NationStates Jolt Archive

And just how often or how long do things have to go on for
for them to be considered traditional.

Over the last 2 millenia there have been an awful lot of ugly periods
in christian history.

I would imagine, to be a tradition, it would mean something practiced on a regular basis. Like celebrating the last supper, is a tradition. Celebrating Easter is a tradition. Christians don't celebrate, honor, or practice the crusades.

I should have asked this question much earlier. To me it seems that a lot of you think Christianity is about gay-bashing and stopping people from having fun. What exactly do you think Christianity is corely about?
There are many different defintions of "Christianity." They vary from age to age and from culture to culture. Primative Christianity actually had no definition until the first councils of the church universal developed The Apostle's Creed, and then the later councils refined and modified the various "creeds" to conform more closely to the accepted definitions of "Christianity."

Once a religion acquires an established heirarchy, the heirarchy decides who is and is not a "true believer." This is often based more on politics than on any sense of the original tenets of the founders.

I would imagine, to be a tradition, it would mean something practiced on a regular basis. Like celebrating the last supper, is a tradition. Celebrating Easter is a tradition. Christians don't celebrate, honor, or practice the crusades.


well christmas and easter are pre christian traditions which the christians
hang their own decorations on.

christians may not celebrate the crusades but they sure do seem
to repeat them on a regular basis, surely that is some kind of tradition.

theres a long tradition of torturing and killing people who hold different
beliefs, even on occasion when the beliefs aren't that different.
Heresy is definitely a traditional christian word and often used
to justify imprisonment torture and murder.

The catholic church for example still has its inquisition even if no longer
perpetrating the evils it used to a bit like if the germans still kept
naziism but without the gas chambers and concentration camps.

Possibly.

Of course, the Abelardian view of atonement has an equal amount of backing, and it suggests that Christ died so that we would turn to God in love, rather than fear, thereby gaining our salvation.


Although a father who sends his son to his death so you would turn to him
in love is slightly scary don't you think?

Although a father who sends his son to his death so you would turn to him in love is slightly scary don't you think?

The Father and the Son are part of the same entity. Thus, God came to die as the Son.

And Christ said it himself that "No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends." John 15:13.

This (http://www.400monkeys.com/God/) might help to clarify the situation.

You said if he ever had any conviction then he couldn't be a true-atheist. did you not? He said he no longer believed. How can you dispute what a person does and doesn't believe?


No, no I didn't. I mentioned no 'ever'. I said if he had conviction, he wasn't an Atheist. You can't simultaneously not believe in god, AND believe in god. Either the concept works for you, or it doesn't.

I dispute him, because he doesn't come across as honest, to anyone who IS an Atheist.

All that stuf about 'no moral compass'? For example... I doubt that there are many true Atheists out there who would honestly say they NEEDED religion for their morality.


I agree with this statement and say that it goes both ways.


That's what I said, wasn't it?


how does this definition differ from skeptic? I was under the impression an atheist denies God exists. My understanding is they BELIEVE he does not. Either way, I still cannot see how you can make a determination on someone else's belief.


There are two types of Atheists. The Explicit (or Hard, or Strong) Atheist - that actively BELIEVES that there is no such thing as 'god'; and the Implicit (or Soft, or Weak) Atheist, that just doesn't believe in any gods.

Note: Lack of belief is NOT the same as belief of lack.

And, I can make a determination on someone else's belief only in the same way that you can. If a man bows his knee to Thor, or Satan... is he still a 'Christian', in your estimation?


Yes, I am. Why do you ask?
Strobel got the urge to investigate because his wife dropped a bomb on him and he found himself living with a born again Christian. That just might be a motivation to do some investigating. Especially if their lifestyles suddenly came into conflict. I find that perfectly reasonable.


So - you actively question the validity of god?


again, you are speculating on what he knew, thought, and believed. Yes the Christian-book market loves to read that stuff, that doesn't make all instances of it untrue. Not everyone that says what you want to hear is saying it because you want to hear it. It might just happen to be true as well.


