, or I can sum up all my thoughts in one little emoticon and head off. :D

You said most atheists are only atheists because of logical fallacies, what are they?
Ok heres an example, God created Man and Women right? What about evolution and the dinosors?

Heres another(this one just pisses me off lol): God is infinitly forgiving right? But he has all men born with oringinal sin?

Oh heres one I like:///////////

Screw it, its your beliefs not mine, Why Am I even posting here.... enjoy yourself..

Wrong. Spirituality is not a natural human instinct.
<snip>


http://washingtontimes.com/world/20041114-111404-8087r.htm

A person's capacity to be "spiritual" or to have spiritual experiences is genetic. It IS a natural human instinct. Of course, the manner in which this instinctive spirituality is expressed - e.g., Christianity, Buddhism, Shamanism, et al - is a product of experience, background, and upbringing.

I cant understand people who believe in the supernatural. Like some rocks millions of miles away are gonna affect whether you wake up cranky.
Ah, yes... chaos theory.

Couldn't I just take the Matrix movies and use them as a basis for a faith? I could then write a book on it baised toward my viewpoint and use it as proof too can't I?



Read the thing before you judge it, it would make the world a much less annoying place.

I don't need to come up with any theories, it's been done already by people much smarter then me.

I can get into it with you but it won't matter, you'll either ridicule me, which many christians do, or go running to find links to tell me otherwise, all of which would be totally rediculous, so let's quit while we're ahead.

Lee Strobel also publishes some nice books dealing with the necessity of a Creator and the biggest challanges to Christianity such as God ordering Israel to slaughter Amalekites and such.

And there are many nice books thoroughly refuting Lee Strobel's feeble apologetics.

There are also many sources on the internet, such as:

The Rest of the Story (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html)
Critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.html)
Objections Sustained! (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kyle_gerkin/objections_sustained/)

(These are just the tip of the iceberg and are only meant as a non-representative examples.)

Read the thing before you judge it, it would make the world a much less annoying place.

It's your job as a Christian to witness to people. We don't want to do what we see as wasting time. It's your moral duty to witness and "save" us. If you're unwilling to do so then that's not very Christian, and if you just can't answer it then you can't answer it to yourself, and it's you who ought to be reflecting.

I don't need to come up with any theories, it's been done already by people much smarter then me.

I can get into it with you but it won't matter, you'll either ridicule me, which many christians do, or go running to find links to tell me otherwise, all of which would be totally rediculous, so let's quit while we're ahead.



There IS no plausible theory for universal origins, we cannot explain how the matter present in the big bang originated. Every theory so far posited has been shot down.

I have to leave for work in 5 minutes. I could either be late and write a loooong refutation of each of his points that will most likely be ignored, or I can sum up all my thoughts in one little emoticon and head off. :D

Or you could just save your pointless post. Or how about this, wait till you have time and post a longer post, full of reason and thought or is that asking too much?

They don't know what happened, I think they have it down to the first second. Thats the origin path and develpoment of most elements, conditions
on earth, with seasons and oxygen and water, all great conditions for life but no eveidence that any intervention was needed or even likely.

That leaves one second for god to do his magic.

Don't make me start cut and pastings from my big book of bible contradictions.

There IS no plausible theory for universal origins, we cannot explain how the matter present in the big bang originated. Every theory so far posited has been shot down.
Even if one grants that what you've written is true, does that automatically mean we must say that some god did it and stop searching for answers? Nope. It only means we have to search harder for the answer. Even if we never get an answer all we can honestly say is "I don't know". To say "God did it" isn't logical, and it sure isn't scientific.

There is one theory emerging from string theory saying that hte Big Bang idea is flawed. That we can't just emerge from infinitude. That matter was created in the good ole E=mc^2 way when two branes collided in higher-dimensional space and released so much energy that it became matter. And soon as matter spreads out and out gravity's influence drops. When the protons eventually evaporate matter will be so far apart frome ach other the universe can be realistically called "empty". Then gravitons will no longer wish to stay in our brane and gravitate toward otehr branes, bringing it closer, continuing the cycle of birth, death and rebirth.

I've thought a long time about religion and faith and I've decided that I just can't find a good justification for it. There's just nothing compelling about the existence of God. I think there are natural explanations for everything, even if we haven't found them yet. That mystery is okay - it gives us something to do.

Sometimes I envy people that have faith, but most of the time it just seems like an enormous burden, living your life for someone or something else.

But, if you assume for a second that I believe that God does exist, I think it has better things to do than be concerned with what we do with our sexual organs. (Notice that I say 'it', because I don't believe that a God would have any gender at all. What would God need with a Penis. And if he has one, why would he be so uptight about where people are sticking theirs?) Anthing that decided to create us and the Universe that we live in is going to be a lot nicer than most religions make it out to be.

In the end, I don't really think it's important what you believe, as long as you don't try to make me live by your dictates. I don't want to eat kosher, I don't want to pray 5 times a day, and I don't care what your God says about reproduction. In exchange, I won't try and eat pork, stop you from praying, or make you wear a condom if you don't want to. Deal? :)

Which theories have been shot down? At least there are THOUSANDS of proven theories which point towards the existence of the big bang, even though the actual singularity eludes us.

As far as i know, religion has NO proven theories. Not one. All you morons do is say its down to some bullshit "faith" or "spiritual instinct" and try to run from the argument.

Man all this stupidity makes me want to kick one of them in the nuts to relieve my skyrocketing blood pressure.

edit: ah yes, chaos theory. Lots of things are non-linear dynaic systems, but that doesnt mean that some arse with a hoop earring in the sunday papers can determine the future of all life on the planet from a ball of rock.

There IS no plausible theory for universal origins, we cannot explain how the matter present in the big bang originated. Every theory so far posited has been shot down.

Maybe it was just there. Maybe it was the remnants of a past Universe which was born from the remnants of a past Universe... in which case maybe our Universe will eventually collapse and another Universe will be born from that in an eternal cycle that extends forever ahead and behind. I don't really know. I don't think anyone ever CAN know, if not just because the human mind is limited by what it knows and can comprehend. Why the idea of a creator makes any more sense than any crackpot theory someone can make up on the spot is beyond me.

Leaf,

Thats just crazy talk.

Why do all these Christians insist on posting threads like this? This seems rather impersonal. Come to my door like normal religious nuts, so I can show up in my boxers holding a goat's heart.

Few people really have enough knowledge of Christianity to reach an intelligent conclusion when questioning it. It takes a lot of time studying apologetics to multiple interpretations of biblical passages before one can really come to any decent conclusion.

Utter bullshit.

Smug claims of superior knowledge are not only unpersuasive, but also false.

Some of us have read the Bible, studied theology, etc., and don't agree with you.

In fact, based on what I've seen of your views on these forums, most Christians don't agree with you.

If you don't want to defend your views, fine. But don't make fallacious appeals to authority and to popularity.

Feel stupid yet god-lovers?


Yes, thats not flaming. And for a start, they never claimed to know how the universe was created (the mechacnisms) they just claimed they knew who created it. As for not knowing how the human body worked, the laws in Exedos, Deuteronomy and Leviticus clearly show advanced knowledge of hygene and understanding of bactirology, as well as quarentine and public health. As well as an advanced understanding of practical physics in the building of the Tabanacle (I say practical physics because they didn't know how exactly that gravity and other forces did what they did, just that they did and so they worked around them). I wont even start on the early understanding of meterology and hydrology.

More Crazy Talk

There IS no plausible theory for [a creator's] origins, we cannot explain how the [creator] originated. Every theory so far posited has been shot down.

:rolleyes:

You start with a false premise and then draw an illogical conclusion that does not follow from that premise. Nicely done.

YOu don't necessarily have to know about bacteria and all that to know that being covered in shit and eating it was bad for you.

*Crazy Talk ALert* *Crazy Talk ALert*

WooooooWOoooooooWOoooooooo

WOoooooo"WOo'oooooooW
"OoooooooW
ooooooooooooo(In a high pitched "alerty" voice)

So they knew how to wash their hands? Big deal, the ones who didnt died from a disease.

Knowledge of physics? Give me a break, a child can balance a set of blocks without knowing the subtleties of gravitation.

Advanced knowledge of hydrology and meterology? What, that water flows downhill and that dark clouds mean rain? Holy crap even my dog refuses to go outside when its about to rain.

They knew absolute shite about the world, which in a developing society where people need answers, making up a supernatural creator is a pretty effective scapegoat.

Hydrology, while not an exact science, has it's high percentage of error simply because it's hard to put a number on terrain types. Some types of soil hold more water then other, grass absorbs water at a certain rate/minute, also the reynolds number used for determining water flow in pipes, friction and what-not, there are so many other sound methods to determine pipeflow friction, it ends up being a pretty acurate science.

So I slap you

Which I can prove mathematically.

let a = b

a?= ab Multiply both sides by a
a?+ a?- 2ab = ab + a?- 2ab Add (a?- 2ab) to both sides
2(a?- ab) = a?- ab Factor the left, and collect like terms on the right
a=b so... a^2-ab = 0
You just proved that 0=0... great job.

2 = 1 Divide both sides by (a?- ab)

2=1? Well therefore Algebra is a lie.

Here is another one

Theorem: A positive integer n is equal to any positive integer which does not exceed it.

Proof by induction:

Case n = 1. The only positive integer which does not exceed 1 is 1 itself and 1 = 1.

Assume true for n = k. Then k = k-1. Add k to both sides and get
And exactly why does k=k-1?
k+1=k.


Bold is mine.

There IS no plausible theory for universal origins, we cannot explain how the matter present in the big bang originated. Every theory so far posited has been shot down.

Vacuum fluctuation
Virtual particle pairs

Since people are posting names of books and authors on this thread, here's some good ones that explain how the universe could be "created ex nihilo" without any form of divine intervention.

Heinz Pagels, The Cosmic Code. (1982, Bantam)
Paul Davies, God and the New Physics. (1983, J.M. Dent & Sons.)
William J. Kaufmann, Universe. (1985, W.H. Freeman & Co.)

a?= ab Multiply both sides by a
a?+ a?- 2ab = ab + a?- 2ab Add (a?- 2ab) to both sides
2(a?- ab) = a?- ab Factor the left, and collect like terms on the right
a=b so... a^2-ab = 0
You just proved that 0=0... great job.

No he didn't, why do people say that.

0=0 ia that same as a=b, so of course it has to be equal.

Remember 0 is still a real number.

It's a division error

It's a division error

Well.. that's what I was trying to get at... you just said it better. :)

Josh MacDowell and Lee Strobel? Couldn't you at least come up with intelligent, logical authors?

Having read the bible more than most christians I've met (including 3 times cover to cover of NT and once for OT) it is readily apparent that it is full of contradictions and errors. Prophecies unfufilled and as generic as a palm reading charlatan's, blatant contradictions, obvious errors and uncorroberated major historical events abound. How people can believe it as anything other than a mythology of a primitive people is beyond me.

Then these same christians spout off unfounded assertions and logical fallacies as if they are imparting the wisdom of the ages and are incredulous when the problems and errors are shown to them. Soon the argumet falls to a mumbled "you have to believe without proof or evidence" until they find a slightly different way to restate the same assertion and fallacies all over again.

I'm an agnostic because, by the theists own admission, we can't know if gods exist or not. I'm an atheist because there has been no reasonable evidence to suggest gods exist. I cannot assent to the baseless theist claims without violating my intellectual integrity and on the miniscule possibility they are correct, I'll be able to say I didn't believe because I was honest and if god(s) prefer otherwise I couldn't worship them anyway.

a = b

a² = ab

a²- b² = ab-b²

(a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b)

a+b = b

b+b = b

2b = b

2 = 1





For those who hate math, how it works.



a = b

Multiply both sides by b ==> a² = ab

Multiply bith sides by (-b squared)===> a²- b² = ab-b²

Difference of 2 squares====>(a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b)<=====Factor for b

Divide both sides by (a-b)===>a+b = b

Since a=b we can substitute===>b+b = b

we know b+b= 2b====>2b = b

Divide both sides by b=====>2 = 1

Depends on what you mean by "the supernatural". Do you realise that the mind is supernatural?


your dumb

a = b

Multiply both sides by b ==> a² = ab

Multiply bith sides by (-b squared)===> a²- b² = ab-b²

shouldn't this line be a²b² = ab³? Seeing as (-b²) = b² (sorry if my math is a bit off, I haven't done any in a while)

Difference of 2 squares====>(a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b)<=====Factor for b

Divide both sides by (a-b)===>a+b = b

Since a=b we can substitute===>b+b = b

we know b+b= 2b====>2b = b

Divide both sides by b=====>2 = 1

[B]a = b

a² = ab

a²- b² = ab-b²

(a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b)

Isn't dividing by (a-b) the same as dividing by 0?

a+b = b

b+b = b

2b = b

2 = 1

if a=b and you do ab-b^2, then you get 0. Idiot.

C'mon people back on topic. We're here to prove religion is a pile of reeking, steaming shite, not a thread on algebra-for-dummies, who cant count apparantly...

Hell, did you just copy that supposed proof off a website without checking that it wasnt total bollocks?

"Heinz Pagels, The Cosmic Code. (1982, Bantam)
Paul Davies, God and the New Physics. (1983, J.M. Dent & Sons.)
William J. Kaufmann, Universe. (1985, W.H. Freeman & Co.)" - just because a book says something is so, doesnt make it true. Take the bible for one, a load of loosely-assorted stories and misinterpreted stories that never really gets to the point. Also take the entry in my diary today: "I met some very intelligent people who completely convinced me that a supernatural creator made the world without a scrap of evidence." See?

Do not question anyone's faith. It is highly offensively.

I'm sorry, but no Christian that I know has 'blind' faith. I have no doubt in my mind that she's thought long and hard about her faith in God, and I'm quite sure it's waivered at some points (I know mine has), but no doubt she's taken a good look at what is presented to her physically and spirtiually. You have no authority to call anyone's faith 'blind'.

Excuse me?

It is highly offensive to question the beliefs of Christians, but not to question the beliefs of athiests?

Take off the blinders and try not to be such a hypocrite.

Yes Elanos that's the division error i was refering to

The point is your keeping both sides of the equation equal, what you do to one side you do to the other till you factorize two different equations with a different method, difference of 2 squares and factoring for b

a small point.
Has anyone ever read any of those threads where you can laugh at old laws that make no sense whatsever, or no longer do anyway.
Everyone says "silly state/country, they should change those laws, tsk, tsk"

Maybe they should do the same thing for those religious books? you know update them a little bit.

Isn't dividing by (a-b) the same as dividing by 0?

Exactly. It's a goofball proof by people who don't actually understand algebra. All they've really proven is why the result of a division by zero is undefined.

I have a book for you that deals with that question: The Case for Faith.
Ooh, you have a book?
Of course you have a book. You have The Book. I, on the other hand, have a moral compass that doesn't depend on books, but rather on my conscience and my integrity and my compassion, as well as the admission that I'm rather imperfect (I am, for instance, arrogant and sarcastic).
Your God is, by any reasonable definition, an absolute egoist (for demanding unquestioning worship) and an absolute sadist (for, need I remind you, torturing people forever). This more-or-less satisfies my own definition of absolute evil. If it doesn't satisfy yours, then I don't know what to say. I am often amazed at how cynical I'm not, but the idea that people can just be okay with actually worshipping such a pure monster is still pretty hard for me to accept.
But it's nice that you have a book.
And yes, I've read your Bible. And St. Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, William Paley, R.G. Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, and others. There is no evidence for the universe being deliberately created by any personal entity, nor any logically compelling argument for the same that doesn't assume false premises. You can have your faith, if you want, whatever. But I'm not going to respect it.

Well, being an avowed atheist myself, I have several reasons why I am one.

1) Its a form of social control; when I see the people who are completely blinded by religon, it makes me sick. Being a Marxist, its very obvious that religon is merely a creation by human society.

2) I think it's best to believe in yourself and fellow man, who can get things done and do great things unlike the invisible man in the sky that just sits back and lets the worst of the catastraphes happen.

3)Logical fallicies, I got into this last, but its very important to understand the irrationality of faith and following logical contradictions in religon (especially Christainity) such as:

The Definitional Disproofs of God
The Deductive Evil disproofs of God
Doctrinal disproofs of God
Multiple attributes disproofs of the existance of god
Single attribute disproofs of the existance of god


Overall, there are over 40 contradictions, fallacies and paradoxes that plague religon.

Haha, the religious side has no comeback....

Why dont we continue this with all other religions. Who wants to draw the short straw and be erroneously considered a racist by discussing islam :p

Truly the main problem I have with Christianity is the way it can be interpreted by different people. For instance a friend and I can read a passage within a bible and both come up with come up with completely different viewpoints upon an issue.

If god truly does exist why does he/she/it not make his/her/it’s points clear? Why leave it open for interpretation? Also forgiveness is preached within most religions, and yet we constantly hear about people being persecuted for having different beliefs… doesn’t sound all that forgiving/tolerant.

Also, if god does exist then why do I see children suffering and dying while murders and other corrupt individuals are free to live a wonderful life? Is it because they will be punished for eternity in hell? Because quite honestly I don’t find that good enough, if god is there and truly cares for all of us where is he/she/it when we need him/her/it?

Now I am not going to claim that everything I have asked here has not been answered in the bible, but I have the greatest of troubles deciphering some of the passages and the lessons that they are meant to teach. But then again I don’t like spending hours reading a text that I disagree with… and somehow makes me believe that if this god did exist it would be nothing more than a sadistic child.

If you wish to believe in an all-powerful entity this is your choice, and I will not ridicule you for it, but do not try and preach to me about random passages and books that have no factual background except someone’s view point.

Please don't shove religion down our throats.

We're all free to do and choose as we please, and I respect your personal beliefs, but you don't need to recommend books to try and persuade us that our beliefs are wrong.

You are insulting many of us.

Renvionia, I've studied Sociology and I consider myself to be of an open mind.

But I am a Christian and there is something about it that I can't explain. In light of the overwhelming contrary evidence, I can understand why some people don't agree with it.
I consider myself able to make my own decisions, but even then I still choose to believe in this. Why? Well for me, it fills so many holes in my life, and actually makes more sense than anything else anyone has come up with.

For those of you that criticise Christians without actually reading all the bible, then I suggest (purely from a friendly point of view), that you do. Obviously you can't read it all at once, but get a guide to help you :)

Tim

Please don't shove religion down our throats.