However, by the same token - not everything someone says in selling their product is going to be true.


Why? You don't believe that the age old rift between science and religion would cause converts on either side? So evolution doesn't claim one way or the other about God. That doesn't stop MANY people from forming their beliefs around it. How many times in a religious thread does evolution come up? What is the #1 reason given in a discussion about religion for not believing? Evolution. It invariably turns to evolution vs. religion every time. Why? Because that is where the biggest conflict in most people's mind is. So why wouldn't this big event be enough to start a person on a path of atheism? He never claimed it was the only thing, just the beginning of it.

Actually - in the religion threads, the biggest argument I see against god is usually either: A) I'm not going to believe something that isn't PROVED, b) I don't buy anything from a book THIS full of errors; or c) I REFUSE to believe in such a childish god. Evolution is usually way down the list...

Well, Stalin was atheist.

Which is irrelevent, UNLESS you have some way to prove that he was an utter butt-monkey BECAUSE of his Atheism.

Just curious... it's been a while since I studied Stalin... he wasn't actually RAISED as an Atheist, was he?

True. But then they are not Christian.

And, I'd agree with you. However, most of the world's 'Christians' probably consider you to be an extremist in a fundamentlist cult.

Cuts both ways...

then you are still omitting one of the "core" criteria. You have to accept Him as your Lord and Savior.

No - I really don't.

If you wish to make that kind of gesture, far be it from me to prevent you... but it holds no interest for me.

As far as I'm concerned, the CORE criteria is living a Christ-like life.

yes, they do, unfortunately. Yet that isn't a reflection on Christianity, its a reflection on the people calling themselves Christians.

And, whether you like it or not, those two things are interlocked. Christianity IS Christians.

No - I really don't.

If you wish to make that kind of gesture, far be it from me to prevent you... but it holds no interest for me.

As far as I'm concerned, the CORE criteria is living a Christ-like life.


Leave the family business as soon as your old enough to actually be some real
help.
Scrounge around the middle east with a bunch of unemployed mates
who have deserted their wives and families.

Occasional harrassment of traders and random vandalism against trees
when they aren't in season and don't have fruit when you want it.

Along with the certain knowledge that you are god and can never die.
Although you are aware that you will be uncomfortable for what is in terms
of infinity less than an eyeblink.

Also annoy the established religion by breaking a great many of their rules
and challenging the right of anyone to judge anyone else

Annoy people who don't buy your version of how they should live and advise
your mates to treat with contempt people who don't offer them food drink and board whenever they happen to want it.

Really annoy your father by letting others get the idea that he
isn't your real dad.


Leave behind a legacy that will eventually lead to the deaths of millions

Although a father who sends his son to his death so you would turn to him
in love is slightly scary don't you think?

Whereas, of course, a father that says:

"You see all those kids in the neighbourhood... the ones I brought you here to meet? Well, I'm going to torture them forever, unless you commit suicide in some horrible bloody fashion"...

is some kind of peach?

And, whether you like it or not, those two things are interlocked. Christianity IS Christians.
Indeed. Hell, that's one of the two definitions given by the dictionary:

Christianity 2) "the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history"

Leave the family business as soon as your old enough to actually be some real
help.
Scrounge around the middle east with a bunch of unemployed mates
who have deserted their wives and families.

Occasional harrassment of traders and random vandalism against trees
when they aren't in season and don't have fruit when you want it.

Along with the certain knowledge that you are god and can never die.
Although you are aware that you will be uncomfortable for what is in terms
of infinity less than an eyeblink.

Also annoy the established religion by breaking a great many of their rules
and challenging the right of anyone to judge anyone else

Annoy people who don't buy your version of how they should live and advise
your mates to treat with contempt people who don't offer them food drink and board whenever they happen to want it.

Really annoy your father by letting others get the idea that he
isn't your real dad.


Leave behind a legacy that will eventually lead to the deaths of millions

You know... I'd never really though about it like that...