We're all free to do and choose as we please, and I respect your personal beliefs, but you don't need to recommend books to try and persuade us that our beliefs are wrong.

You are insulting many of us.

Say that to the majority of university lecturers

Plus if your not interested, dont post/read

1) Its a form of social control; when I see the people who are completely blinded by religon, it makes me sick. Being a Marxist, its very obvious that religon is merely a creation by human society.

2) I think it's best to believe in yourself and fellow man, who can get things done and do great things unlike the invisible man in the sky that just sits back and lets the worst of the catastraphes happen.

3)Logical fallicies, I got into this last, but its very important to understand the irrationality of faith and following logical contradictions in religon (especially Christainity) such as:

The Definitional Disproofs of God
The Deductive Evil disproofs of God
Doctrinal disproofs of God
Multiple attributes disproofs of the existance of god
Single attribute disproofs of the existance of god
Overall, there are over 40 contradictions, fallacies and paradoxes that plague religon.

1). Anyone who is blinded by religion in not religious, they are an extremist fanatic who only uses their religion for power or personal gain. A person of true faith is open to other viewpoints and supports them when they can be justified by facts. For example, I support evolution and the formation of the universe through natural processes, because they work and don't eliminate God from the process. It only becomes a social control when corrupted by the state and its desire for power.

2). A true Christian (which is the example you give for this) helps others because they are commanded by God to do good and treat others with kindness, forgiveness, and love. They alleviate suffering and help others through their faith. Anyone who sits around expecting God to fix everything is wasting their time because God wants us to do good, not to rely on him for everything. Suffering exists because of evil, and evil comes from free will. However, at the same time, great good also comes from free will and so it is our duty to eliminate suffering and stop evil from causing it.

3.) I'd like to see some logical disproofs of God in order to analyse their arguments; however, faith only becomes irrational when you become blinded by it and refuse to reason. A truly faithful person should be able to listen to factual truth because all truth comes from God, and if it can be proven truthfully via natural causes, it is equally legitimate to any supernatural explanation because God created the laws of the universe(s?) and they are part of his work.

Haha, the religious side has no comeback....

Why dont we continue this with all other religions. Who wants to draw the short straw and be erroneously considered a racist by discussing islam :p

Actually, reasonable religious folk tend to avoid walking into a group of people who think that they are using logic to defeat your belief system when in fact they are acting on faith in their beliefs as much as you are. We, the reasonable religious folk, sit back, listen and laugh at it all. Have fun stroking each other's egos, but really there really is not purpose in entering into an argument where your beliefs are clearly not only not going to be accepted, but they won't be respected or even tolerated.

Actually, reasonable religious folk tend to avoid walking into a group of people who think that they are using logic to defeat your belief system when in fact they are acting on faith in their beliefs as much as you are. We, the reasonable religious folk, sit back, listen and laugh at it all. Have fun stroking each other's egos, but really there really is not purpose in entering into an argument where your beliefs are clearly not only not going to be accepted, but they won't be respected or even tolerated.

Um, did you catch the title of the thread or the first post?

Perhaps reasonable religious folk wouldn't have started this type of argument.

But perhaps reasonable religious folk can also discuss and defend their religious beliefs.

Perhaps reasonable religious folk don't sit back and laugh at others based on some smug sense of intellectual pride in views they won't defend.

I think it more than reasonable not to wish to enter the fray. But don't claim you are thereby somehow superior.

A response!

I dont need faith. I have evidence and logic, the two things that really moves the earth. Its what were trying get spread around to make the world a little more sensible.

And surely you're just saying that to avoid discussion - no evidence for your beliefs?

Say that to the majority of university lecturers
Are you high? Say to a Professor, "Don't teach"?
Has it ever occurred to you people that the liberal, secular "bias" of intellectuals might just be an accurate understanding of reality?
No, obviously it hasn't.

Um, did you catch the title of the thread or the first post?

Perhaps reasonable religious folk wouldn't have started this type of argument.

But perhaps reasonable religious folk can also discuss and defend their religious beliefs.

Perhaps reasonable religious folk don't sit back and laugh at others based on some smug sense of intellectual pride in views they won't defend.

I think it more than reasonable not to wish to enter the fray. But don't claim you are thereby somehow superior.

No, you're right reasonable religious folks wouldn't and that's why I'm not joining in. I was just pointing out that arguing with a few of the unreasonable ones that think some of those books would actually convince anyone really doesn't evidence a debunking of the entirety of Christianity as was suggested. I'm happy if you'd like to talk about my beliefs and if you'd like to start a thread that isn't going to lump me in with individuals like the one who started this thread, I would be happy to do so. Mostly I was responding in kind to the poster of that comment.

Are you high? Say to a Professor, "Don't teach"?
Has it ever occurred to you people that the liberal, secular "bias" of intellectuals might just be an accurate understanding of reality?
No, obviously it hasn't.

So it is accpetable for them to teach their views but it is unacceptable for us to teach our views?

You can't prove your secular viewpoint is any more accurate an understanding of reality, so that argument doesn't work.

So it is accpetable for them to teach their views but it is unacceptable for us to teach our views?

You can't prove your secular viewpoint is any more accurate an understanding of reality, so that argument doesn't work.

In public programs you cannot force religion on people. PERIOD. Religious and non-religious alike agree on what is taught in most curriculae, particularly core classes. It is totally acceptable to teach YOUR views, which you seem to agree oppose secular views. The place to do that teaching is called a church, a private institution or your home.

In public programs you cannot force religion on people. PERIOD. Religious and non-religious alike agree on what is taught in most curriculae, particularly core classes. It is totally acceptable to teach YOUR views, which you seem to agree oppose secular views. The place to do that teaching is called a church, a private institution or your home.

I think I worded my previous response incorrectly.

I agree that religion should play zero part in any kind of factual education. I was more responding to the idea that it is acceptable for one to force a certain viewpoint on others. When a secular viewpoint is based on fact, I have no problem with it (like evolution/Big Bang). When they attempt to teach a secular viewpoint that is based solely on faith, then I take issue.

Say that to the majority of university lecturers

Plus if your not interested, dont post/read

1. Bullshit. A majority of university lecturers at any non-religious college do not teach a specific religious viewpoint.

2. If you don't want to ever hear anything you disagree with, don't ever leave your bunker. (And don't read or listen to anything from the nasty "outside.")

3. If you want to hear mostly about your religion, go to a private religious school -- but even then your view will likely be challenged.

A true Christian (which is the example you give for this) helps others because they are commanded by God to do good and treat others with kindness, forgiveness, and love. They alleviate suffering and help others through their faith. Anyone who sits around expecting God to fix everything is wasting their time because God wants us to do good, not to rely on him for everything. Suffering exists because of evil, and evil comes from free will. However, at the same time, great good also comes from free will and so it is our duty to eliminate suffering and stop evil from causing it.


One of the contradictions; if god is so good, why did he create evil? If evil is created by free will, why did he give us free will in the first place?

Was it a mistake? It couldn't have been, god in omniscient and omnipresent, if he is beyond time, how could he have not forseen such a mistake?

EDIT- If thats why you are Christain, why do you need god? Can't you do that on your own accord?

One of the contradictions; if god is so good, why did he create evil? If evil is created by free will, why did he give us free will in the first place?

Was it a mistake? It couldn't have been, god in omniscient and omnipresent, if he is beyond time, how could he have not forseen such a mistake?

1. God didn't create evil; evil comes from from disobeying God and is the state of being separated from God. This is why Hell is nt physical but rather complete separation from God. Evil is the lack of God.

2. Free will was given to humans because he created our souls in his image. God has free will, and he gave his greatest creation the same. We do evil by disobeying God, it is not God's fault that we disobey him and cause evil. This is like saying that guns or cars or any object kills a person; no, it is the person that kills another person through their actions. We are responsible for everything we do.

1. God didn't create evil; evil comes from from disobeying God and is the state of being separated from God. This is why Hell is nt physical but rather complete separation from God. Evil is the lack of God.

2. Free will was given to humans because he created our souls in his image. God has free will, and he gave his greatest creation the same. We do evil by disobeying God, it is not God's fault that we disobey him and cause evil. This is like saying that guns or cars or any object kills a person; no, it is the person that kills another person through their actions. We are responsible for everything we do.

So, if he gave us free will, why does he order us to do good and worship him? Wouldn't it be easier to not give us free will and make us do all of that anyways.

Seems kind of funny, he gives us free will and then orders us to bow down and worship him like mindless drones. :rolleyes:

So, anyone who does use this free will he gave us and becomes a free thinker is evil because he does not do as god commanded.

And if god is omnipotent and omniscient, he could see this evil going to be caused (more contradictions here about him being a timeless being) if he gave free will, so why the hell does he bother to give us free will?

God himself does not have free will, being omnipotent and omniscient, he sees what will happen in the future, and being devoted to good, he can't make any other choice but the choice that will preserve good. So god himself doesn't have free will.

There's no reason to suspect there's anything divine. Furthermore, in the light of what we do know, it's highly implausible there's something divine. There isn't any need for something divine, as we don't know of things where a divine influence is needed.

The carcass Neo Rogolia keeps flogging in every thread, doesn't in any way imply something divine. 2 very obvious things speaks against divine intervention as the cause of existence. I almost fear to write what they are, on the off chance I'll ruin her life... But It really isn't plausible that facts and speculations can change the perceptions of a fundie, so I'll do it.

1. Throughout history, we've blamed natural phenomena on divine intervention untill we've been able to demonstrate, that divine intervention haven't got anything to do with them. Things like the weather, geological phenomena, biology and approximately everything else springs to mind.
Seen in that light, it's not plausible to expect divine intervention is the cause of things we currently cannot understand. We've been 100% wrong every time we've blamed divine intervention so far. That makes it highly plausible divine intervention have nothing to do with things we can't understand.

2. Although we can only understand our universe as far back as -1^34 second after it started*, we do have several unverifiable, but plausible* theories regarding what actually happened. This also makes it implausible divine intervention have anything to do with it.

*Started: Currently, there's a lot of debate about just how time works. It's possible time isn't linear at all. I'm not an authority on the subject and it's far beyond the scope of a messageboard to try and explain current theories.

*Plausible: M-Theory is actually more of a philosophical approximation right now, as it's completely unfalsifiable. What lends credibility to it, is that it explains how things like the general theory of relativity works with quantum mechanics. And it presents a couple of credible scenarios explaining how our universe came into being. I'm not an authority on the subject and it's far beyond the scope of a messageboard to try and explain current theories.

Basically, we know of nothing that lends credibility to anything divine.
On the philosophical side of it, I've yet to see any solid explanations of why we should bow down to divine oppression. Some petty, all-powerful and extremely vindictive deity isn't my cup of tea. Honestly, I'll much rather burn in hell than offer such a thing anything but scorn. If the holy books of the major monotheisms are anything to go by, the deity is an evil fuck, acting like a 6 year old. The comparison with to a child with a maginfying glass, causing havoc on an anthill isn't too far off it seems.

But whatever... To me, religious people appear gullible in te extreme. They also seem quite masochistic. Granted, a fair number of them act perfectly normal, and I have no problem with them. Their religion is their business, not mine. Arrogant, fundamentalistic and prejudiced people just piss me off, and makes me treat all religious people the same way.

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

"Evidence that demands a verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185078552X/qid=1120832431/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785243631/qid=1120832431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"Jesus who is he" Tim LaHaye (cant find a link for this one, but I'm reading it at the moment and its great)
Okay, I'm not atheist, per se, I'm an agnostic spirtualist. However, I most definately do not believe in your "god". I am not skeptic, I completely disbelieve in him/her/it. I do believe that the supernatural may exist, though I have never experienced something clearly supernatural. No, I will not read those books. :p

2. Free will was given to humans because he created our souls in his image. God has free will, and he gave his greatest creation the same. We do evil by disobeying God, it is not God's fault that we disobey him and cause evil. This is like saying that guns or cars or any object kills a person; no, it is the person that kills another person through their actions. We are responsible for everything we do.

I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that humanity is 'his greatest creation'. If we were created by 'God', he may have a different opinion as to what his 'greatest creation' is.

And just in case you're wondering, I'm an atheist.

I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that humanity is 'his greatest creation'. If we were created by 'God', he may have a different opinion as to what his 'greatest creation' is.

And just in case you're wondering, I'm an atheist.

Clarification: Greatest species on Earth

Humans are at present the only species capable of creating art, literature, music, religion, mathematics, advanced technology, science, transforming the world around us, and so on. Even without the presence of a soul (which is why we are the greatest creation religiously; the only Earth species with a soul), we have done more than any other species, and it is possible our evolution is not even close to completion. We are dominant above all other species, and given our unique complexity and capacity for knowledge, that is why we are the greatest creation on Earth.

:rolleyes:
What a well thought out rebuttal :p

If you think god is an asshole, then you aren't an atheist... because you still believe in god... you just don't like him.

I, however, am an atheist, because my studies and experiences with religion have led me to believe that the existence of god is highly illogical.

I do believe in life after death though, I just don't believe that a supreme being governs it, so I certainly don't believe in heaven and hell.

Clarification: Greatest species on Earth

Humans are at present the only species capable of creating art, literature, music, religion, mathematics, advanced technology, science, transforming the world around us, and so on. Even without the presence of a soul (which is why we are the greatest creation religiously; the only Earth species with a soul), we have done more than any other species, and it is possible our evolution is not even close to completion. We are dominant above all other species, and given our unique complexity and capacity for knowledge, that is why we are the greatest creation on Earth.

hmm... arrogance

Ding! You win a cookie and a 15% discount on my storefront for getting that. When someone figures out the falsehood behind the second proof I'll give them half of my liver.I ♥ you, too

hmm... arrogance

Humanity is also the only creature which is logically capable of being accused of arrogance, since we have a free will.

Animals aren't expected to take responsibility for their mistakes (so they cannot be arrogant), whereas a person who does not accept responsibility for their sin/mistakes is considered arrogant.

My agnosticism (rather than full-blown atheism) is based on the fact that Christianity, Islam, and the religion from which they sprung: Judaism, were basically started by patricarchal extremists as a reaction to the predominant matriarchal pagan religions of the time.

Men were insecure about their sexual inferiority to women (who can bear children - hence their deification as 'creators' - and have orgasm after orgasm, while men are done after the first, by and large..), thus a small faction of mystics within the nomadic Hebrew people created a 'cult' of followers emphasising a masculine, conservative, logical god ('Yahweh/Jehova') to undermine the social and sexual dominace of women. It took a couple of thousand years, but eventually it gained enough popularity to act as a catalyst for the Hebrews' later escape and exodus from Egypt. Upon returning to Caanan, they found that it was full of Caananites, so slaughtered them all, for the 'Promised Land' in which they'd lived for only a couple of decades years previously.

All laws, politics, dogma, industry and economy are in one way or another based on maintaining a (forcibly seized) masculine dominance of society. It is entirely possible that the god Yahweh (aka 'God', Allah, Jehova) was a cynical artifical construct to bolster the cause of masculine dominance, emphasis on 'Father', 'Lord', 'Saviour' as opposed to 'Mother' 'Mistress' and 'Nature' - tenets common all over the world at that time (and some which remain today). Pagan rituals like sacrificing animals, having orgies, gazing at stars and constellations must have really got to these uptight, insecure, anal patricarch figures.

These modern religions all started off as cults, remember, no more or less credible than the Roman or Greek god panethon. Do you chuckle at stories of Dionysus - god of getting leathered and going on the piss - and his celestial buddies? Do you think: 'did people really and honestly believe that?'? Well, a 500BC Roman citizen would laugh at you for believing in an omnipotent fatherly god.. Who's right? It just so happened that the Yahweh-based religions gained massive popularity over a long drawn-out process of pitching, publicising, prosletysing, cajoling, commonly as a pretext for war or invasion (funny how things change :rolleyes: )..

So, sure, spirituality is important and a natural human instinct. But religion as a concept is a thinly-veiled example of social control, and I always wonder why people just can't seem to realise that. To me it seems glaringly obvious.

In laymens' terms: it's all a crock. Simple as.

NB: I have no feminist axe to grind, feminism became ridiculous after about 5 minutes in the 60's. In any case I'm a guy.
i find it so incredible that someone like you can come in and use all these big words probably half of which you dont even really know the actual meaning of just to disguise how little you actually know about the facts. in order for christianity to be any kind of a cult it would have to be based on the principles of what we know ourselves about the nature of cults today. They are self serving to one ultimate person or leader usually claiming a form of physical divination and they are made to impose on the freedoms of others. While I myself being a christian do not believe the principles of judaism or islam I do respect the two as valid beliefs for a certain sect of humanity. But what I whould never do is cover up my own lack of knowledge by using hot air and big words i have a graduate students vocabulary howeverI don't choose to go around using it when i state opinons to people in places like this because the simple fact is so many online forums arent read by those with a college education. While I respect your belief as well I could not even begin to comprehend how you think your anywhere close to right in saying that christianity is a cult. Jesus never imposed on peoples freedom or tryed to control them that is in essence what a cult leader does. He also seeks to do anything nessecary to keep his followers under his control. Hence incidents like Jim jones and Jonestown or David Koresh with the branch dividians in Waco or the heavens gate followers led to believe by an absolutely disturbed man that the comet halebopp was a spaceship to take them to a new world. If Christ was ever any of these things then two things would of never happened and those are peter denying christ and judas iscariot turning him over to the romans. Had he been any kind of a cultist he would have been ever presently paranoid of defections in his ministry however all he did was send a message to the world. I respect your opinon but please dont label others as a basis for nagative things if you cant prove it as clear and undeniable truth. Trust but verify my friend I live my life like that.

i find it so incredible that someone like you can come in and use all these big words probably half of which you dont even really know the actual meaning of just to disguise how little you actually know about the facts. i
And yet he managed to use it correctly

You seem to be the one with not only formatting but grammatical issues as well.

hmm... arrogance

No, because I never said we were the greatest creation of the entire universe. It is very likely, if not inevitable that there are intelligent species superior to us; the only task is to find them.

It would be arrogance if humans were on an equal level with all other organisms, but our accomplishemnts speak otherwise.

1. Bullshit. A majority of university lecturers at any non-religious college do not teach a specific religious viewpoint.

The majority of university lecturers are athiests and riducle religion constantly

The majority of university lecturers are athiests and riducle religion constantly

You are in university and a majority of your lectures are athiests and ridicule relgion?? And you assume this to be true of most classes at most universities?

Meh. Maybe, maybe at whatever school you attend this is true for some courses.

Having attended 3 different universities where this was not the case, I rather doubt your account.

Given my familiarity with how universities generally work I doubt your account.

I don't believe my religion sounds ridiculous at all. I just find it funny when kids reach that age where they have this personal vendetta against Christianity and believe they are enlightened and the rest of the world is full of neanderthalic sheep. I give it a year or two before his common sense is restored.


So you think you're enlightened and we're neanderthalic sheep...

Part of the reason a lot of kids get turned off from christianity, is that exact same agist, condescending, proselytizing attitude towards us. Hell, half us atheist/agnostic/secular kids probably follow the teachings in the Bible better than middle-aged Christians anyways... just look at how many bible-beating politicians and public figures end up having affairs or molesting kids.

To the guy talking bollocks maths, you are wrong. End of. I can say that because I am a maths teacher, and in maths, you are either wrong or right. I`m guessing you got upto the second year of your pure maths degree, and have come across this theory, which is NeoChaos Theory by the way, you only learn to disprove it on your third year. A letter cannot, and does not, represent another letter. In algebra, as the most basic rule, letters= intergers. Nice math though, applied in the right place as well.

The actual Chaos theory though, disproves reality in the way you intened NeoChaos theory to. Look up The chaos theory. It makes excellent reading.

[QUOTE=Pritchardland]in order for christianity to be any kind of a cult it would have to be based on the principles of what we know ourselves about the nature of cults today. They are self serving to one ultimate person or leader usually claiming a form of physical divination and they are made to impose on the freedoms of others.

hmm, self serving, check
one person or leader, the pope, check
impose on others freedoms, why else is the pope against abortion or homosexuality publicly?

in connclusion, using your own evidence, Christianity is a big cult that has gotten out of control

To the guy talking bollocks maths, you are wrong. End of. I can say that because I am a maths teacher, and in maths, you are either wrong or right. I`m guessing you got upto the second year of your pure maths degree, and have come across this theory, which is NeoChaos Theory by the way, you only learn to disprove it on your third year. A letter cannot, and does not, represent another letter. In algebra, as the most basic rule, letters= intergers. Nice math though, applied in the right place as well.


You're a math teacher? And you don't understand the fundamentals of proof by induction? Leafanistan was quite well aware there was a flaw in it (if somewhat off-base in the conclusions), but you don't need third year pure mathematics to find the flaw. Hint: zero is not a positive integer.

BTW, a Google search for 'NeoChaos Theory mathematics' (no quotes) turned up zero hits.

So you think you're enlightened and we're neanderthalic sheep...
Nope, that's not what he said. Try again.

For the record, there is information about it on the web, you have to search for 'neo-chaos' (note the hyphen). But I can't find a page that says what the theory actually states, which would be helpful to us all.

What i do not like, is the fact that it seems to be an all or nothing.
Any teaching that says....

You either follow the teaching of the [insert title] or your the enemy/going to hell.

....is not going to get my devotion. I might read the bible or any other book and get ideas or different perspectives on issues, but can you really expect anyone me to follow all of it to the word and have the free thought? come on!

Yeah, same here, 6 moves and 8 schools by the age of 18, up and down the country. Here lies the root of my issues with the church.

I guess all of your "wordly-ness" has not exposed you to the fact that actually, Judaism's Gd is not just a male embodiment. Although only people who follow Kabbalah (Jewish Mysticism) seem to study this aspect, Gd acts in both male and female roles. However, anyone who has spoken to an observant Jew (who follow tradition as strictly, if not more strictly than Jews did in the times before the Temples were destroyed) about what they believe will also tell you that Gd cannot be fit into our human ideas of "man" or "woman." (Along the same lines, though not as pertinent to the conversation, that is also why Jews do not believe that Gd would come down in male human form) I can see where just having faith in this whole mishmash of ideology might be difficult for people who haven't really studied these things but then I'm sure you wouldn't be knocking religion if you didn't really know what they were about. I have no problem with people who don't believe in anything, but don't blame my religion for your lack thereof, it would've been better if you had admitted that you don't believe cause you don't really care either way.

To all the atheists and agnostics out there, can I just ask you something.

In the age we live in, with many of lifes mysteries being explained by technology, and with the world becoming more rationalised, surely this rules out religion? Doesn't it? Or maybe not. Why are so many millions of people religious, when you claim they have all they need elsewhere? Maybe there is something else?

To all the atheists and agnostics out there, can I just ask you something.

In the age we live in, with many of lifes mysteries being explained by technology, and with the world becoming more rationalised, surely this rules out religion? Doesn't it? Or maybe not. Why are so many millions of people religious, when you claim they have all they need elsewhere? Maybe there is something else?
Perhaps we mean to say that 'all we need is elsewhere' rather than 'all they need is elsewhere'?

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

"Evidence that demands a verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185078552X/qid=1120832431/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785243631/qid=1120832431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"Jesus who is he" Tim LaHaye (cant find a link for this one, but I'm reading it at the moment and its great)

I am a Unitarian christian, and I would rather DIE than read ANYTHING by that psycho maniac Tim LaHaye!

I know I'm not supposed to hate anyone, as a Christian, but I'm not perfect, and Tim LaHaye is the driving force behind the freaking neo-cons!! He's a major-league asshole, to borrow a phrase from our illustrious President.

MY KING IS: The King of the Jews - that's a racial King. The King of Israel - that's a national King; The King of Glory; the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The heavens declare the glory of God, the firmament shows His handiwork.

My King is... A sovereign King. No means of measure can define His limitless Love! No far-reaching telescope can bring into visibility the coastline of His shortest supply! No barrier can hinder Him from pouring out His blessings!

He's enduringly strong!... He's entirely sincere! He's imperially powerful! He's impartially merciful! He's the greatest phenomenon that has ever crossed the horizon of this world!

He's God's Son... The sinner's saviour! The centrepiece of civilization! He stands in the solitude of Himself!

He's august and unique!... He's unparalleled! He's unprecedented! He is the loftiest idea in literature. He's the highest personality in philosophy. He's the supreme problem in higher criticism. He's the fundamental doctrine of true theology! He's the core necessity for spiritual religion. He's the miracle of the ages! He's the superlative of everything good that you choose to call Him!

He's the only one qualified to be an all-sufficient Saviour!... He supplies strength for the weak. He's available for the tempted and tried. He sympathizes and He saves. He strengthens and sustains. He guards and guides. He heals the sick. He cleansed the lepers. He forgives sinners. He discharges debtors. He delivers the captives. He defends the feeble. He blesses the young. He serves the unfortunate. He regards the aged. He rewards the diligent and beautifies the meek.

My King is the key to knowledge: The wellspring of wisdom; the doorway of deliverance; the pathway of peace; the roadway of righteousness; the highway of holiness, and the gateway of glory!

His office is manifold: His promise is sure. His light is matchless. His goodness is limitless. His mercy is everlasting. His reign is Righteous. His yoke is easy, and His burden is light.

I wish I could describe Him for you, but He's indescribable! He's Incomprehensible! He's invincible! He's Irresistible!

You can't get Him out of your mind or off your hands! You can't out-live Him and you can't live without Him! The Pharisees couldn't stand Him, but they found out they couldn't stop Him. Pilate couldn't find any fault in Him. The witnesses couldn't agree. Herod couldn't kill Him. Death couldn't handle Him, and the grave couldn't hold Him!

That's my King, That's my King, That's my King, and He's the kingdom and the power and the glory - Forever! AMEN!!! I wonder...do you know Him? - Rev. SM Lockridge


by Rev. SM Lockridge

To all the atheists and agnostics out there, can I just ask you something.

In the age we live in, with many of lifes mysteries being explained by technology, and with the world becoming more rationalised, surely this rules out religion? Doesn't it? Or maybe not. Why are so many millions of people religious, when you claim they have all they need elsewhere? Maybe there is something else?

I would say that 75 percent of those religious people are religious in name only. They don't attend services, they don't study any religious works, and the only time they follow the teachings of their religion is when it suits them.

Talk to any believer and ultimately they'll tell you "it's my faith. I just believe". Well, good luck to them.

I am an atheist; I just don't believe. It isn't something you can rationalise - it's a human condition. I just wish the believers amongst us would accept that.

I wish I could describe Him for you, but He's indescribable! He's Incomprehensible! He's invincible! He's Irresistible!


Where one sees "indescribable" I see "made up".
Where one thinks "incomprehensible", I think "uncertain"
Where one feels "invincible", I feel "untestable"
Where one hears "irresistable", I hear "why bother?"

I don't believe my religion sounds ridiculous at all. I just find it funny when kids reach that age where they have this personal vendetta against Christianity and believe they are enlightened and the rest of the world is full of neanderthalic sheep. I give it a year or two before his common sense is restored.


This is a little late, but you're an idiot. Not all agnostics and atheists are children. You sound exactly like an 18 year old who "knows everything."

Idiot.

I would just like to point out that there are more contriversial religions than "atheism" or "agnosticism"

I am a Satanist and it doesn't really fall into any of the previous catagories.

To all the atheists and agnostics out there, can I just ask you something.

In the age we live in, with many of lifes mysteries being explained by technology, and with the world becoming more rationalised, surely this rules out religion? Doesn't it? Or maybe not. Why are so many millions of people religious, when you claim they have all they need elsewhere? Maybe there is something else?


I think people were just raised that way for the most part. Or maybe they just need something to believe in? What's the point of waking up every morning if when you die it just ends...just like that? I'm on the side of agnosticism, however I'm just throwing some ideas out there.

I don't believe my religion sounds ridiculous at all. I just find it funny when kids reach that age where they have this personal vendetta against Christianity and believe they are enlightened and the rest of the world is full of neanderthalic sheep. I give it a year or two before his common sense is restored.

You might not think your religion sounds ridiculous... but you write-off non-Christian sentiment as a form of temporary mental aberration...

Personally, faced with the choice a story about a pair of naked dimwits in a garden, their damp descendents, and a guy who won't stay dead.... or a world where cause and effect are consistent.... well, I'm going to opt for the one with the better evidence.

Few people really have enough knowledge of Christianity to reach an intelligent conclusion when questioning it. It takes a lot of time studying apologetics to multiple interpretations of biblical passages before one can really come to any decent conclusion.

First - you assume that Atheists must, by some mystical implication, NOT have read the Bible.

I think you'd probably be surprised at how scripturally 'educated' many Atheists and Agnostics really are.

Second - Apologetics are irrelevent. If you can only appreciate scripture through someone else's interpretation of what it might mean, you display a lack of spiritual discernment.

Third - before you start whipping out your qualifications to be holier-than-thou, perhaps you should look into the subject of just how qualified in scripture some of the other posters MIGHT be. From my point of view, if you have never read the scripture in it's native language(s), you have no room to talk.

This is one of the most misguided and just plain nasty threads I've ever come across in the NS Forums.

Come on people. You're passionate about something, that's good. However, you should really think out your post before you begin to ramble on in a venomous and vindictive manner that adds nothing to the debate except hurt the opposition's feelings.

Shouting at somebody is not going to change their mind.

I'm also disappointed that people who are adding to the debate in a more constructive manner aren't criticizing those who are cheapening the discussion one both sides.

Or you could just ignore them. ;)

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

"Evidence that demands a verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185078552X/qid=1120832431/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785243631/qid=1120832431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"Jesus who is he" Tim LaHaye (cant find a link for this one, but I'm reading it at the moment and its great)

Just curious, are you implying that these books can convince the non-believers in the supernatural, but are no help in disproving logical fallacies in the bible?

I have read McDowell's books and am not convinced. I will not read anything from LaHaye. Ask yourself if you agree with these books and your own pastors sermons because you have researched and found them to be true? Or do you agree because they say and teach things you already believe to be true?

I lost my faith when I objectively began studying the bible. I will not try to convert you to logic and reason and will not villify your faith.

May peace be your guide.

There IS no plausible theory for universal origins, we cannot explain how the matter present in the big bang originated. Every theory so far posited has been shot down.

A cyclic universe (each incarnation effectively born from the ashes of the prior incarnation) dispenses with the need for any 'spontaneous' Big Bang... and I have yet to see a convincing means to 'shoot it down'.

For those of you that criticise Christians without actually reading all the bible, then I suggest (purely from a friendly point of view), that you do. Obviously you can't read it all at once...

Why can't you read it 'all at once'?

Do you just mean, "in one day"? Or do you imply that it is impossible to read straight-through, cover-to-cover?

1. God didn't create evil; evil comes from from disobeying God and is the state of being separated from God. This is why Hell is nt physical but rather complete separation from God. Evil is the lack of God.

2. Free will was given to humans because he created our souls in his image. God has free will, and he gave his greatest creation the same. We do evil by disobeying God, it is not God's fault that we disobey him and cause evil. This is like saying that guns or cars or any object kills a person; no, it is the person that kills another person through their actions. We are responsible for everything we do.

1) The Bible frequently, explicitly, states 'god' as the cause and root of evil.

2) It is god's fault that we disobey... the whole Eden story is an unwinnable scenario. The two 'naked dimwits' couldn't know they were doing wrong until AFTER they did wrong... so 'god' tricked them into disobedience.

A cyclic universe (each incarnation effectively born from the ashes of the prior incarnation) dispenses with the need for any 'spontaneous' Big Bang... and I have yet to see a convincing means to 'shoot it down'.

Although your theory is quite a viable one, a cyclical birth and destruction of the universe is only possible if there is enough matter in the universe to lead to a "big crunch" at the end of the universe. If there is not enough matter then the universe will continue to expand into a cold nothingness.

Also many have suggested that the universe can reproduce by way of black holes "budding" into other dimensions and thereby creating new universes.

Also many have suggested that the universe can reproduce by way of black holes "budding" into other dimensions and thereby creating new universes.
And that's marvelously fascinating, because it does away with the need for the "beginning" of the universe being a singular event.

But that's off-topic.

Although your theory is quite a viable one, a cyclical birth and destruction of the universe is only possible if there is enough matter in the universe to lead to a "big crunch" at the end of the universe. If there is not enough matter then the universe will continue to expand into a cold nothingness.

Also many have suggested that the universe can reproduce by way of black holes "budding" into other dimensions and thereby creating new universes.

I'm afraid that the truth of the matter is that we will never positively know how the universe started. For example, we can start with a Big Bang, but what caused it? There will always seem to be the need for a 'first mover' because of the way we perceive space and time.

On the topic of a first mover, the problem with that idea is that it never explains what moved the first mover, as it were. It's a regression problem; if God exists, who created God?

As for the general idea of this thread, I don't *believe* in God, but I don't *not believe* in him either. If anything, belief is irrelevant to life. Sure, it's done some good in the past; I can't fault the Jewish tradition for it's adherence to moral and ethical values. Belief has also caused some horrible things, which I deign not to list as I'm sure everyone knows the evil carried out by zealots.

If humans had no need to believe, where would we be? Everyone's got their own ideas, but I'll say this: we'll never know, because belief is built in. Evolutionary psych says belief was good for early social groups. Religion says that God placed belief in us, or His existance causes belief, or some variation thereof.

Regardless, you believe what you want to believe, I'll believe what I want to believe, and the guy next door can believe what he wants to believe. Just don't tread on me.

Someone linked me to a website a while back, and it was made by a man who had converted from Atheism to Christianity. It had a lot of what I'm seeing here: trying to say that because current science cannot explain the mysteries of the Universe that God (or gods) must exist. Can someone explain to my why this assumption is considered to be valid?

Although your theory is quite a viable one, a cyclical birth and destruction of the universe is only possible if there is enough matter in the universe to lead to a "big crunch" at the end of the universe. If there is not enough matter then the universe will continue to expand into a cold nothingness.

Also many have suggested that the universe can reproduce by way of black holes "budding" into other dimensions and thereby creating new universes.

I have seen this argument against a Big Cruch before, and I think it is based on a flawed logic... no matter how much, or how little material there is in the universe... and no matter how dispersed it appears to be, or how rapidly it seems to be moving away from a collective centre... there is no 'boundary', and there will always be more gravitic mass WITHIN the expanding fronteir, than WITHOUT (obviously). Thus - eventually, even a tiny, dispersed mass MUST decelerate and collapse... although the process would be extrememly gradual.

Clarification: Greatest species on Earth

Humans are at present the only species capable of creating art, literature, music, religion, mathematics, advanced technology, science, transforming the world around us, and so on. Even without the presence of a soul (which is why we are the greatest creation religiously; the only Earth species with a soul), we have done more than any other species, and it is possible our evolution is not even close to completion. We are dominant above all other species, and given our unique complexity and capacity for knowledge, that is why we are the greatest creation on Earth.

Prove that humans are the only species capable of creating art, literature, music, religion, mathematics ... etc.

I have seen monkeys and elephants create painted art on canvas... so that makes a lie of your first point.

I have heard songbirds exchange and increase upon, melodies... effectively creating recognisable music.

I have seen octopi identify patterns based on NUMBERS of lines... which is a mathematical principle.

I have watched Beavers build dams, thus 'transforming the world around us'.

I have watched otters and chimpanzees use tools in food procurement - thus demonstrating a 'technological' ability.

Regarding your argument about the 'soul'... you clearly do not have a true grasp of scripture.

The word which is translated into English as 'soul' is the Hebrew "Nephesh" - as, for example, in Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul".

It is worth noting that, even BEFORE we get as far as Genesis 2, the Bible has ALREADY stated that animals have souls... although poor translation into English has hidden this fact:

Genesis 1:20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven".

which SHOULD read more like:

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature living soul, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven"... since the word Nephesh is used again here.

This is probably deliberate obfuscation, since Nephesh is mistranslated again in Leviticus 11:10 and 11:46; and in Ezekiel 47:9.

The mistranslation continues even in the Greek. The Greek equivalent of Nephesh is 'psykhe'. Compare Revelation 8:9 with First Corinthians 15:45:

Revelation 8:9 "And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed".

First Corinthians 15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit".

Note that each of the bold words in the two passages, is translated from the same word - 'psykhe'.

Reading the Bible in native languages, or even just refering to the sources of the translated words, clearly shows that ALL living things have 'souls'.

So - I'm afraid you are wrong on both counts....