No, no I didn't. I mentioned no 'ever'. I said if he had conviction, he wasn't an Atheist. You can't simultaneously not believe in god, AND believe in god. Either the concept works for you, or it doesn't.

I don't see where you're getting that he believed and didn't believe. He said he didn't believe. How can you say he did?

I dispute him, because he doesn't come across as honest, to anyone who IS an Atheist.

All that stuf about 'no moral compass'? For example... I doubt that there are many true Atheists out there who would honestly say they NEEDED religion for their morality.

Like I said, all the moral compass business was after the fact. This was said after he became a minister. I'm sure he wasn't thinking all that while living his life. Not until he suddenly had his wife's actions to compare them too.



There are two types of Atheists. The Explicit (or Hard, or Strong) Atheist - that actively BELIEVES that there is no such thing as 'god'; and the Implicit (or Soft, or Weak) Atheist, that just doesn't believe in any gods.

Note: Lack of belief is NOT the same as belief of lack.

Ok, I was thinking those that just didn't believe were agnostic and Atheist was reserved for those who Believed in the negative.

And, I can make a determination on someone else's belief only in the same way that you can. If a man bows his knee to Thor, or Satan... is he still a 'Christian', in your estimation?

The only way I determine someone else's belief is by what he says about it himself. I don't presume to know what Strobel believes other than what his own words on the subject told me.



So - you actively question the validity of god?

of course not, but I enjoy learning about Him. I also search to help strengthen my own faith which can always be stronger.



However, by the same token - not everything someone says in selling their product is going to be true.

this is obviously true. I guess you have to pick and choose. I don't feel there is sufficient evidence (none at all) to call the man a liar. Unless his actioins said differently (say if he was caught bending his knee to Thor or Satan), I don't see a reason to challenge his belief.





Actually - in the religion threads, the biggest argument I see against god is usually either: A) I'm not going to believe something that isn't PROVED, b) I don't buy anything from a book THIS full of errors; or c) I REFUSE to believe in such a childish god. Evolution is usually way down the list...

Not the ones where you and I have discussed with one another. They've ALL been about evolution.

My reason for being an atheist is there is absolutely nothing that would
cause any rational person to believe the story that there are gods of
any kind.

Religion often successfully circumvents this by indoctrinating people
with the concepts long before they are rational.

In the long distant past when no one knew why anything at all happened
it is understandable that people made up stories that gave you some
kind of reason why nights got longer and days colder and fruit didn't grow.

And a story that has some kind of power that you can then influence by
making sacrifices etc would put some element of power into your hands
which is what people want.

This hasn't been the situation for people in the developed countries in recent history
however when events are totally beyond your control and life is a misery
people tend to fall back on the idea that it will all be better someday
even if the someday in question is after you are dead

To me religion for humans is on a par with religion for robots

If there is no electronic heaven - where do toasters go when they die.

I don't see where you're getting that he believed and didn't believe. He said he didn't believe. How can you say he did?


Because he didn't act like a non-believer. If you saw a supposed-Christian sacrificing babies to Satan, you'd question his veracity.


Like I said, all the moral compass business was after the fact. This was said after he became a minister. I'm sure he wasn't thinking all that while living his life. Not until he suddenly had his wife's actions to compare them too.


My wife is a Southern Baptist. Never have I compared my moral compass to hers in that way. It smacks of deception... it sounds like he was just using it as an excuse... and is trying to excuse that behaviour now that he has 'become a Christian again'.


Ok, I was thinking those that just didn't believe were agnostic and Atheist was reserved for those who Believed in the negative.


Agnsotics believe it is not possible to KNOW for sure, if there is a god.


The only way I determine someone else's belief is by what he says about it himself. I don't presume to know what Strobel believes other than what his own words on the subject told me.


Well, you must be a paragon, then. I don't automatically take a man's word at face value. Maybe that makes me more cynical. Maybe, less gullible.

If it doesn't act like an Atheist, maybe it's not.


of course not, but I enjoy learning about Him. I also search to help strengthen my own faith which can always be stronger.


And, yet - Strobel did the same thing, from the opposite direction. A supposed non-believer sets out to prove that something he SUPPOSEDLY doesn't even believe in, is false.

It's ridiculous. I fail to recollect a set of Strobel books, discussing how he also disproved the Bermuda Triangle, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus.


this is obviously true. I guess you have to pick and choose. I don't feel there is sufficient evidence (none at all) to call the man a liar. Unless his actioins said differently (say if he was caught bending his knee to Thor or Satan), I don't see a reason to challenge his belief.


I'd just say that NOTHING is reliable without corroboration. If someone came and told you there had been no holocaust, I'm betting you'd ask for some evidence.


Not the ones where you and I have discussed with one another. They've ALL been about evolution.

To be fair... this is pretty much one of three threads we've really debated in.. and TWO of them HAVE BEEN evolution threads, haven't they?

My reason for being an atheist is there is absolutely nothing that would
cause any rational person to believe the story that there are gods of
any kind.

Religion often successfully circumvents this by indoctrinating people
with the concepts long before they are rational.

In the long distant past when no one knew why anything at all happened
it is understandable that people made up stories that gave you some
kind of reason why nights got longer and days colder and fruit didn't grow.

And a story that has some kind of power that you can then influence by
making sacrifices etc would put some element of power into your hands
which is what people want.

This hasn't been the situation for people in the developed countries in recent history
however when events are totally beyond your control and life is a misery
people tend to fall back on the idea that it will all be better someday
even if the someday in question is after you are dead

To me religion for humans is on a par with religion for robots

If there is no electronic heaven - where do toasters go when they die.

Ah, I see you have invoked the "Kryten Principle".

Then you've made up your mind. It is apparantly closed, so what further purpose do you still hold in this conversation? You don't like "lecturing" (although its a discussion not a lecture), You're an atheist and you're not changing. So you have no interest in Christianity, then why do you have an interest in a discussion about Christianity? I've noticed you post in several Christianity based discussion but usually with bile and hatred. Why? If you have no interest, why waste your time? Why spread your hatred of something to others? Rather hypocritical considering the reasons you've given for hating Christians don't you think?

Open my mind to what? Christianity? I'm not doing that. The only interest I have in religion is stemming the spread of it. It is a type of cancer and it is going to kill society itself if nothing is done to challenge or stem the spread of it. I respect christian moderates, some of which are my friends. I only have a tendency of despising those christian fundamentalists who spread hatred bigotry, and insults. I'm not hypocritical at all. In fact I think you're shallow and hypocritical.

Apparantly being gay is a tool for hatred as much as Christianity eh? You see how silly that sounds?

you're finding offense and hatred in Dragon's posts where there isn't any. yet you're spewing quite a lot of hatred yourself. Gay or not, I'm of the opinion you are a first class hypocrit.

Oh please, you are the first class hypocrite. Please don't even try that commonly used "well if you don't accept our religion, you're a bigot" crap with me. You need to start showing respect to minorities to get respect back.

Ah, I see you have invoked the "Kryten Principle".

indubitably

Because he didn't act like a non-believer. If you saw a supposed-Christian sacrificing babies to Satan, you'd question his veracity.

so what does a non-believer act like? How do you know how he was acting?



My wife is a Southern Baptist. Never have I compared my moral compass to hers in that way. It smacks of deception... it sounds like he was just using it as an excuse... and is trying to excuse that behaviour now that he has 'become a Christian again'.

Did your wife suddenly become a Southern Baptist out of the blue while you were married? without consulting you first? Just because you don't compare yourself with your wife that way, doesn't make it an odd occurance. If the two of you enjoyed the same lifestyle for years and suddenly your wife changed hers and now they conflicted, don't you think you'd look into it?



Agnsotics believe it is not possible to KNOW for sure, if there is a god.

Ok forgive me but didn't you say exactly that?



Well, you must be a paragon, then. I don't automatically take a man's word at face value. Maybe that makes me more cynical. Maybe, less gullible.