Grave, I'm no religious man, but I seriously hope you're not trying to convince us that animals can create art, literature, music, religion, mathematics, advanced technology, science. There is a world of difference between picking out patterns and devising the Quadratic Equation; there's also a world of difference between a monkey wondering just what the hell paint is as he flings it at a canvas and a Rembrandt.

The comparisons you draw completely fail to address the massive discrepancies between human and animal cognition. Telling me that a bird's song is 'music' is absurd. Any 'melodic' configuration is a product of the bird's habits, it's not a composition.

1) The Bible frequently, explicitly, states 'god' as the cause and root of evil.

2) It is god's fault that we disobey... the whole Eden story is an unwinnable scenario. The two 'naked dimwits' couldn't know they were doing wrong until AFTER they did wrong... so 'god' tricked them into disobedience.


well..... I wouldn't agree with that...

The Bible states that God created humans in his image. That doesn't mean we all look like God or anything, but it means that if we actually wanted to hard enough, we would be perfect beings. But God also has free will. He CHOSE to create the world. He CHOSE to make all the creatures, and he also CHOSE to give humans charge of the planet, and free will.

God didn't trick Adam and Eve into disobedience. Whatever you believe happened at creation, one thing is clear - Adam and Eve made the conscious decision to disobey God.

well..... I wouldn't agree with that...

The Bible states that God created humans in his image. That doesn't mean we all look like God or anything, but it means that if we actually wanted to hard enough, we would be perfect beings. But God also has free will. He CHOSE to create the world. He CHOSE to make all the creatures, and he also CHOSE to give humans charge of the planet, and free will.

God didn't trick Adam and Eve into disobedience. Whatever you believe happened at creation, one thing is clear - Adam and Eve made the conscious decision to disobey God.
I'm sorry, but Original Sin is a huge steaming crock of bullshit; the idea that I'm responsible in some metaphysical sense for the actions of my 'ancestors' is insulting and absurd. Show me a talking snake and I'll either get rich off of it or shoot the little bastard.

well..... I wouldn't agree with that...

The Bible states that God created humans in his image. That doesn't mean we all look like God or anything, but it means that if we actually wanted to hard enough, we would be perfect beings. But God also has free will. He CHOSE to create the world. He CHOSE to make all the creatures, and he also CHOSE to give humans charge of the planet, and free will.

God didn't trick Adam and Eve into disobedience. Whatever you believe happened at creation, one thing is clear - Adam and Eve made the conscious decision to disobey God.
However... This whole scenario is utterly fooked. I mean, god knew what would happen all along, did it?
So why create people? Was it just so god could watch humans squirm?

Grave, I'm no religious man, but I seriously hope you're not trying to convince us that animals can create art, literature, music, religion, mathematics, advanced technology, science. There is a world of difference between picking out patterns and devising the Quadratic Equation; there's also a world of difference between a monkey wondering just what the hell paint is as he flings it at a canvas and a Rembrandt.

The comparisons you draw completely fail to address the massive discrepancies between human and animal cognition. Telling me that a bird's song is 'music' is absurd. Any 'melodic' configuration is a product of the bird's habits, it's not a composition.

First: The other poster claimed that other animals CANNOT create those various things. The burden of proof is, therefore, on him/her.

I have cited some evidences that I think throw, at the very least, doubt over his/her assertion.

Second: Regarding religion - I don't know how anyone can seriously think they can argue this one either way, UNTIL we find some kind of animal-constructed shrine. I do not claim to know ANY of what animals 'think'... let alone how they conceptualise reality.

Third: I didn't claim that monkeys are Rembrandt - but they do seem to be able to create works which share compositional values with some human art... especially when you consider that some art relies purely on the compositional ability of the creator to influence chaotic elements.

Thus - while a monkey might NOT be Rembrandt, he MIGHT be Pollock.

Fourth: How do you define musical composition? I have heard recordings of birdsong accompanied by flautist... where the birds modulate their 'song' to complement the flute. That MAY be habit... but, if it is, then it is HABIT that allows for improvisation.

It is also long documented that some songbirds 'learn' elements of song from other songbirds, or even from other things... like 'trimphone' tones, for example - and then use those 'found sounds' in their OWN songs.

Fifth: What is the 'world of difference' between numerical patterns and Quadratic Formula? The principle on which much of our mathematics is based, is one of discovery of patterns.... the equation is born from the observation of repeated patterns in representational data... such as the straight line or parabola in a graph.

Sixth: "Advanced Technology" is relative. A few thousand years ago, Advanced Technology might be the ability to break open a hard food, or use a tool to reach into an inaccesible space - both of which have been observed innovations in the animal kingdom. Sure, I agree that Parakeets probably don't have microchips... but neither did we, a century ago...

Seventh: Again, a relative term... it depends how you define 'Science'. If you define 'science' as observation, followed by conclusion, followed by testing, followed by refinement (what we might call Research and Development), then there is AMPLE evidence of 'science' in the animal kingdom. Squirrels are an obvious contender.

If you mean Nuclear weapons, again, I agree... animals haven't observably demonstrated Nuclear potential (neither did Saddam... didn't save him...), but - again - humans didn't have THAT kind of science a hundred years ago.


I guess the question I NEED to ask is, why do you need to believe that animals CAN NOT do the things we do?

I have seen this argument against a Big Cruch before, and I think it is based on a flawed logic... no matter how much, or how little material there is in the universe... and no matter how dispersed it appears to be, or how rapidly it seems to be moving away from a collective centre... there is no 'boundary', and there will always be more gravitic mass WITHIN the expanding fronteir, than WITHOUT (obviously). Thus - eventually, even a tiny, dispersed mass MUST decelerate and collapse... although the process would be extrememly gradual.

You offer conclusion based on incomplete analyses.

Another possibility is that there is a great attracting force causing the expansion to gain momentum, not lose it, as it expands more and more. Perhaps, that the non-universe (the void the universe expands into) is a void of such nature that it acts like a vacuum, adding a force that both increases the rate of the universe expansion and would, thus, need to be overcome so that the universe could ever collapse. Current thinking is that it will not collapse, even without the accelerant force needing to be considered.

well..... I wouldn't agree with that...

The Bible states that God created humans in his image. That doesn't mean we all look like God or anything, but it means that if we actually wanted to hard enough, we would be perfect beings. But God also has free will. He CHOSE to create the world. He CHOSE to make all the creatures, and he also CHOSE to give humans charge of the planet, and free will.

God didn't trick Adam and Eve into disobedience. Whatever you believe happened at creation, one thing is clear - Adam and Eve made the conscious decision to disobey God.

I don't know why you are discussing 'god creating man in his image'... it has nothing to do with what I said... or the topic. Explain?

God very much DID trick Adam and Eve into disobedience.

1) He created a device that COULD allow them to know the difference between good and evil.

2) He created an entity that COULD lie.

3) He didn't tell Adam and Eve that the lying entity existed.

4) He didn't even tell Adam and Eve that LYING existed.

5) Since they hadn't yet eaten the fruit... they had no idea of good and evil... no way to judge.

6) The ONLY entity they had ever encountered that could talk, was God.

7) A talking entity tells Eve it is okay to eat the fruit. She has no frame of reference for talking entities.... she ONLY knows God. So - she MUST assume that the advice she is getting is from God. Trick Number One.

8) The serpent lies to her. She has never encountered lying. So - she has no ability to even know such a thing is possible. God has allowed her to be tricked. Trick Number Two.

9) The ONLY way she can know that she is about to do a bad thing, is if she knew the difference between good and evil. She CANNOT know this difference, until AFTER she disobeys. Trick Number Three.

10) The two naked dimwits cannot 'consciously' decide to disobey god, because they are not equipped to know what disobedience even IS. They merely follow the instructions they are given, because they know no reason NOT to. God COULD have made it impossible for them to sin through ignorance, but he chooses not to. Thus - by lack of information, God tricks them into sinning through NOT BEING AUTOMATONS. Trick Number Four.

First: The other poster claimed that other animals CANNOT create those various things. The burden of proof is, therefore, on him/her.
They can't. Not in the human capacity, anyway.

I have cited some evidences that I think throw, at the very least, doubt over his/her assertion.

Second: Regarding religion - I don't know how anyone can seriously think they can argue this one either way, UNTIL we find some kind of animal-constructed shrine. I do not claim to know ANY of what animals 'think'... let alone how they conceptualise reality.
They don't. Animal cognition is based solely on percepts, not concepts as a general rule. Some of the higher animals can conceptualize, but the vast majority of them cannot.

Third: I didn't claim that monkeys are Rembrandt - but they do seem to be able to create works which share compositional values with some human art... especially when you consider that some art relies purely on the compositional ability of the creator to influence chaotic elements.

Thus - while a monkey might NOT be Rembrandt, he MIGHT be Pollock.
Alright, but in fairness there's a bit of a discrepancy between "they do seem to be able to create works which share compositional values with some human art" and "I have seen monkeys and elephants create painted art on canvas... so that makes a lie of your first point."

Then thing you have to realize here is that Vetalia isn't talking about 'works which share compositional values with some human art,' s/he is talking about things like the Mona Lisa and the Scream and stuff like that. Monkey certainly can't do that.

Fourth: How do you define musical composition? I have heard recordings of birdsong accompanied by flautist... where the birds modulate their 'song' to complement the flute. That MAY be habit... but, if it is, then it is HABIT that allows for improvisation.

It is also long documented that some songbirds 'learn' elements of song from other songbirds, or even from other things... like 'trimphone' tones, for example - and then use those 'found sounds' in their OWN songs.Semantics. Furthermore, birdsong is not an aesthetic concept; it doesn't exist to fulfill the creative needs of the birds, it exists to demarcate their territory. It is the equivalent of humans standing on their porches with bullhorns. It's not music, get over it.

Fifth: What is the 'world of difference' between numerical patterns and Quadratic Formula? The principle on which much of our mathematics is based, is one of discovery of patterns.... the equation is born from the observation of repeated patterns in representational data... such as the straight line or parabola in a graph.
*Throws up hands in exasperation*

If you can't see the difference, there is no way on either side of hell I can possibly explain it to you. Are you honestly trying to tell me it is within the cognitive domain of an octupus to formulate complex mathematical equations, since the quadratic formula is no different from picking up number patters [which, mind you, may have been something as simple as 'what comes next? -- 1, 2, 3, 4....']?

Please, spare me.

Sixth: "Advanced Technology" is relative. A few thousand years ago, Advanced Technology might be the ability to break open a hard food, or use a tool to reach into an inaccesible space - both of which have been observed innovations in the animal kingdom. Sure, I agree that Parakeets probably don't have microchips... but neither did we, a century ago...
Well, I wasn't exactly challenging this, but sure. I just sort of copy/pasted that whole line about art, science, religion etc, since I didn't feel like typing it out. Some higher animals, as I said earlier, can conceptualize, which makes advances like these possible even among some of them.

Seventh: Again, a relative term... it depends how you define 'Science'. If you define 'science' as observation, followed by conclusion, followed by testing, followed by refinement (what we might call Research and Development), then there is AMPLE evidence of 'science' in the animal kingdom. Squirrels are an obvious contender.

If you mean Nuclear weapons, again, I agree... animals haven't observably demonstrated Nuclear potential (neither did Saddam... didn't save him...), but - again - humans didn't have THAT kind of science a hundred years ago.


I guess the question I NEED to ask is, why do you need to believe that animals CAN NOT do the things we do?
Because they can't? Do you see honey badgers driving cars or lions building skyscrapers?

I have seen this argument against a Big Cruch before, and I think it is based on a flawed logic... no matter how much, or how little material there is in the universe... and no matter how dispersed it appears to be, or how rapidly it seems to be moving away from a collective centre... there is no 'boundary', and there will always be more gravitic mass WITHIN the expanding fronteir, than WITHOUT (obviously). Thus - eventually, even a tiny, dispersed mass MUST decelerate and collapse... although the process would be extrememly gradual.

That would be the answer you get if you ignore the mathematics. It is quite possible for the universe to carry on expanding forever without introuducing a long range repulsion force that is getting more popular these days. Or do you think physicists who think our universe will end it gradual expansion cant do maths? For example, if the entire universe consisted of the earth and a small ball, and this ball was propelled upwards at 11km/s it can be shown that it would never return.

You offer conclusion based on incomplete analyses.

Another possibility is that there is a great attracting force causing the expansion to gain momentum, not lose it, as it expands more and more. Perhaps, that the non-universe (the void the universe expands into) is a void of such nature that it acts like a vacuum, adding a force that both increases the rate of the universe expansion and would, thus, need to be overcome so that the universe could ever collapse. Current thinking is that it will not collapse, even without the accelerant force needing to be considered.

How is my analysis incomplete? If ALL the matter is within the boundaries of ALL the matter (which is what the axpanding universe defines), then the centre of mass MUST also be within that boundary.

Regarding your 'great attracting force'... where would an assumption like that even come from? What do you assume would cause such force? I am not going to add in the consideration of some external force, unless there is reason... any more than I am going to weight my thinking according to pixies or extra-terrestrials.

Your assertion is illogical... the universe is not 'expanding into a void'... space is delineated by the boundary of space... there is no 'outside' of that boundary.

How would a 'vacuum' outside (if there COULD be an 'outside' to ALL of existence) be any different to the vacuum which makes up most of what is IN existence?

I have seen the argument you make before - and it always falls down on those points... the illogical assumption that there is something 'outside' of the boundaries of 'everything'.

Quite simply, if there WERE something 'outside' of everything... it would just mean that we had drawn the 'line' in the wrong place.... and there must be some more 'everything' within the true boundary.

The logical fallacy in the second 'proof' lies in the 'assume X is true' step. Assuming the conclusion to be true is more commonly used for proof by contradiction - that is, assume the statement to be true and then demonstrate that the statement being true would logically lead to the statement being false. If you assume the statement to be true, then come to the conclusion that the statement is true, you've proved nothing but a capacity to assume.
An example:
Assume I am always right.
Therefore I am always right.

Now, just because that particular example led to a correct conclusion </OverblownEgotism> doesn't mean that the technique is sound...


Oh, and in response to a comment a while back on this thread - Sorry, no, you *can't* have a logical disproof of God, because you logically *cannot* prove a negative. The burden is on proving a positive statement.

I also have to wonder about all those people who say that belief is 'built in' - are you claiming that it's genetic, and that people who believed in religion had a positive survival trait and so evolved to pass on the belief genes, and so for believers it isn't so much a choice as a biological imperative? Or are you claiming that all humankind is made up of believers, and that nonbelievers are mythical creations of the Internet? Those would seem to be the only logical interpretations of that statement.

That would be the answer you get if you ignore the mathematics. It is quite possible for the universe to carry on expanding forever without introuducing a long range repulsion force that is getting more popular these days. Or do you think physicists who think our universe will end it gradual expansion cant do maths? For example, if the entire universe consisted of the earth and a small ball, and this ball was propelled upwards at 11km/s it can be shown that it would never return.

Appealing to 'popularity' of a theory neither proves nor disproves it.

I think that "physicists who think our universe will end it gradual expansion" are wrong, plain and simple. I'm sure they are skilled mathematicians... but I think their logic is flawed. The two skills have nothing two do with one another.

As far as I can see, it is painfully obvious that, in the event that the universe really was defined as "just the Earth and a ball", it wouldn't matter what velocity the ball left at.... eventually it MUST return.

And I'm not going to buy into some 'long range repulsion force' just for the sake of convenience, either.

Comes down to the fact that, if all the matter defines ALL the matter, the centre of gravity is within that matter. The RATE of acceleration doesn't affect the fact that (since there is NO outside interference) the whole mass must act around that centre EVENTUALLY.

I just don't see why a patriarchal sky-father is necessary to explain things. I think an impersonal force or a goddess seems just as likely if not more so as a possible diety, anyway.

They can't. Not in the human capacity, anyway.


You say it like it is fact. Now you have made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you.

PROVE it.

And 'in the human capacity' wasn't in the original argument... nebulous term though it is.


They don't. Animal cognition is based solely on percepts, not concepts as a general rule. Some of the higher animals can conceptualize, but the vast majority of them cannot.


Made a liar of yourself within two sentences. Well, makes my job easier.

The point here was, I wouldn't even dare to claim to know what 'religion' or otherwise, animals were capable of or engaging in.


Alright, but in fairness there's a bit of a discrepancy between "they do seem to be able to create works which share compositional values with some human art" and "I have seen monkeys and elephants create painted art on canvas... so that makes a lie of your first point."

Then thing you have to realize here is that Vetalia isn't talking about 'works which share compositional values with some human art,' s/he is talking about things like the Mona Lisa and the Scream and stuff like that. Monkey certainly can't do that.


So, now you and Vetalia are arbiters of "what Art is"?

I have seen elephant paintings that definitely show compositional skills... I mean, the ability to place objects on paper, deliberately, so as to create an aesthetic image.... from there to Mona Lisa is degree and style... and the fine-brushwork of an opposed thumb.

There is no discrepency between my two points , as you cited... they are both true. I believe that the problem exists on what you are willing to accept as 'art'.


Semantics. Furthermore, birdsong is not an aesthetic concept; it doesn't exist to fulfill the creative needs of the birds, it exists to demarcate their territory. It is the equivalent of humans standing on their porches with bullhorns. It's not music, get over it.


Again... burden of proof. Birdsong serves far more than just territoriality... it has noticable effect even on things like the health of the singing bird. If you are going to assert that birdsong is PURELY demarcation - I want you to prove it.


*Throws up hands in exasperation*

If you can't see the difference, there is no way on either side of hell I can possibly explain it to you. Are you honestly trying to tell me it is within the cognitive domain of an octupus to formulate complex mathematical equations, since the quadratic formula is no different from picking up number patters [which, mind you, may have been something as simple as 'what comes next? -- 1, 2, 3, 4....']?

Please, spare me.


I don't see why this bothers you. Humans learn to calculate equations based on observation of numberical data.... simple balancing.


Because they can't? Do you see honey badgers driving cars or lions building skyscrapers?

Irrelevent. But rat-brain tissue can pilot jet aircraft...

You say it like it is fact. Now you have made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you.

PROVE it.

And 'in the human capacity' wasn't in the original argument... nebulous term though it is.
OK, I'll prove it. You see any pieces in the local museum that were painted by a dog? Do you see any sculptures made by rats? See any bridges built by alligators? See any car factories built by moose? Want me to go on?

This is ridiculous. I can't believe I'm arguing this with you.

Made a liar of yourself within two sentences. Well, makes my job easier.
You'll do well to never say anything like that to me ever again;l I don't put up with this shit. Especially in a debate context, it puts your opposition in an agitated state. I could hit you with a flamebait warning for this, but I won't. I would like you to edit this line out though. Now would be nice.

Thanks.

The point here was, I wouldn't even dare to claim to know what 'religion' or otherwise, animals were capable of or engaging in.
Fair enough. I thought you were talking about conceptualization on a broader scale.

So, now you and Vetalia are arbiters of "what Art is"?
I know I am. I can't speak for Vetalia. Art allows man to view concepts as percepts; art boils elements of reality down to their primordial form for easier grasp; art paints evocative pictures of situations based on experiences, feelings, actions. A monkey flinging paint at a canvas and howling madly is not art because there is no conceptualization behind it. I'm sure if you gave a monkey a gun he could probably figure out how to shoot it; that doesn't make him a soldier anymore than his ability to throw paint makes him an artist.

I have seen elephant paintings that definitely show compositional skills... I mean, the ability to place objects on paper, deliberately, so as to create an aesthetic image.... from there to Mona Lisa is degree and style... and the fine-brushwork of an opposed thumb.
Oh yeah? I'd love to see this. If that's true it's pretty cool, but they're still a ways behind us. Elephants are fairly intelligent I suppose, so this doesn't come as too much of a surprise.

But what does it prove? Does it prove that we've underestimated the cognitive abilities of an elephant? Probably. Does it prove that some animals can do things that most others can't? You bet it does. But none of this goes very far in comparing animal's psyche with that of a man's. Come to think of it, I'm starting to wonder what the point of this argument is.

There is no discrepency between my two points , as you cited... they are both true. I believe that the problem exists on what you are willing to accept as 'art'.
Well, the elephant thing--if it can be substantiated-- would technically qualify as art if it could be proven that the animal was indeed attempting to describe a situation with it. The monkey thing.... no. That'd be just grasping for straws.

Again... burden of proof. Birdsong serves far more than just territoriality... it has noticable effect even on things like the health of the singing bird. If you are going to assert that birdsong is PURELY demarcation - I want you to prove it.
Excuse me? 'PURELY' demarcation? Where did I say... oh yeah, I didn't. Way to put words in my mouth; you're gaining lots of respect from me right now.

At any rate, this was one of those things I learned in school, and the brain cell containing the pertinent source data has long been smoked away. No one can pretend to know every reason behind why birds to x or why sperm whales do y because when you get right down to it, we can't get into their heads. However, numerous studies have existed that claim the primary effect of birdsong is to designate a certain territory as belonging to the singer.

Who knows, maybe I was wrong, maybe birds do like to sing: I don't know, since I'm not a bird. But there is no evidence to suggest that they sing just because they want to or because it sounds nice. Sitting on a branch belting out a song has got to have some practical application in their lives or else it would be a waste of time and they probably wouldn't so it as much or at all. If it were PURELY aesthetic [see, I can do it too!], it would serve no purpose as to furthering their self-preservation. It might catch the eye of a passing falcon too; who knows.


I don't see why this bothers you. Humans learn to calculate equations based on observation of numberical data.... simple balancing.
It bothers me because you seem to be equating centuries of mathematical progress with octopi.



Irrelevent. But rat-brain tissue can pilot jet aircraft...
I think we're talking past each other here, and the more I think about it, the less equipped I am to discern just what it is we're arguing about, exactly. Originally, your opponent made some claims about humanity vs. animals. You lept to the animals' defense, and when I stepped in and made some observations you started in with this "And 'in the human capacity' wasn't in the original argument" bullshit. Given that the original argument, taken in context, pits animals versus humans, and therefore any response you make to that argument has an assumed relevancy to that very topic.

Or at least, it should. But since you've stated that it doesn't I guess we can throw this whole tirade out the window, no?

Regarding your 'great attracting force'... where would an assumption like that even come from? What do you assume would cause such force? I am not going to add in the consideration of some external force, unless there is reason... any more than I am going to weight my thinking according to pixies or extra-terrestrials.


How can it be gaining momentum in it's rate of expansion? I don't know, I told you something of a the theory, but I didn't make it up, no point in arguing the 'impossibility' of it, when it is happening.

I've seen the vacuum non-space idea proposed as possible reason, a reason to try and explain 'why' the measurements suggest that the universe is not just expanding, but that the rate of expansion is increasing.

Astronomers claim to have discovered the phenomena of the universe expanding at a faster rate now than it did when it was young in 1998, or something like that. This fact requires addressing and contributes significant problems to any collapse theory because it counter-acts all previous theories of collapsing. Whatever is causing it, it must be an unrecognized force in the universe that acts against gravity and probably means that the universe will continue to expand forever.

Read more here if you want, just because I was aware of it doesn’t make me an expert in it, I'm stumped as having any of my own theories to explain it.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/expansion_001011.html

OK, I'll prove it. You see any pieces in the local museum that were painted by a dog? Do you see any sculptures made by rats? See any bridges built by alligators? See any car factories built by moose? Want me to go on?

This is ridiculous. I can't believe I'm arguing this with you.


I don't see any pieces in my local museum that were painted by a dog. However, since the last art exhibition I saw around here was a local white artist, I can point out that I didn't see any pieces painted by coloured artists, either. That doesn't meant there ARE NO coloured artists... just that they were not represented at one art show or museum.

Your attempt to appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy, and does nothing to strengthen your case.


You'll do well to never say anything like that to me ever again;l I don't put up with this shit. Especially in a debate context, it puts your opposition in an agitated state. I could hit you with a flamebait warning for this, but I won't. I would like you to edit this line out though. Now would be nice.

Thanks.


I do not appreciate being threatened with moderator action just because you disagree with me in debate, or disagree with my style, or my vocabulary.

You directly contradicted yourself within the space of less than two full sentences, and I pointed out that you had 'made a liar of yourself'. I didn't say you are, generally, a liar... or anything I can see that you might have taken as a direct insult... I merely commented on the fact that you constructed an argument that directly defeated itself.

I don't believe you could, in FAIRNESS, hit me with a flamebait warning - since I have done nothing that SHOULD be considered 'flamebait'. I think it would be an abuse of moderator privilige to seriously consider doing so.

Perhaps your local idiom doesn't use the phrase 'made a liar of yourself' to refer to a situation of contradiction... but, since I have explained the meaning, I stand by my comment.

If you truly believe I should remove the comment - I think you should seek the consensus of another moderator before insisting, rather than conflicting your own/ my own interests.

Oh - and, it could be argued that comments like "You'll do well to never say anything like that to me ever again... l I don't put up with this shit... I could hit you with a flamebait warning for this..." MIGHT put other posters "in an agitated state".


Fair enough. I thought you were talking about conceptualization on a broader scale.


No - I didn't claim to understand ANYTHING of animal conceptualisation. That was kind of my point.


I know I am. I can't speak for Vetalia. Art allows man to view concepts as percepts; art boils elements of reality down to their primordial form for easier grasp; art paints evocative pictures of situations based on experiences, feelings, actions. A monkey flinging paint at a canvas and howling madly is not art because there is no conceptualization behind it. I'm sure if you gave a monkey a gun he could probably figure out how to shoot it; that doesn't make him a soldier anymore than his ability to throw paint makes him an artist.


So - by your definition, Jackson Pollock is not an artist?


Oh yeah? I'd love to see this. If that's true it's pretty cool, but they're still a ways behind us. Elephants are fairly intelligent I suppose, so this doesn't come as too much of a surprise.

But what does it prove? Does it prove that we've underestimated the cognitive abilities of an elephant? Probably. Does it prove that some animals can do things that most others can't? You bet it does. But none of this goes very far in comparing animal's psyche with that of a man's. Come to think of it, I'm starting to wonder what the point of this argument is.


The original poster claimed that humans were somehow unique in all creation, because of this wealth of things that we can do, that animals cannot. I argued that it was a matter of perspective, and presented contrary responses. You responded to my rebuttals... effectively assuming the role of the original poster - that humans are 'supreme' creations.

I still argue that we are talking 'degree', rather than 'lack'. Animals create art of a different 'degree' to humans, perhaps.


Well, the elephant thing--if it can be substantiated-- would technically qualify as art if it could be proven that the animal was indeed attempting to describe a situation with it. The monkey thing.... no. That'd be just grasping for straws.


Again... this will have to await a response on the Jackson Pollock question, I think.


Excuse me? 'PURELY' demarcation? Where did I say... oh yeah, I didn't. Way to put words in my mouth; you're gaining lots of respect from me right now.

At any rate, this was one of those things I learned in school, and the brain cell containing the pertinent source data has long been smoked away. No one can pretend to know every reason behind why birds to x or why sperm whales do y because when you get right down to it, we can't get into their heads. However, numerous studies have existed that claim the primary effect of birdsong is to designate a certain territory as belonging to the singer.

Who knows, maybe I was wrong, maybe birds do like to sing: I don't know, since I'm not a bird. But there is no evidence to suggest that they sing just because they want to or because it sounds nice. Sitting on a branch belting out a song has got to have some practical application in their lives or else it would be a waste of time and they probably wouldn't so it as much or at all. If it were PURELY aesthetic [see, I can do it too!], it would serve no purpose as to furthering their self-preservation. It might catch the eye of a passing falcon too; who knows.


You may not have used the words 'purely demarcation', but you spoke in absolutes:

"it doesn't exist to fulfill the creative needs of the birds, it exists to demarcate their territory".

You negated the possibility of any other purpose apart from territorial. 'Purely demarcation' was not a quotation, but an explication of the implicit.

I don't deny that demarcation is a function of bird song... but I don't think you can provide evidence that can show that it is ALWAYS and ENTIRELY about territory.


It bothers me because you seem to be equating centuries of mathematical progress with octopi.


We are a fairly long-lived species, so far. No matter which way you look at it, religion or science, we've been around for a while. And yet, our 'modern' mathematics was basically born in Babylon... so, just a few thousand years ago. The point is, our 'centuries of mathematical progress' are a recent acheivement... the important thing is an ABILITY to CONCEPTUALISE mathematical values... and, I would argue, this is a trait we share with octopi.

Who knows, another 5000 years, their number pattern recognition might have yeilded calculus.


I think we're talking past each other here, and the more I think about it, the less equipped I am to discern just what it is we're arguing about, exactly. Originally, your opponent made some claims about humanity vs. animals. You lept to the animals' defense, and when I stepped in and made some observations you started in with this "And 'in the human capacity' wasn't in the original argument" bullshit. Given that the original argument, taken in context, pits animals versus humans, and therefore any response you make to that argument has an assumed relevancy to that very topic.

Or at least, it should. But since you've stated that it doesn't I guess we can throw this whole tirade out the window, no?

I didn't 'leap to the animals defense' - I pointed out that the basic assertion was flawed. Humans are NOT unique in most of the ways the original poster implied.

The 'human capacity' quote stems from your refutation of similarity, by saying that animals were incapable of exhibiting the listed factors 'in human capacity'. The 'degree' wasn't the topic of the original poster's argument... the original claim was that such attributes were NOT present in animals, at all.

Regarding the 'tirade out of the window' comment... if you do not wish to debate the subject, I will not persist in attempting to debate it with you. My initial point of disagreement was with the original poster, and it still stands.

Regarding the 'tirade out of the window' comment... if you do not wish to debate the subject, I will not persist in attempting to debate it with you. My initial point of disagreement was with the original poster, and it still stands.
Agreed. Suffice to say a healthy amount of your suppositions here have rendered me incapable of responding without being fired as a moderator. Those that have not, I don't really take too much issue with here.

The sum of my argument, essentially, is that Humans > Animals.

I'm not sure what whatshisface was getting at, but then again I have no idea what you're getting at either, as a result of this.

How can it be gaining momentum in it's rate of expansion? I don't know, I told you something of a the theory, but I didn't make it up, no point in arguing the 'impossibility' of it, when it is happening.

I've seen the vacuum non-space idea proposed as possible reason, a reason to try and explain 'why' the measurements suggest that the universe is not just expanding, but that the rate of expansion is increasing.

Astronomers claim to have discovered the phenomena of the universe expanding at a faster rate now than it did when it was young in 1998, or something like that. This fact requires addressing and contributes significant problems to any collapse theory because it counter-acts all previous theories of collapsing. Whatever is causing it, it must be an unrecognized force in the universe that acts against gravity and probably means that the universe will continue to expand forever.

Read more here if you want, just because I was aware of it doesn’t make me an expert in it, I'm stumped as having any of my own theories to explain it.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/expansion_001011.html

Again, I run into problems... Again, I find myslef confronting (what I consider) an obvious flaw in the logic.

Observation Says: "There are old galaxies, and there are new galaxies. The new galaxies are moving away faster than the old galaxies".

The "Popular Theory" therefore concludes: "The rate of expansion MUST be increasing... thus, newer ones will expand away faster than older ones".

It's a good theory, but it is a flawed assumption that it is the only, or even the best, possible result.

How about: The "Less-Popular Theory", which I might speculate: "The old galaxies are slowing down in their expansion. The new galaxies are as fast NOW as the others were when they were younger".

Different conclusion, same observation... VERY different result.

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

"Evidence that demands a verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185078552X/qid=1120832431/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785243631/qid=1120832431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"Jesus who is he" Tim LaHaye (cant find a link for this one, but I'm reading it at the moment and its great)


Too late. I already read the bible, and the chances of anything convincing me that God exists after that are zero.

How about: The "Less-Popular Theory", which I might speculate: "The old galaxies are slowing down in their expansion. The new galaxies are as fast NOW as the others were when they were younger".

Different conclusion, same observation... VERY different result.

This meant that the Universe was in accelerated expansion due to the effect of a type of energy referred to as "dark energy" present throughout space. Criticism at that time was based on the assumption that this loss of luminosity could be due to the presence of dust in the host galaxies that, in large quantities, absorbs and diffuses light, thus decreasing the apparent luminosity of supernovae. But, if this is the case, this dust must also affect the "color" of the supernovae, causing them to appear "redder" since the absorption and diffusion of light and, as a result, its extinction, preferentially take place in the blue range, a phenomenon that is totally comparable to the reddening of the sky at sunset,, which is even more dramatic on particularly polluted days. These observations could therefore not provide conclusive evidence when made from the ground.

On the other hand, observations made with the Hubble space telescope, far from the influence of the Earth's atmosphere, provide much more precise data. In particular, these data make it possible to quantify the degree of extinction (depending on the wavelength) of the light emitted by a supernova, due to the presence of dust in the host galaxy. The results obtained thus made it possible to do away with any ambiguity: The attenuation of light cannot be attributed only to extinction by the dust of the host galaxy– it must be partially due to the presence of dark energy.


Denial (in this case, saying, it's not happening over and over again) is not a real proposition or a solution to this problem, since galaxy age/red-shift is not the only thing being measured here (as shown above)
http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/expansionUnivers.htm

I'm sorry if it forces you to readdress some fundamental understanding of your existence ... that wasn't my intention. I only started by pointing out that collapse is not likely in view that the expansion is gaining speed for a reason we don't yet understand...

What a discussion! geesss........

What are we doing? Pointing at the stars and say: "Look, God exists"? While someone else says: "No, you're not looking the right way, see there"? That's pointless.

For what it means, my athiest point of view. Are y'all paying attention?

I look around and I do not see God, Allah, Yahwe, or whatever. That does not mean that the evolution theory or any other theory for that matter is perfect. But I'm happy with it. And if someone else is truly religeous, it's ok with me. Just don't bother other people with it. Or rather: don't enforce it on others.

You cannot show me any evidence that proofs that God exists. Nor can I proof that He/She/It doesn't. You simply cannot proof it because religion is based on "believe". Someone believes in God. If I could proof that He/She/It exists religion would stop existing; it would become science. And then what? We all would point to the stars and tell each other: "You're not looking the right way, you heretic!" Or even worse: "You're twisting the facts!"

Just one lesson from an atheist:
Doubt.
Doubt your own believes.
Doubt the believes of others.
May be, just may be they're right.

Amen.
And now all together: Kumbaya My Lord, Kumbaya! :D

I read the first entry and was very sad, because this post had some potential. I'm sorry, but your fundementalist protestant authors don't know the first thing about "proving" Christianity (I mean, their belief in the rapture and other such modern inventive nonsense, proves that).

If anyone is seriously interested in non-offensive, logical reasoning for the existence of a God, I highly suggest any works by St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas (specifically his "Proofs for God's Existence"--very philosophical and logical). Even early philosophers such as Aristotle, could arguably, provide some insight into existence of a God (IMO Aristotle was basically a theist).

Please ignore this fundamentalist drivel, and stick to the original Catholic philosophers who helped to establish the Church dogma, as well as some non-Christian early philosophers. Those are really good reads.

You cannot show me any evidence that proofs that God exists. Nor can I proof that He/She/It doesn't. You simply cannot proof it because religion is based on "believe". Someone believes in God. If I could proof that He/She/It exists religion would stop existing; it would become science. And then what? We all would point to the stars and tell each other: "You're not looking the right way, you heretic!" Or even worse: "You're twisting the facts!"

You're right. I cannot literally prove to you that there is a God. It's a relatively abstract concept. Just like gravity. We can attribute certain phenomena (ie an apple falling from a tree) to this thing we call "gravity", but we really know very little about it. Einstein cleared up certain characteristics of gravity (its ability to bend space and time for example), but what causes that? What is it about gravity that causes it to do what it does? An interesting thing about Aquinas's "proofs" are, not that he proves God's existence, but that he provides compelling logical steps supporting such an idea.

That does not mean that the evolution theory or any other theory for that matter is perfect.

Keep in mind that most rational Christians (non-literalists), don't completely reject the principles of evolution. I, a Catholic, happen to believe that evolution is the best theory that describes the formation of life on Earth. Does that mean I don't believe in God? Absolutely not. I believe religion and science are inexorably intertwined, and that science is but a tool to understand God and His Creation.

You're right. I cannot literally prove to you that there is a God. It's a relatively abstract concept. Just like gravity. We can attribute certain phenomena (ie an apple falling from a tree) to this thing we call "gravity", but we really know very little about it. Einstein cleared up certain characteristics of gravity (its ability to bend space and time for example), but what causes that? What is it about gravity that causes it to do what it does? An interesting thing about Aquinas's "proofs" are, not that he proves God's existence, but that he provides compelling logical steps supporting such an idea.
Very true. However the belief in gravity doesnt entail specific social and moral implications like say believing in christianity or islam would.