If it doesn't act like an Atheist, maybe it's not.

Again what does an atheist act like? So how do you handle not taking a man at his word when discussing something personal about that man?



And, yet - Strobel did the same thing, from the opposite direction. A supposed non-believer sets out to prove that something he SUPPOSEDLY doesn't even believe in, is false.

It's ridiculous. I fail to recollect a set of Strobel books, discussing how he also disproved the Bermuda Triangle, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus.

It isn't ridiculous! His household changed, its perfectly logical to investigate the cause. His wife didn't come home and announce she was moving to the Bermuda Triangle to become the Easter Bunny and to marry Santa Claus. Otherwise, he might have checked into it.



I'd just say that NOTHING is reliable without corroboration. If someone came and told you there had been no holocaust, I'm betting you'd ask for some evidence.

well that is history, there are no books on how a guy believes. If you require evidence in order to give a man credit for what he says he believes, then I just don't see how you can ever believe anything at all. When you meet someone for the first time and the guy shakes your hand and tells you his name, do you also require a photo id?

Grave_n_idle:

The Bible states this:

Mark 12:28-34

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
31 The second is this: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
32 "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.
33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God."

Galatians 2:16 - yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.

Galatians 2:20 - I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Philippians 3:9 - and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith;

Ephesians 2:8-10 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God-- 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

It is VERY clear that God commands us to LOVE Him and have FAITH in Him. That is the cornerstone of Christianity....CHOOSING God over all other things. Good works is the fruit of faith IN GOD....You can't truly love God and follow God without doing good works....but you can do good works out of the misconception that you have to EARN heaven....and that is not what God is after. God simply wants US to CHOOSE HIM over everything else in our life. Yes, a Christian is called to be like Jesus...but Jesus LOVED GOD ABOVE ALL THINGS....we are called to be like Jesus because He is without sin and is God and not because being like Jesus will earn ourselves a spot in heaven. Jesus ALREADY fought the battle of sin for us and we just have to accept that He is our Lord and Savior.

Again, I am just stating what the Bible says...and yes, how I interpret the passages. In order to fully understand the complexities of the Bible, you have to take the WHOLE Bible in context. One passage is not relevant without the others because the Bible's complete message is in the WHOLE book, not just in one or two passages. By the way, I just found our that I will be able to attend school this September. I'm SOOO excited....and a bit scared (but in a good way!!)

Open my mind to what? Christianity? I'm not doing that. The only interest I have in religion is stemming the spread of it. It is a type of cancer and it is going to kill society itself if nothing is done to challenge or stem the spread of it. I respect christian moderates, some of which are my friends. I only have a tendency of despising those christian fundamentalists who spread hatred bigotry, and insults. I'm not hypocritical at all. In fact I think you're shallow and hypocritical.

And I've said what for you draw this conclusion? Its funny how you are using almost word for word the venomous statements against Christianity that I've heard so-called Christians use against homosexuals. You hate the way they've talked about you, yet you do exactly the same thing to them. That, my friend, is hypocritical.



Oh please, you are the first class hypocrite. Please don't even try that commonly used "well if you don't accept our religion, you're a bigot" crap with me. You need to start showing respect to minorities to get respect back.

How am I a hypocrite? I didn't use that so-called commonly used statement. I didn't even say anything LIKE that. Who am I not showing respect to? Have I oppressed any minorities here? The only words of disdain I've had in this entire discussion have been for you, and those have nothing whatsoever to do with your race, gender, or sexual orientation. They were based solely on the attitude and disrespect you've spewed on these pages. Maybe you should try the respect thing yourself.

My reason for being an atheist is there is absolutely nothing that would cause any rational person to believe the story that there are gods of any kind.

And I am sure that you know the experiences of every rational person out there, eh?

Oh noes! This person came to a different conclusion than me! They must be irrational!

Sorry darling, but that smacks of bigotry.