What is ironic, is religion is generally a method of simply feeling better about one self and taking comfort in thinking that there is some all powerful entity that loves you and always will.

I do understand that

however, a 3 year old child that doesn't want to stop holding his teddy bear because it gives him comfort will eventually have to put it down as he grows

I believe the same will happen with the human race.. eventually religion will die out as our science expands and we see more of space and more than just this tiny solar system. Currently your god is simply a method over thousands of years to explain the unexplainable from people as far back in time as measurable.

Allah, Jehova, Satan, Zeus, Athena, Apollo, Ere's, Saturn.. lots of different gods, lots of different reasons and people who worshipped them, the current god? another one in a long line of human errors.

I am Atheist, I have no belief whatsoever in the supernatural or in god or anything like that, its plain and simply not logically feasible to have some all powerful timeless being, Why would a full blown GOD with the power he/she/it possesses bother creating a tiny pathetic race on a ball of mud and water in the middle of a universe so immense?, its too much of a fairy tale designed to make people feel better as they try to live their lives among billions of other people.

I do however think faith is healthy for some people, I totally 100 percent believe *YOU* think your god is real, but just because you have faith in it, doesn't even mean your close to being right. And i strongly disagree with Christians that try to convert people to God.

I am Atheist, I have no belief whatsoever in the supernatural or in god or anything like that, its plain and simply not logically feasible to have some all powerful timeless being, its too much of a fairy tale to make people feel better as they try to live their lives among billions of other people.

You see, this is the problem I have with athiests

Often their opposition to faith and spiritualliy stems from their belief that the supernatural and anything like a god is "Illogical" in their terms. It doesnt stem from an actual studying of the historical and philosophical evidence and arguements. If its just that you believe that "god" is impossible then nothing will convince you, not even real logic. For example, an friend of mine at university gave a copy of "evidence that demands a verdict" to a university lecturer there. The lecturer was an ardent athiest but after having read it came back and said "this book contains the most convincing arguements in favour of Christianity I've ever seen" and was not being sarcastic, he was genuinely impressed and saw great logic in what it was saying, but when asked if he would change his opinion, he said no because it didnt agree with his outlook. Athiests on some occations are just athiests because they dont accept that God can exist because of what the nature of "God" means, not because of any actuall logical falicies in the evidence itself.

what historical and philoshical evidence are you refering too? i always hear christians talk about evidence about God and their belief's. I have studied religion, ive never, EVER found any evidence that has been discovered that could prove God or spirituality exists.

anything that stems from supposed evidence such as fortune tellers, or people who beleive they can talk to or feel ghosts/soul/spiritual presence is not evidence as much as if i say "Hey i can see big walking talking aliens, you cant see them but i have a gift so only i can"

also i am Aethist because i strongly without any shadow of any doubt believe there is nothing beyond the physical realm, i have never in my entire life had a moment of faith, or found myself thinking, god help me out here. Im have never once thought, i dont believe, so maybe i will end up in hell. When i die, i will become dust and return to the ground, my molecules and particles will then become something else, THAT is the cycle of life on this planet

what historical and philoshical evidence are you refering too? i always hear christians talk about evidence about God and their belief's. I have studied religion, ive never, EVER found any evidence that has been discovered that could prove God or spirituality exists.

anything that stems from supposed evidence such as fortune tellers, or people who beleive they can talk to or feel ghosts/soul/spiritual presence is not evidence as much as if i say "Hey i can see big walking talking aliens, you cant see them but i have a gift so only i can"

also i am Aethist because i strongly without any shadow of any doubt believe there is nothing beyond the physical realm, i have never in my entire life had a moment of faith, or found myself thinking, god help me out here. Im have never once thought, i dont believe, so maybe i will end up in hell. When i die, i will become dust and return to the ground, my molecules and particles will then become something else, THAT is the cycle of life on this planet


I agree,
I have never seen anything that could make me change my mind,
the more I get to see of science, the more I relise there is no god

what historical and philoshical evidence are you refering too? i always hear christians talk about evidence about God and their belief's. I have studied religion, ive never, EVER found any evidence that has been discovered that could prove God or spirituality exists.


Not the proof that God exists, but that Jesus lived, and that he performed miricles and that he died and rose again. I recomend you read the books I sugested, and also the books of Lee Strobel's series

also, on the topic of souls and how great humanity is.

On this planet, i would not say we are the best life, in fact we are the worst. We spread out, expand, destroy everything around us, upset the natural habitats of countless other species and WIPE OUT other ones. We multiply and consume all resources and we obliterate each other in wars over pathetic things. We have no natural equilibriam with our surroundings whatsoever, and we dont care because "We are top of the food chain, we are the best on earth"

Humans aren't great, Humans are a very large virus

Not the proof that God exists, but that Jesus lived, and that he performed miricles and that he died and rose again. I recomend you read the books I sugested, and also the books of Lee Strobel's series

lots of historians have also proven that around that time period, there were thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people called Jesus, thats like Saying yeah 100 years ago this guy called Dave in Texas performed miracles!

i mean come on, look at magicians nowadays, it would not be hard 2 thousand years ago for this guy called Jesus to have tried magic tricks, fooled alot of people and got crucified for practising "Magic".

The bible skews alot of things, and its been retranslated thousands of times. some random person dying 2 millenia ago doesn't prove or disprove anything whatsoever, not to mention that every other religion thinks Jesus was nothing but a normal person who *thought* he was the son of god.

I agree,
I have never seen anything that could make me change my mind,
the more I get to see of science, the more I relise there is no god

Could you explain why?

also, on the topic of souls and how great humanity is.

On this planet, i would not say we are the best life, in fact we are the worst. We spread out, expand, destroy everything around us, upset the natural habitats of countless other species and WIPE OUT other ones. We multiply and consume all resources and we obliterate each other in wars over pathetic things. We have no natural equilibriam with our surroundings whatsoever, and we dont care because "We are top of the food chain, we are the best on earth"

Humans aren't great, Humans are a very large virus

Well said. My thoughts exactly

lots of historians have also proven that around that time period, there were thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people called Jesus, thats like Saying yeah 100 years ago this guy called Dave in Texas performed miracles!

i mean come on, look at magicians nowadays, it would not be hard 2 thousand years ago for this guy called Jesus to have tried magic tricks, fooled alot of people and got crucified for practising "Magic".

The bible skews alot of things, and its been retranslated thousands of times. some random person dying 2 millenia ago doesn't prove or disprove anything whatsoever

I actually thought I was dealing with someone intellegent

The Gospels, it has been proved, were written and distributed within the lifetime of those who saw Jesus live and what he did. Now that means that those people at the time saw what he did and read the Gospels and agreed, that the Gospels were telling the truth, thats why it suvived in the early church. Saying that the Bible has been translated and retranslated hundruds of times does not discount from the fact that we have several contempary manuscripts, which we translate from. While you may have studied the religions themselves, I doubt you have studied the historical evidence in any depth. I have, and I have left it better believing in Christianity. Read the books I sugested in the first post.

You see, this is the problem I have with athiests

Often their opposition to faith and spiritualliy stems from their belief that the supernatural and anything like a god is "Illogical" in their terms. It doesnt stem from an actual studying of the historical and philosophical evidence and arguements.

[...]

Athiests on some occations are just athiests because they dont accept that God can exist because of what the nature of "God" means, not because of any actuall logical falicies in the evidence itself.

Aside from the quibble about philosophical evidence, you've hit the crux of my argument against religion. To whit:

Often their adherence to faith and spirituality stems from their belief that the supernatural and anything like a god is "Mandatory" in their terms. It doesnt stem from an actual studying of the historical and philosophical evidence and arguements.

[...]

Religious believers on some occations are just believers because they don't accept that God cannot exist because of what the nature of "God" means, not because of any actual logical fallacies in the evidence itself.

One holybook states that a land belongs to the jews, another holybook, the muslims. both proclaim to be the exclusive word of god

The bible has a kind loving god that will sentence you to eternal SUFFERING, for not enslaving yourself unto him and his organization (which may be protestant, catholic or mormon, islam, jewish, etc, etc, etc,...).

The christian faith says we should all be like jesus, who walked around spreading ideas while doing no actual work nor having sex. If everyone emulated jesus, mankind would screech to a halt and starve to death.

I'll make the christians a deal: develop one version of Christianity that you all agree on, and then I'll consider it. That means catholics, protestants etc.

That's your mission, ready.. set.. GO

I actually thought I was dealing with someone intellegent

The Gospels, it has been proved, were written and distributed within the lifetime of those who saw Jesus live and what he did. Now that means that those people at the time saw what he did and read the Gospels and agreed, that the Gospels were telling the truth, thats why it suvived in the early church. Saying that the Bible has been translated and retranslated hundruds of times does not discount from the fact that we have several contempary manuscripts, which we translate from. While you may have studied the religions themselves, I doubt you have studied the historical evidence in any depth. I have, and I have left it better believing in Christianity. Read the books I sugested in the first post.

I will read those books, but thank you for the insult you have completely proven that im not talking to someone intelligent.

throughout history there has been supposed miracle workers, todays magicians who make elephants disapear could be viewed as miracle workers, and they date back before and after Jesus Christ. Gospels are no more proof than the various supposed evidence about King Arthur and the knights of the round table. Manuscripts have been discovered that supposably collaberate some of the stories and legends about them, but most people view it as fantasy

I actually thought I was dealing with someone intellegent
Flaming is not nessecary man.


The Gospels, it has been proved, were written and distributed within the lifetime of those who saw Jesus live and what he did.
Link?

Now that means that those people at the time saw what he did and read the Gospels and agreed, that the Gospels were telling the truth, thats why it suvived in the early church. Saying that the Bible has been translated and retranslated hundruds of times does not discount from the fact that we have several contempary manuscripts, which we translate from. While you may have studied the religions themselves, I doubt you have studied the historical evidence in any depth. I have, and I have left it better believing in Christianity. Read the books I sugested in the first post.
I do believe that a few people have posted refutes to the readings you have suggested. Care to comment on those?

Personally i am a pagan. people can agree or disagree with my beliefs. i couldn't care less. someone at the beginning of this forum was talking about how Christianity was created as a revolt against the matriarchal paganism of the time. I have always believed this, and it is certainly not something that just 'teenagers' believe. i am not a teenager. that's what the 'witchtrials' were about - Christians burning pagans. not witches, just midwives and herbalists.
Now - about Christianity. and even though i'm not a christian, i do have the authority to speak on the topic. i went to a catholic school for 11 years. 11 years of hypocritical narrow-minded hell, mind u. I thought christians (and catholics) were kind, generous people who lived by what Jesus said. I do believe in jesus. I believe he was a very intellegent, wise man who spoke out AGAINST THE CHURCH! Personally i believe that if he's looking down from somewhere, he's not happy. how would u feel if u were speaking out against something, made a martyr and endorsed by the very people u despised? As for the supposed 'i am the son of god', this was most probably the belief that we are ALL the children of 'god', or the earth. Jesus was a very wise pagan.

Lets stop being serious and be jerks and worship Neoism! That's right, Keanu Reeves will save us all! :) :D

Lets stop being serious and be jerks and worship Neoism! That's right, Keanu Reeves will save us all! :) :D
Fuck no! If it has to be the Matrix, worthship Morpheus. At least that guy was a skinhead

Spirituality doesn't necessarily mean believing in a particular religion. For all who pointed out that they're atheists because of logical inconsistancies with the bible, etc realise that it is a book written by people. Feel free to form your own ideas of what God is to you.

Spirituality doesn't necessarily mean believing in a particular religion. For all who pointed out that they're atheists because of logical inconsistancies with the bible, etc realise that it is a book written by people. Feel free to form your own ideas of what God is to you.
Just FYI. Atheists does not believe in gods. There's no conflict between an Atheist magic though. It's just disbelief in divinity.

Personally i am a pagan. people can agree or disagree with my beliefs. i couldn't care less. someone at the beginning of this forum was talking about how Christianity was created as a revolt against the matriarchal paganism of the time. I have always believed this, and it is certainly not something that just 'teenagers' believe. i am not a teenager. that's what the 'witchtrials' were about - Christians burning pagans. not witches, just midwives and herbalists.
Now - about Christianity. and even though i'm not a christian, i do have the authority to speak on the topic. i went to a catholic school for 11 years. 11 years of hypocritical narrow-minded hell, mind u. I thought christians (and catholics) were kind, generous people who lived by what Jesus said. I do believe in jesus. I believe he was a very intellegent, wise man who spoke out AGAINST THE CHURCH! Personally i believe that if he's looking down from somewhere, he's not happy. how would u feel if u were speaking out against something, made a martyr and endorsed by the very people u despised? As for the supposed 'i am the son of god', this was most probably the belief that we are ALL the children of 'god', or the earth. Jesus was a very wise pagan.




1. The church didn't exist until AFTER the death of Christ ;)

2. Calling Jesus a pagan is like calling white black.

3. You obviously haven't read the Bible, I'm getting that notion from your claiming He was made a martyr by the people He despised.

4. I'm baaaack :D

dont know if this has been said as i didnt want to read all 14 pages of religious? stuff. so i think snape only killed dumbledore because he had to (due to binding agreement) maybe he is still secretly working to kill voldemort also the initals R.A.B point to dmbledore (something like reginald albus Deumbledore from other books) so maybe dumbledore had time to destory it or it was destoryed by him earlier and he had that amulet or destroyed by adava kadavra curse. tell me wat u think of these musings as we wont find out for a couple more years (at the rate Jk's writing)

:confused: dont know if this has been said as i didnt want to read all 14 pages of religious? stuff. so i think snape only killed dumbledore because he had to (due to binding agreement) maybe he is still secretly working to kill voldemort also the initals R.A.B point to dmbledore (something like reginald albus Deumbledore from other books) so maybe dumbledore had time to destory it or it was destoryed by him earlier and he had that amulet or destroyed by adava kadavra curse. tell me wat u think of these musings as we wont find out for a couple more years (at the rate Jk's writing)
Uhm... What the hell was that about?

:confused:
Uhm... What the hell was that about?

OMG HARRY POTTER IS TAKING OVER THE WORLD!!!! :rolleyes:

omw posted in wrong thread thought this was hp one i musta clicked on wrong wone lol sry

:confused:
Uhm... What the hell was that about?
A reference to Harry Potter. The latest book has just been released, resulting my girlfriend returned to bed at 4am, having sacrificed sleep to read it in one sitting.

I'm spiritual, but not a christian. Not because of any logical fallacies, but because *I WANT TO BELIEVE* in the Christian God (or any other, really). No Chrisitian as yet has been able to sit down with me and answer my questions to my satisfaction. I've tried a lot. When I was younger I used to go on bible camps. I'd genuinely believe in a God. I just...can't....believe in the same God as most christians.

So, I'm sure that I haven't yet seen any evidence for a God. I haven't seen any evidence that there is *no* God (but I also haven't seen any evidence that honey badgers can't drive cars).

I'm still waiting. Feel free to page me if you can help. I just want a hook, something that will make me go "Yeah, that shows that it is *likely* that a God exists", and then I want someone to help me resolve my contradictions.
I'm now 24, and have been searching since I was about 10. I've got an extremely open mind, but I *will* play the devils advocate, and question any and every scrap of evidence provided to me.

As of now I believe that there is no evidence for the supernatural. I believe that the supernatural could still exist, and I just haven't yet seen the evidence. I believe there is no evidence for a God, but I choose to be comforted by the idea that perhaps a God does still exit. I won't act on my *idea* that a God *could* exist until I have a better reason to believe than "that would be really nice".

omw posted in wrong thread thought this was hp one i musta clicked on wrong wone lol sry
As you accidentally posted in the wrong thread, would you mind please deleting your post.

Cheers!

A reference to Harry Potter. The latest book has just been released, resulting my girlfriend returned to bed at 4am, having sacrificed sleep to read it in one sitting.

I'm spiritual, but not a christian. Not because of any logical fallacies, but because *I WANT TO BELIEVE* in the Christian God (or any other, really). No Chrisitian as yet has been able to sit down with me and answer my questions to my satisfaction. I've tried a lot. When I was younger I used to go on bible camps. I'd genuinely believe in a God. I just...can't....believe in the same God as most christians.

So, I'm sure that I haven't yet seen any evidence for a God. I haven't seen any evidence that there is *no* God (but I also haven't seen any evidence that honey badgers can't drive cars).

I'm still waiting. Feel free to page me if you can help. I just want a hook, something that will make me go "Yeah, that shows that it is *likely* that a God exists", and then I want someone to help me resolve my contradictions.
I'm now 24, and have been searching since I was about 10. I've got an extremely open mind, but I *will* play the devils advocate, and question any and every scrap of evidence provided to me.

As of now I believe that there is no evidence for the supernatural. I believe that the supernatural could still exist, and I just haven't yet seen the evidence. I believe there is no evidence for a God, but I choose to be comforted by the idea that perhaps a God does still exit. I won't act on my *idea* that a God *could* exist until I have a better reason to believe than "that would be really nice".

You have laid some ground rules for God. You come, stick up a wooden post and say: "See here. This is where I'm standing. Somebody build religion around me." Unfortunately, it doesn't happen that way. You need to uproot your own imperfect standards and let God take you to where He wants you to be, not asking Him to build Himself around your preconceived ideas.

dont know if this has been said as i didnt want to read all 14 pages of religious? stuff. so i think snape only killed dumbledore because he had to (due to binding agreement) maybe he is still secretly working to kill voldemort also the initals R.A.B point to dmbledore (something like reginald albus Deumbledore from other books) so maybe dumbledore had time to destory it or it was destoryed by him earlier and he had that amulet or destroyed by adava kadavra curse. tell me wat u think of these musings as we wont find out for a couple more years (at the rate Jk's writing)
LOL...
No, I'm sure it hasn't been said on this thread.

Snape killed Dumbledore? Oh dear.... I'm sure it will work itself out in the end. He is, after all, Alen Rickman. (*has faith, beyond words*)

I wonder what "it" was that Dumbledore had time to destroy? Perhaps we will never know.

You have laid some ground rules for God. You come, stick up a wooden post and say: "See here. This is where I'm standing. Somebody build religion around me." Unfortunately, it doesn't happen that way. You need to uproot your own imperfect standards and let God take you to where He wants you to be, not asking Him to build Himself around your preconceived ideas.

Funny whenever someone says well if god is so good he should interfere in world affairs we get a well god gave us free will response. Yet when someone talks about their beliefs about god its always they need put their life in "god's hands".

dont know if this has been said as i didnt want to read all 14 pages of religious? stuff. so i think snape only killed dumbledore because he had to (due to binding agreement) maybe he is still secretly working to kill voldemort also the initals R.A.B point to dmbledore (something like reginald albus Deumbledore from other books) so maybe dumbledore had time to destory it or it was destoryed by him earlier and he had that amulet or destroyed by adava kadavra curse. tell me wat u think of these musings as we wont find out for a couple more years (at the rate Jk's writing)
So, er...thanks for ruining the book for those who haven't read it yet.

Funny whenever someone says well if god is so good he should interfere in world affairs we get a well god gave us free will response. Yet when someone talks about their beliefs about god its always they need put their life in "god's hands".
I don't see how it's funny...lol...

Some say God did give you free will, and you have the free will to either put your life in your own hands or put it in God's hands. They don't have to contradict.

I don't see how it's funny...lol...

Some say God did give you free will, and you have the free will to either put your life in your own hands or put it in God's hands. They don't have to contradict.

To each his own I guess. I find it hilarious but thats just me. The whole point wasnt about free will. The point was that if people want god to stop stuff happening in this world it's tough shit. But as soon as someone is trying to find proof for god's existance he's right there willing to lead the way. I kind of wish it was the other way around dont you think?

To each his own I guess. I find it hilarious but thats just me. The whole point wasnt about free will. The point was that if people want god to stop stuff happening in this world it's tough shit. But as soon as someone is trying to find proof for god's existance he's right there willing to lead the way. I kind of wish it was the other way around dont you think?

Well, big things have small beginnings. If everybody was Christian many of the world's problems would be non-existent, no?

Well, big things have small beginnings. If everybody was Christian many of the world's problems would be non-existent, no?

Yea because an all powerful god wants to keep a low profile. Too many gambling debts I guess.

Yea because an all powerful god wants to keep a low profile. Too many gambling debts I guess.

Yeh....that's right.

You have laid some ground rules for God.

Well, I kinda have, yeah. I've been accused of this before. Thing is, I'm not laying down ground rules for who or what God is. I'm happy for you to discuss a bearded man, the universal first mover, a disinterested physical force.
What I've laid down are my criteria for accepting evidence.

I think it's valid to say "before I believe in something, I want someone to show me there's something there". That "evidence" could be "look in your heart, don't you feel it" or "we have the ability to love each other, which serves no natural purpose other than a gift God gave us". Both of which are thoughts I've had myself, and discounted.

For me to believe there is a God, I need to lay down my expectations (it's not fair on you otherwise).

You come, stick up a wooden post and say: "See here. This is where I'm standing. Somebody build religion around me." Unfortunately, it doesn't happen that way. You need to uproot your own imperfect standards and let God take you to where He wants you to be, not asking Him to build Himself around your preconceived ideas.

I'm not saying "build religion around me". I'm saying "explain your religion in terms that my scientific mind can understand".
I'm happy to accept your religion. I'm happy to accept parts of your religion, and refine the bits that don't really work for me.
What I want is...

1) a convincing reason to reasonably believe that it's true
and
2) someone to answer my questions, and explain to my any perceived contradictions I might see.

Yeh....that's right.

Eh some people get it some dont. Frankly though I mean lets look at the present state of the world right now. Terrorists are killing indescriminantly, there is the threat of biological and nuclear attacks, and tensions between nations with nukes could be better. Dont you think god could spare a few seconds of his day and right a few wrongs? You know stop some suffering here, make sure we stop blowing eachother up there. Nothing he hasnt done before.

Eh some people get it some dont. Frankly though I mean lets look at the present state of the world right now. Terrorists are killing indescriminantly, there is the threat of biological and nuclear attacks, and tensions between nations with nukes could be better. Dont you think god could spare a few seconds of his day and right a few wrongs? You know stop some suffering here, make sure we stop blowing eachother up there. Nothing he hasnt done before.

Time will tell. Jesus Christ could descend at any time of the year and interfere with history. Who knows?

But as soon as someone is trying to find proof for god's existance he's right there willing to lead the way. I kind of wish it was the other way around dont you think?

Is he?

I want to find proof. I'm asking for proof.
I believe that he may be there willing to lead the way, but if so, I'm unable to recognize it.

Time will tell. Jesus Christ could descend at any time of the year and interfere with history. Who knows?

Would this be before or after the blowing ourselves up? Because you know now is as good a time as any.

Is he?

I want to find proof. I'm asking for proof.
I believe that he may be there willing to lead the way, but if so, I'm unable to recognize it.
Well if you cant recognize it what good is it? Whats the point of trying to help someone in a way they wont get?

Well, I kinda have, yeah. I've been accused of this before. Thing is, I'm not laying down ground rules for who or what God is. I'm happy for you to discuss a bearded man, the universal first mover, a disinterested physical force.
What I've laid down are my criteria for accepting evidence.

I think it's valid to say "before I believe in something, I want someone to show me there's something there". That "evidence" could be "look in your heart, don't you feel it" or "we have the ability to love each other, which serves no natural purpose other than a gift God gave us". Both of which are thoughts I've had myself, and discounted.

For me to believe there is a God, I need to lay down my expectations (it's not fair on you otherwise).

Well, what do you expect from a god?

I'm not saying "build religion around me". I'm saying "explain your religion in terms that my scientific mind can understand".
I'm happy to accept your religion. I'm happy to accept parts of your religion, and refine the bits that don't really work for me.
What I want is...

1) a convincing reason to reasonably believe that it's true
and
2) someone to answer my questions, and explain to my any perceived contradictions I might see.

The cornerstone of Christianity can be found in John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Eh some people get it some dont. Frankly though I mean lets look at the present state of the world right now. Terrorists are killing indescriminantly, there is the threat of biological and nuclear attacks, and tensions between nations with nukes could be better. Dont you think god could spare a few seconds of his day and right a few wrongs? You know stop some suffering here, make sure we stop blowing eachother up there. Nothing he hasnt done before.

Well, see my above posts about not actually (yet) believing there is any evidence that a God exists.

BUT

if a God DID exist, how do you know that he hasn't already made the world better?
I know I'm lucky, but I live in a first world country, have never had to spend a day of my life wondering where my next meal will come from, always known that if I need it I have access to good medical care for me and my loved ones.
I've been blessed.
I know not everyone is as lucky as me, but who's to say that, if He exists, God hasn't already made the world a pretty wonderful place.

If there were no terrorists, we would have a different frame of reference, and say "Why doesn't God stop wars". If there were no wars, we'd say "Why not stop Murders" if there were no....and so on
until we'd be saying "Why doesn't God stop people stubbing their toes?"

I think God gets around this particular problem, in his ever-wise way, by saying "Sure, there are murders. The victims, if they've led a good life, will go to Heaven, and frolic in the daisys. Their brief moments of pain and suffering won't even be remembered by them in Heaven". Assuming we believe in Heaven, I think that's a pretty good answer.

Would this be before or after the blowing ourselves up? Because you know now is as good a time as any.



Sorry, no idea. Anybody who tells you he/she has an idea is a heretic, a cult.

if a God DID exist, how do you know that he hasn't already made the world better?
I know I'm lucky, but I live in a first world country, have never had to spend a day of my life wondering where my next meal will come from, always known that if I need it I have access to good medical care for me and my loved ones.
I've been blessed.
I know not everyone is as lucky as me, but who's to say that, if He exists, God hasn't already made the world a pretty wonderful place.
Tell this to all the people in third world countries who wonder if they are going to have running water today. You may have it good but that doesnt necessarily mean the world is a better place. And I mean we live in a time period where the world could come to an end because of a push of a button. We live in a time where people are willing to blow themselves up and kill children as colateral damage to strike at the other side. We live in a world where a large percentage of the wealth is concentrated amoungst a very small percentage.

If there were no terrorists, we would have a different frame of reference, and say "Why doesn't God stop wars". If there were no wars, we'd say "Why not stop Murders" if there were no....and so on
until we'd be saying "Why doesn't God stop people stubbing their toes?"
Well you have a perfectly good god who's supposed to love you sitting before you and you wouldnt want him to say stop all evil? Whats the point of having an all powerfull all loving god if he isnt going to be loving or use his power?

I think God gets around this particular problem, in his ever-wise way, by saying "Sure, there are murders. The victims, if they've led a good life, will go to Heaven, and frolic in the daisys. Their brief moments of pain and suffering won't even be remembered by them in Heaven". Assuming we believe in Heaven, I think that's a pretty good answer.
And yet according to some christian doctrines those people if they died and didnt believe in Jesus get to suffer in eternal damnation even if they lived a life that was purer then a popes. Not only that but if the ultimate good is to go to heaven and be with god then why would a perfectly good god let people go to hell?

Well, what do you expect from a god?
I don't mind.
Tell me that a rock is God, and I'll accept your argument that the rock does, indeed, exist. And can be named God, if you like.
I won't accept that the rock is a diety, however.

So, what I expect from a god (lower or uppercase?) is...
1) Some reason to think that it actually exists, and isn't just some humans concept of something that would be cool/interesting/explain natural phenomena/make them feel more comfortable with the world.

and, if I'm to worship this god...
2) A reason to believe that this creature/person/thing that exists is a diety, something capable of more than us humans, and worthy of worship.

So, I'd be happy to believe in Aquinus' idea of a First Mover, but not worship it from that argument alone.
I'd be happy to believe in God, sitting in Heaven, and worship it.
I'm not convinced of point 1) for either of those explanations, however.


The cornerstone of Christianity can be found in John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
See, I have a problem with this. Firstly, it already assumes that God exists.
If I believe in God, and believe in the bible, then it's a brilliant quote to sum up how generous and caring God is. It shows a really nice God.

But, it assumes that God exists. It doesn't yet give me a reason to think it's true.

I mean no offence by this whatsoever, but I could tell you about Mr ABC, who is so caring that he created the universe and protects it so that humans could frolic in it. The only reason evil exists is because Mrs XYZ, his estranged wife, wants to ruin his hobby. Mr ABC could just let the world rot, and make good with his wife, but he loves us so much that he's willing to live in marital disharmony for our sakes.
It's a great story (ok, maybe not so great). It shows that Mr ABC is kind and caring and loves us. But it's kind of meaningless unless I can convince you that Mr ABC exists in the first place.

Same with John 3:16. If I have no reason to believe that God exists, then the sacrifice of Jesus, while noble, is pretty meaningless.

you gotta think if the reason that the royal families are dying out was because of inbreeding then how could two people populate a whole world not to mention that they populated a few cities in time for their two eldest son big dispute and if you say that their were others to help the populating of earth then you are saying that your own bible is lying since we were all supposedly born of adam and eve

and another thing when god told these people to write the bible why was it only for an elite few i mean why didnt he say hey once you guys have it written youre going to have to build a boat and bring these words to the asians to the indians ect. ect

I don't mind.
Tell me that a rock is God, and I'll accept your argument that the rock does, indeed, exist. And can be named God, if you like.
I won't accept that the rock is a diety, however.

So, what I expect from a god (lower or uppercase?) is...
1) Some reason to think that it actually exists, and isn't just some humans concept of something that would be cool/interesting/explain natural phenomena/make them feel more comfortable with the world.

and, if I'm to worship this god...
2) A reason to believe that this creature/person/thing that exists is a diety, something capable of more than us humans, and worthy of worship.

So, I'd be happy to believe in Aquinus' idea of a First Mover, but not worship it from that argument alone.
I'd be happy to believe in God, sitting in Heaven, and worship it.
I'm not convinced of point 1) for either of those explanations, however.


Lowercase. "God" is uppercase. "a god" is lowercase.

See, I have a problem with this. Firstly, it already assumes that God exists.
If I believe in God, and believe in the bible, then it's a brilliant quote to sum up how generous and caring God is. It shows a really nice God.

But, it assumes that God exists. It doesn't yet give me a reason to think it's true.

I mean no offence by this whatsoever, but I could tell you about Mr ABC, who is so caring that he created the universe and protects it so that humans could frolic in it. The only reason evil exists is because Mrs XYZ, his estranged wife, wants to ruin his hobby. Mr ABC could just let the world rot, and make good with his wife, but he loves us so much that he's willing to live in marital disharmony for our sakes.
It's a great story (ok, maybe not so great). It shows that Mr ABC is kind and caring and loves us. But it's kind of meaningless unless I can convince you that Mr ABC exists in the first place.

Same with John 3:16. If I have no reason to believe that God exists, then the sacrifice of Jesus, while noble, is pretty meaningless.

"No man has seen God at any time; the only Son, who is on the breast of the Father, he has made clear what God is." John 1:18

"No man has ever seen God: if we have love for one another, God is in us and his love is made complete in us:" 1 John 4:12

Believing in God requires a leap of faith. If you're not willing to take this step, nobody can help you. Running around with a "scientific" mind won't get you to God. God, if He is God, is likely to be above scientific thinking. That's why He has great workings such as creation and resurrection.

Tell this to all the people in third world countries who wonder if they are going to have running water today. You may have it good but that doesnt necessarily mean the world is a better place. And I mean we live in a time period where the world could come to an end because of a push of a button. We live in a time where people are willing to blow themselves up and kill children as colateral damage to strike at the other side. We live in a world where a large percentage of the wealth is concentrated amoungst a very small percentage.

Yes, it's awful. It's terrible, and if possible, it should be stopped. Innocent people should never have to suffer.
But, on a philosophical level, away from the actual human suffering, it really is the question of freedom vs safety.
Imagine if instead of God we are talking about the government.
Why does the government allow murderers to run free, when they could microchip each and every one of us. These chips could monitor our vital signs and tell the police who was nearby if someone is murdered.
And record what the victim sees.

Why not monitor our brain chemistry, so if we get too aggressive we can be administered a sedative.
It's not so implausable, this technology would be possible within a few years if we were willing to put the money into it.
Why doesn't our government do this for us? Because it doesn't care? Because it doesn't want to spend the money?
Or because we wouldn't stand for it, we don't want the interference, we want freedom, even if that also entails more risk.

Now, I wasn't there when God (if he exists) was creating the world, but perhaps He did decide that this is, indeed, the best balance between freedom and safety.

...then, when the philosophical discussion is over, I think about the actual living, breathing, thinking human beings living in these conditions, realize how lucky I am, and feel sick for the people that aren't as lucky as me. And, in my gut, agree with you. How could God let this happen.


Well you have a perfectly good god who's supposed to love you sitting before you and you wouldnt want him to say stop all evil? Whats the point of having an all powerfull all loving god if he isnt going to be loving or use his power?
Again, what's the point of a loving mother, if she's going to let you go out on your bike and fall over. Or potentially get hit by a car. She'll teach you to ride safely, avoid busy roads, give you training wheels until you can ride without falling. Part of freedom is the freedom to screw up. It's what makes not-screwing-up so valuable.


And yet according to some christian doctrines those people if they died and didnt believe in Jesus get to suffer in eternal damnation even if they lived a life that was purer then a popes. Not only that but if the ultimate good is to go to heaven and be with god then why would a perfectly good god let people go to hell?

Yeah, kinda screwed up. I can't resolve this one, you'll need an actual christian for this.
I was told at bible camp that non-christians can still go to heaven, they will just be judged by how they live their lives. Actual christians have the advantage of asking for forgiveness, and having their sins forgiven.
When I pointed out how utterly unfair that was, I was told not to try forcing my morality on God.

Believing in God requires a leap of faith. If you're not willing to take this step, nobody can help you. Running around with a "scientific" mind won't get you to God. God, if He is God, is likely to be above scientific thinking. That's why He has great workings such as creation and resurrection.

Alright! And here we get to the real meat of the issue.

Firstly, I want to say that I commend you on your leap of faith. I truly and honestly think it is a great thing that you were able to take it. I truly am glad that it works for you.

For me...no. I can't make this leap of faith. Maybe I'd be able to make it if not for this logical mind in the back of my head.
I'll accept that I need a leap of faith to find God. I'll accept that God is above scientific thinking, and even if he's not, he's above human understanding (just as advanced spaceflight is above monkey understanding).
That's all well and good.

What I can't find is the *reason* to make a leap of faith. What exactly does this leap of faith entail?

If the leap of faith is "open your mind to the possibility, Accept that God *could* exist, and you will see" then, yes, I'm willing to make the jump. I *think* I already have.

If the leap of faith is "believe in a God, just accept it and believe in God, and you will feel better for it", then I can't accept that. Just believe something, and you will believe it to be true? That, intellectually, isn't useful to me. In that case, I can believe in Mr ABC instead. Is the belief in Mr ABC equally valid to your belief in God, assuming I make the one leap of faith instead of the other?

My other problem with making that leap of faith is, it's not just the Christians saying that. I see Christians that can't decide amongs themselves who is right. I see muslims, buddhists, shintoists...they all have made a leap of faith. They all have come to different conclusions. I can't help but be jaded, and believe that the conclusions you find at the other side of your leap of faith are heavily biased by what you expect to find, by what you're taught, and by your environment.
For some reason I don't think God is as effected by these factors as our beliefs are.

So, I'm happy to make the leap of faith, but first I want to know why I should leap towards Christianity, instead of Islam or Shintoism. And if I should just "leap" towards "god" without any bias, how do I do this?

Yes, it's awful. It's terrible, and if possible, it should be stopped. Innocent people should never have to suffer.
But, on a philosophical level, away from the actual human suffering, it really is the question of freedom vs safety.
Imagine if instead of God we are talking about the government.
Why does the government allow murderers to run free, when they could microchip each and every one of us. These chips could monitor our vital signs and tell the police who was nearby if someone is murdered.
And record what the victim sees.
But god isnt the government here. God is suposedly a being that is all powerfull, all knowing, and all loving. I dont see any of those characteristics in big brother do you? Not only that but the tech you are talking about isnt even around yet. The government couldnt even do that if it wanted to right now. Listen I'm not saying god has to take control of the world here but I mean if your an all powerful being whose's supposed to love us why just sit around and let us screw eachother over. I mean in the OT we have a god that frequently appears to his people but now we dont even get a phone call.