And I've said what for you draw this conclusion? Its funny how you are using almost word for word the venomous statements against Christianity that I've heard so-called Christians use against homosexuals. You hate the way they've talked about you, yet you do exactly the same thing to them. That, my friend, is hypocritical.

What a pile of dung. The only ones spewing venom here are the christian fundamentalists. They do it for a living. It is called spreading words of hatred and bigotry. Unfortunately, the mainstream in christianity endorses this. I don't do the same to them. You are just seeing things that aren't there.


I didn't even say anything LIKE that. Who am I not showing respect to? Have I oppressed any minorities here? The only words of disdain I've had in this entire discussion have been for you, and those have nothing whatsoever to do with your race, gender, or sexual orientation. They were based solely on the attitude and disrespect you've spewed on these pages. Maybe you should try the respect thing yourself.

You're the one who has tried to turn the facts upside down. You are the one who is trying to make me look intolerant when in reality I have nothing against moderate christians. You are the one spewing disrespect, and crap.

And I am sure that you know the experiences of every rational person out there, eh?

Oh noes! This person came to a different conclusion than me! They must be irrational!

Sorry darling, but that smacks of bigotry.
Well, be fair about it and try to see it from the atheist's perspective; replace "God" with "magical 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs who built Earth as a game preserve."

Then you get:

"My reason for being an atheist is there is absolutely nothing that would cause any rational person to believe the story that there are magical 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs who built Earth as a game preserve."

Now, I still think this isn't entirely fair, since there probably is something that would convince a rational person to believe in magical 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs who built Earth as a game preserve. However, I must admit that it's a bit hard for me to imagine what that something might be...

What a pile of dung. The only ones spewing venom here are the christian fundamentalists. They do it for a living. It is called spreading words of hatred and bigotry. Unfortunately, the mainstream in christianity endorses this. I don't do the same to them. You are just seeing things that aren't there.



You're the one who has tried to turn the facts upside down. You are the one who is trying to make me look intolerant when in reality I have nothing against moderate christians. You are the one spewing disrespect, and crap.

maybe you should go back and reread what you've posted here. No one has said anything disrespectful or hateful to you with the exception of my calling you a hypocrit. Which you may not be, but I can't tell that by the way you've reacted on this thread.

I can assure you I'm not turning any facts upside down. Go back and reread your own words. They are the epitome of intolerance, hatred, and disrespect. They were also uncalled for, because no one treated you that way. Not once since page one, has anyone treated you in the ugly way you've treated others.

Did your wife suddenly become a Southern Baptist out of the blue while you were married? without consulting you first? Just because you don't compare yourself with your wife that way, doesn't make it an odd occurance. If the two of you enjoyed the same lifestyle for years and suddenly your wife changed hers and now they conflicted, don't you think you'd look into it?

I don't think that Grave has any problems with the fact that a guy would look into his wife's religion if she suddenly converted and her behavior changed.

However, any idiot making the claim that atheists have no moral compass, or that atheists cannot be moral, is just that - an idiot. ((And this is coming from a religious person dating an atheist - in the opposite boat from Grave, I suppose)). This particular guy may have been immoral before his conversion, but that hardly means that it was because he was atheist. It could just be that he was immoral to begin with, which unfortunately suggests that his new-found morals are out of fear, rather than out of a conviction that they are correct.


Meanwhile, Grave, if this guy was an atheist and converted, he wouldn't be the only one. C.S. Lewis participated in all sorts of debates on the atheist side for years before his conversion, at which point he switched sides in the debate. Having been an atheist himself, he felt that he had a particular understanding of the arguments that atheists come from. It was actually a major point of contention between Lewis and Tolkien.

Well, be fair about it and try to see it from the atheist's perspective; replace "God" with "magical 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs who built Earth as a game preserve."

Then you get:

"My reason for being an atheist is there is absolutely nothing that would cause any rational person to believe the story that there are magical 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs who built Earth as a game preserve."

Now, I still think this isn't entirely fair, since there probably is something that would convince a rational person to believe in magical 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs who built Earth as a game preserve. However, I must admit that it's a bit hard for me to imagine what that something might be...