Why not monitor our brain chemistry, so if we get too aggressive we can be administered a sedative.
It's not so implausable, this technology would be possible within a few years if we were willing to put the money into it.
Why doesn't our government do this for us? Because it doesn't care? Because it doesn't want to spend the money?
Or because we wouldn't stand for it, we don't want the interference, we want freedom, even if that also entails more risk.
Could the government take away all pain in the world? Could the government make a place where no one is ever sad, where no one ever has to worry? We dont let the government tell us what to do because we know what happens when a small group of people get in charge of a large group of people. But we arent talking about people here. We are talking about an all powerful, all loving, perfectly good being here.

Now, I wasn't there when God (if he exists) was creating the world, but perhaps He did decide that this is, indeed, the best balance between freedom and safety.
But couldnt god create a world where freedom and safety perfectly coexist with eachother? I mean we have an all powerful being here and your telling me that what we have now is the best balance? I could think of a world where people can still do what they want as long as they dont hurt eachother that would be a million times better then what we have now and I'm not an omnipotent being here.



Again, what's the point of a loving mother, if she's going to let you go out on your bike and fall over. Or potentially get hit by a car. She'll teach you to ride safely, avoid busy roads, give you training wheels until you can ride without falling. Part of freedom is the freedom to screw up. It's what makes not-screwing-up so valuable.
I'll agree with you on that but I'm not just talking about are ability to learn from our mistakes here. I am talking about the human condition. Suffering, death, madness are all part of our lives. I'm sure god could allow our freedom to remain intact while removing the pain, stress, and fear from our lives. I mean were talking about a being that can do anything it wants.


Yeah, kinda screwed up. I can't resolve this one, you'll need an actual christian for this.
I was told at bible camp that non-christians can still go to heaven, they will just be judged by how they live their lives. Actual christians have the advantage of asking for forgiveness, and having their sins forgiven.
When I pointed out how utterly unfair that was, I was told not to try forcing my morality on God.
Yea it depends on the group of christians your looking at. I'm alittle fuzzy on the Catholic faith so I couldnt give you a good answer on that. There seem to be quite a few logical hickups that the christian faith seems to have and when they come up against them all of a sudden its not our place to question. Sometimes I just cant help but get a good laugh from it all.

Believing in God requires a leap of faith. If you're not willing to take this step, nobody can help you. Running around with a "scientific" mind won't get you to God. God, if He is God, is likely to be above scientific thinking. That's why He has great workings such as creation and resurrection.
Yea I cant really accept that. I mean if believing in god was all I was doing sure I wouldnt mind taking a little jump. But your not just believing in god. Your going to follow a set group of rules which have social, moral, and many more implications which impact other people. Why would you be willing to risk doing something to other people without having any logical backing to it.

Tell this to all the people in third world countries who wonder if they are going to have running water today. You may have it good....
Excuse me?

Excuse me?

That was in reference to a post talking about god making this the best world possible. Merely trying to ram home a point and not attack the other poster whatsoever. If its construed as an attack my bad its not.

so my questions appearently arent worthy of an answer oh well

Eh some people get it some dont. Frankly though I mean lets look at the present state of the world right now. Terrorists are killing indescriminantly, there is the threat of biological and nuclear attacks, and tensions between nations with nukes could be better. Dont you think god could spare a few seconds of his day and right a few wrongs? You know stop some suffering here, make sure we stop blowing eachother up there. Nothing he hasnt done before.
Let's substitute the word "individuals" for "terrorists", shall we? And then we'll substitute "mistakes" for "wrongs", and see where that leads us....?

Alright! And here we get to the real meat of the issue.

Firstly, I want to say that I commend you on your leap of faith. I truly and honestly think it is a great thing that you were able to take it. I truly am glad that it works for you.

For me...no. I can't make this leap of faith. Maybe I'd be able to make it if not for this logical mind in the back of my head.
I'll accept that I need a leap of faith to find God. I'll accept that God is above scientific thinking, and even if he's not, he's above human understanding (just as advanced spaceflight is above monkey understanding).
That's all well and good.

What I can't find is the *reason* to make a leap of faith. What exactly does this leap of faith entail?

If the leap of faith is "open your mind to the possibility, Accept that God *could* exist, and you will see" then, yes, I'm willing to make the jump. I *think* I already have.

If the leap of faith is "believe in a God, just accept it and believe in God, and you will feel better for it", then I can't accept that. Just believe something, and you will believe it to be true? That, intellectually, isn't useful to me. In that case, I can believe in Mr ABC instead. Is the belief in Mr ABC equally valid to your belief in God, assuming I make the one leap of faith instead of the other?

My other problem with making that leap of faith is, it's not just the Christians saying that. I see Christians that can't decide amongs themselves who is right. I see muslims, buddhists, shintoists...they all have made a leap of faith. They all have come to different conclusions. I can't help but be jaded, and believe that the conclusions you find at the other side of your leap of faith are heavily biased by what you expect to find, by what you're taught, and by your environment.
For some reason I don't think God is as effected by these factors as our beliefs are.

So, I'm happy to make the leap of faith, but first I want to know why I should leap towards Christianity, instead of Islam or Shintoism. And if I should just "leap" towards "god" without any bias, how do I do this?

True. So before you take the leap, you need to do some research about which way and how far to leap. But for me, no other religion or material is able to satisfy my inner self the way Christianity does.

Let's substitute the word "individuals" for "terrorists", shall we? And then we'll substitute "mistakes" for "wrongs", and see where that leads us....?

Except that would be changing the context of my point. I'm not talking about wrongs that people can argue about such as eating pork or drinking alcohol. I'm talking about murder, rape, and other bigger things. Nice try on the slippery slope but I'm not advocating a government take over what we are doing. I am merely using the context of an all powerful being who could for some reason stop all the suffering in the world but doesnt. I'm not saying lets legislate morality merely saying that wouldnt an all powerful god step in at a point saying okay this has got to stop?

But god isnt the government here. God is suposedly a being that is all powerfull, all knowing, and all loving. I dont see any of those characteristics in big brother do you?

Well, no. Still not the point, the point was that recuding our options to do the wrong thing reduces our freedom. That's not necessarily such a bad thing, though (I don't want you to have the freedom to murder me)

Not only that but the tech you are talking about isnt even around yet.
Pshaw. Give me five years of government funding and I'll hand you the tech.
We already have the tech to track people under house arrest. We just apply that to everyone. We already have the tech to monitor vital signals. We just apply that to everyone. It's not so implusable.
Vital signals go hazy, an ambulence is dispatched to the location, and the location of anyone else nearby is recorded, just in case. If it looks like foul play, the locations of the other people nearby is submitted as evidence. That is all possible using *current* technology, and a lot of funding.
But anyway, this is beside the point. The point is that we *like* being able to do the wrong thing. It makes us feel good when we choose to do the right thing.

if your an all powerful being whose's supposed to love us why just sit around and let us screw eachother over. I mean in the OT we have a god that frequently appears to his people but now we dont even get a phone call.
Yeah, he sure doesn't visit as much as he used to. And, really, with our mass communication devices, all he really has to do is make on tv appearance, right?
Surely God's Majesty would be obvious even when displayed through tv?

But that's not really my beef with God. I can accept if God doesn't want to visit, and wants us to come for him.
What I want, however, is a sign, some way of knowing which God is the true one.


Could the government take away all pain in the world? Could the government make a place where no one is ever sad, where no one ever has to worry? We dont let the government tell us what to do because we know what happens when a small group of people get in charge of a large group of people. But we arent talking about people here. We are talking about an all powerful, all loving, perfectly good being here.
Of course the government couldn't. But it could do more than it's currently doing (if we'd let it). Problem is everyone has a different opinion on what it should be doing.
Probably the same with God. Perhaps the perfectly good being knows that the best way for Humans to live in a perfect world is for us to learn ourselves, and build a perfect world rather than have one handed to us.


But couldnt god create a world where freedom and safety perfectly coexist with eachother? I mean we have an all powerful being here and your telling me that what we have now is the best balance? I could think of a world where people can still do what they want as long as they dont hurt eachother that would be a million times better then what we have now and I'm not an omnipotent being here.
I don't *think* that even God could do that, not without changing the way that human nature works. Part of my free will is my ability to be an utter jerk if I feel like it. The fact that I don't use that ability as often as I could is what makes me a nice guy.


Suffering, death, madness are all part of our lives. I'm sure god could allow our freedom to remain intact while removing the pain, stress, and fear from our lives. I mean were talking about a being that can do anything it wants.
Sure, but we wouldn't be human.
We define "the most horrible evil thing" as the most horrible evil thing which we can imagine. And "the best possible thing" as the best possible thing that we can imagine. If I've never experienced true suffering in my life, I'd consider my brother loosing his legs in a car accident to be true suffering. If I'd witnessed someones body consume them from the inside, leaving them a living husk in constant pain that lives on for years with no hope but a painful death at the end, I'd consider my brother to be living a good life in his wheelchair, able to have a job, family, and continue to enjoy life. That doesn't mean that him loosing his legs was any less horrific, just that I have a different perspective of it because of my experiences.

So part of the human condition is the fact that, even those people in third world countries wondering if they will get water tomorrow, even those people can still experience joy and happiness.
And even lucky me, who has (relatively) perfect health, a healthy family, an able-bodied brother, a loving girlfriend. Even lucky, blessed me, can feel pain, stress and fear.

*that*, my friend, is the human condition, and I think it's a wonderfully adaptive thing.

It's also why I believe that even if God makes the world a better place, we'll still be saying "how can a kind God let us live like this?"


Yea I cant really accept that. I mean if believing in god was all I was doing sure I wouldnt mind taking a little jump. But your not just believing in god. Your going to follow a set group of rules which have social, moral, and many more implications which impact other people. Why would you be willing to risk doing something to other people without having any logical backing to it.

Exactly. I don't want to assume anything about Dragon's beliefs, here. I'm not talking about anyone in particular.
*some* religious people, christian or otherwise, are opposed to e.g. gay marriages or abortion. I DON'T want to hijack this thread with a discussion of either. I just want to say that, after my leap of faith, I want *some* evidence that what I'm believing is right. I want *some* evidence that can rationalize away what is in the bible, is in popular understanding as the religion etc. before I can truly be a part of it. I can't condone gay marriage or abortion under a religious umbrella until I have evidence that my religion is more right than whatever they might believe.

Subscribing to a religion also involves subscribing to a moral framework and code of behaviour (otherwise I'm putting down a sign saying "build a religion around me") - I need some reason to think that this new moral framework and code of behavior is better than what I currently have.

That was in reference to a post talking about god making this the best world possible. Merely trying to ram home a point and not attack the other poster whatsoever. If its construed as an attack my bad its not.
It wasn't construed as an attack whatsoever. I must say I've found it very interesting debating this point with you, your responses are intelligent and well thought out.

The same goes for Dragons Bay.

Thank you both.

True. So before you take the leap, you need to do some research about which way and how far to leap. But for me, no other religion or material is able to satisfy my inner self the way Christianity does.

Am I inferring correctly from this that each individuals choice on a religion is a personal choice of what "fits" best, and that we can have no way of knowing if any given religion is correct or not?

In other words, I'd make the leap of faith to believe in a Christian God because that's the God that will make me feel the most conforted during my life, and help me lead a good life? But it's equally valid for my neighbour to worship Buddha, as neither/both are correct?

I know I'm making quite a few logical jumps there, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I also happen to believe that what I just described is perfectly valid.

Except that would be changing the context of my point.
Go figure!

I'm not talking about wrongs that people can argue about such as eating pork or drinking alcohol. I'm talking about murder, rape, and other bigger things. Nice try on the slippery slope but I'm not advocating a government take over what we are doing. I am merely using the context of an all powerful being who could for some reason stop all the suffering in the world but doesnt. I'm not saying lets legislate morality merely saying that wouldnt an all powerful god step in at a point saying okay this has got to stop?
Murder is as much a "wrong" as "eating pork" (???). I eat pork *and* drink alcohol; it's not wrong, it's yummy.

I said nothing about legislation, nor did I imply it. But isn't "God stopping the suffering in the world" little different from legislating morality?

God does not interfere in world affairs. If you accept that, then things start to make sense; if you advocate it, then you promote nonsense.

Well, no. Still not the point, the point was that recuding our options to do the wrong thing reduces our freedom. That's not necessarily such a bad thing, though (I don't want you to have the freedom to murder me)
Well lets look at the government again for an example. We limit our freedom in order to maintain a better society in many different ways. We dont totally take control of people's lives and force them to act in a rigid set of ways but we do limit our freedom enough to enjoy life without harming others. Surely the christian god could do the same thing?


Pshaw. Give me five years of government funding and I'll hand you the tech.
We already have the tech to track people under house arrest. We just apply that to everyone. We already have the tech to monitor vital signals. We just apply that to everyone. It's not so implusable.
Vital signals go hazy, an ambulence is dispatched to the location, and the location of anyone else nearby is recorded, just in case. If it looks like foul play, the locations of the other people nearby is submitted as evidence. That is all possible using *current* technology, and a lot of funding.
But anyway, this is beside the point. The point is that we *like* being able to do the wrong thing. It makes us feel good when we choose to do the right thing.
I think the point is that we dont enjoy doing the wrong thing but we enjoy having the choice. And today we limit that freedom to an extent, nothing huge but there are still limitations, and what I'm trying to get at is why cant an all powerful god do the same thing? I mean were talking about a being that can do anything and yet were supposed to believe that this is the best we can hope for?


Of course the government couldn't. But it could do more than it's currently doing (if we'd let it). Problem is everyone has a different opinion on what it should be doing.
Probably the same with God. Perhaps the perfectly good being knows that the best way for Humans to live in a perfect world is for us to learn ourselves, and build a perfect world rather than have one handed to us.
Only problem is human beings arent perfect and we wont ever be able to live in a perfect world. The only thing that is perfect is god and unless he/she/it decideds to make the perfect world we are stuck with what we've got.


I don't *think* that even God could do that, not without changing the way that human nature works. Part of my free will is my ability to be an utter jerk if I feel like it. The fact that I don't use that ability as often as I could is what makes me a nice guy.[?Quote]
Except that you know that there are certain things that even though you have free will you wont do? I mean part of my free will is that today I could end someones life. But I dont and its because I realize that harming other people isnt something I should do. And if you think that what I have suggested would require the changing of human nature do you mean that you think that humans aren't naturally good beings?

[Quote]Sure, but we wouldn't be human.
We define "the most horrible evil thing" as the most horrible evil thing which we can imagine. And "the best possible thing" as the best possible thing that we can imagine. If I've never experienced true suffering in my life, I'd consider my brother loosing his legs in a car accident to be true suffering. If I'd witnessed someones body consume them from the inside, leaving them a living husk in constant pain that lives on for years with no hope but a painful death at the end, I'd consider my brother to be living a good life in his wheelchair, able to have a job, family, and continue to enjoy life. That doesn't mean that him loosing his legs was any less horrific, just that I have a different perspective of it because of my experiences.
Well then if suffering is such an important thing for us to learn from then shouldnt we increase it instead of trying to limit it?

So part of the human condition is the fact that, even those people in third world countries wondering if they will get water tomorrow, even those people can still experience joy and happiness.
And even lucky me, who has (relatively) perfect health, a healthy family, an able-bodied brother, a loving girlfriend. Even lucky, blessed me, can feel pain, stress and fear.

*that*, my friend, is the human condition, and I think it's a wonderfully adaptive thing.
O I dont disagree with you but my reference to the human condition was merely to point out some of the bad things about humanity we could do without and yet still preserve our freedom.

It's also why I believe that even if God makes the world a better place, we'll still be saying "how can a kind God let us live like this?"
And once again I point out that people are always going to ask a all powerful being to remove all pain and suffering from the world. I mean wouldnt you want to make everyone happy and have them not feel pain if you could?



Exactly. I don't want to assume anything about Dragon's beliefs, here. I'm not talking about anyone in particular.
*some* religious people, christian or otherwise, are opposed to e.g. gay marriages or abortion. I DON'T want to hijack this thread with a discussion of either. I just want to say that, after my leap of faith, I want *some* evidence that what I'm believing is right. I want *some* evidence that can rationalize away what is in the bible, is in popular understanding as the religion etc. before I can truly be a part of it. I can't condone gay marriage or abortion under a religious umbrella until I have evidence that my religion is more right than whatever they might believe.

Subscribing to a religion also involves subscribing to a moral framework and code of behaviour (otherwise I'm putting down a sign saying "build a religion around me") - I need some reason to think that this new moral framework and code of behavior is better than what I currently have.
This is one thing we can definatly agree on. Its okay for people to believe that premarital sex is a bad thing. Its a whole other thing for the leader of a group to discourage the use of contraceptives in the fight against aids because it doesnt agree with their viewpoint.

Am I inferring correctly from this that each individuals choice on a religion is a personal choice of what "fits" best, and that we can have no way of knowing if any given religion is correct or not?
No, because Christianity is the only one that can truly satisfy. Why do some Muslims think that fanaticism is the way to Heaven? Maybe because Islam cannot fulfill the inner self?

In other words, I'd make the leap of faith to believe in a Christian God because that's the God that will make me feel the most conforted during my life, and help me lead a good life? But it's equally valid for my neighbour to worship Buddha, as neither/both are correct?./QUOTE]

Partly. God can forgive your sins, Buddha cannot.

[QUOTE=Earths Orbit]I know I'm making quite a few logical jumps there, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I also happen to believe that what I just described is perfectly valid.

Everything you believe is "valid", or else you wouldn't believe it, will you. Don't worry, when we grow we all have different "valid" beliefs. They will change, and I hope for you they will change for the better.

Go figure!
Will if your going to debate me fine. But if your going to do it in an asinine way dont bother. I respect you and your point of view so please return the favor.


Murder is as much a "wrong" as "eating pork" (???). I eat pork *and* drink alcohol; it's not wrong, it's yummy.
I never said murder is as wrong as eating pork. I merely said there are evils that people can agree on and some that people cant. I would ask god to remove such evils that everyone agrees on like murder and rape from existance. There a big problem with that?


I said nothing about legislation, nor did I imply it. But isn't "God stopping the suffering in the world" little different from legislating morality?
True but then again it depends on where the morals come from. I believe that they arent nessecarly derived from a supreme being but something humanity has come about to create. And we legislate morals all the time we just dont do it in a religious sense. We say rape is wrong because it harms others, killing is wrong because it harms others, etc. If we can do this down here why cant god just remove these things from existance if he loves us so much?

God does not interfere in world affairs. If you accept that, then things start to make sense; if you advocate it, then you promote nonsense.
The OT and NT seem to disagree with you there.