Well if those magical 2000 ton flourescent orange centaurs who built Earth as a game preserve, had made some personal impacts on my life (as God has) I might have reason to believe them. There are reasons to believe in God even if those reasons escape you.

maybe you should go back and reread what you've posted here. No one has said anything disrespectful or hateful to you with the exception of my calling you a hypocrit. Which you may not be, but I can't tell that by the way you've reacted on this thread.

I can assure you I'm not turning any facts upside down. Go back and reread your own words. They are the epitome of intolerance, hatred, and disrespect. They were also uncalled for, because no one treated you that way. Not once since page one, has anyone treated you in the ugly way you've treated others.

You need to understand my own posts. You need to stop spewing this crap about me. You need to read my posts for once. You are just downright wrong about me.

I'm intolerant and one spreading disrespect? you really are full of it. In no such way did I do that. I merely stated the facts. The facts aren't pretty and you may not like them, but you must recognize them.

People say to Christians to stop trying to tell them about the Good News. But Matthew 28:19, the Great Commission, is the reason we try to evangelize.

And I am sure that you know the experiences of every rational person out there, eh?

Oh noes! This person came to a different conclusion than me! They must be irrational!

Sorry darling, but that smacks of bigotry.

Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Belief in god requires faith as there is no logical proof or material evidence.
It is not bigoted to point that out, that it is therefore irrational.

Having an indepth knowledge or not of everybody's experiences is irrelevant.

Well, be fair about it and try to see it from the atheist's perspective; replace "God" with "magical 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs who built Earth as a game preserve."

Then you get:

"My reason for being an atheist is there is absolutely nothing that would cause any rational person to believe the story that there are magical 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs who built Earth as a game preserve."

Now, I still think this isn't entirely fair, since there probably is something that would convince a rational person to believe in magical 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs who built Earth as a game preserve. However, I must admit that it's a bit hard for me to imagine what that something might be...

Personal experience of those centaurs just might do it. Of course, they aren't really a good analogy. Now, if you talked about 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs who created the universe, and were thus outside the capabilities of human beings to repeatably measure, you might have a comparison. Then, I would ask how in the hell you knew their weight (as weight is only necessarily defined within this universe) or their color (as color is defined by human beings, again, within this universe).

I find it interesting that I can date an atheist and have no problem with him thinking me "irrational", or me thinking the same about him. In truth, some of my most productive religious discussions have been with my boyfriend. I have done what I can to look at things from his perspective, although it is difficult to do so, as the axiomatic assumptions are different from the beginnning. He has done the same. We have had productive discussions from the point of view that there is a God and discussions from the other point of view.

In the end, an atheist and a theist don't have any huge differences between them. They have each taken their particular life experiences and come to a conclusion about the existence or non-existence of a god or gods. None of us have had the life experiences of another person, and none of us know exactly how others might interpret those same experiences if they did have them. Thus, the only irrational thing going on here is for someone to declare another point of view in this subject to be irrational without first being that person.

Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Belief in god requires faith as there is no logical proof or material evidence.
It is not bigoted to point that out, that it is therefore irrational.

Having an indepth knowledge or not of everybody's experiences is irrelevant.

That isn't really correct. Faith is believing something for which you have no empirical evidence - something you cannot demonstrate or prove to others. That does not mean that you have no evidence at all. Now, if you personally only believe that empirical evidence is useful, that is your opinion - but you are going to miss out on an awful lot of human experience. But it hardly means that you can call anyone who trusts their own personal experiences, rather than relying completely and totally on empirical evidence with which they can bat someone else over the head for everything, irrational without demonstrating your own bigotry.

Meanwhile, to assume that faith does not require logic is incorrect as well. True faith requires a person to question and come to conclusions in much the same way as any other type of knowledge does. The only difference is that these conclusions cannot be proven or demonstrated to another human being.

Personal experience of those centaurs just might do it. Of course, they aren't really a good analogy. Now, if you talked about 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs who created the universe, and were thus outside the capabilities of human beings to repeatably measure, you might have a comparison. Then, I would ask how in the hell you knew their weight (as weight is only necessarily defined within this universe) or their color (as color is defined by human beings, again, within this universe).

I'm just saying that you should try to perceive it as a non-God-believer does. Personally, my experience tells me that 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs are more likely to exist than the Christian God, and I know many people who feel similarly. I know that you feel the opposite is true. I'm not saying either one of us is a nutcase, just that you should try to appreciate the perspective of the other side. I know you are usually good at that, as your next bit indicates...


I find it interesting that I can date an atheist and have no problem with him thinking me "irrational", or me thinking the same about him. In truth, some of my most productive religious discussions have been with my boyfriend. I have done what I can to look at things from his perspective, although it is difficult to do so, as the axiomatic assumptions are different from the beginnning. He has done the same. We have had productive discussions from the point of view that there is a God and discussions from the other point of view.

Honestly, good for you guys. That's very rare and cool.


In the end, an atheist and a theist don't have any huge differences between them. They have each taken their particular life experiences and come to a conclusion about the existence or non-existence of a god or gods.

I guess I can agree that anybody who makes a solid conclusion about the existence of God(s) is in the same boat. However, I feel there is a tremendous gulf between an agnostic and a person who believes there IS or IS NOT a God/gods. To say that we have simply "come to different conclusions" is, to me, like saying that there's no difference between me and a racist because we've simply come to different conclusions on the subject of equality.


None of us have had the life experiences of another person, and none of us know exactly how others might interpret those same experiences if they did have them. Thus, the only irrational thing going on here is for someone to declare another point of view in this subject to be irrational without first being that person.
Hmmmm...I dunno. My gut reaction was to agree with you, but then I realized that I can't honestly do that. There are plenty of beliefs I rule to be irrational without first "being that person," and I can't think of any reason why I should exempt superstition. Some people believe the world is flat, and that God causes all our empirical evidence to trick us into believe it is round...I rule that belief irrational even though I have never been such a person. I feel similarly about all superstition; I believe there are very rational reasons why a person might come to believe in God, just as there may be rational forces behind why a person believes that magic pixies are telling them to burn things, but that doesn't make God-belief itself rational.

After all, plenty of people have claimed God personally told them to become ax murderers, but we feel just fine telling them their point of view is irrational. We have no more empirical reason to call them irrational than we have to call you irrational for your belief in your personal experience of God...and no less reason.

That isn't really correct. Faith is believing something for which you have no empirical evidence - something you cannot demonstrate or prove to others. That does not mean that you have no evidence at all. Now, if you personally only believe that empirical evidence is useful, that is your opinion - but you are going to miss out on an awful lot of human experience. But it hardly means that you can call anyone who trusts their own personal experiences, rather than relying completely and totally on empirical evidence with which they can bat someone else over the head for everything, irrational without demonstrating your own bigotry.

Meanwhile, to assume that faith does not require logic is incorrect as well. True faith requires a person to question and come to conclusions in much the same way as any other type of knowledge does. The only difference is that these conclusions cannot be proven or demonstrated to another human being.

You really do not see that you are describing irrationality .

Evidence - that which can be seen
If it cannot be shown to someone else it is not evidence.

Irrational. That which lies beyond the bounds of what can be comprehended, explained, justified or rejected by human reasoning and science.
( Irrational does not mean incorrect or impractical reasoning, but the total absence of any reasoning.)


That would be in relation to the foundation of your faith the existence of god.

Now you may well apply reason to anything stemming from it,
you can use all kinds of logical arguments to get from various points to other
various points but at the end of the day
it all rests on the irrational belief in a deity.

Which makes it all irrational.

Call it bigoted if you like as you obviously simply choose to redefine any
word or phrase that doesn't suit you.
Now you can take issue with the definition of irrationality if you like
there are a tiny number of words (really only 1 or 2 that I can think of)
where I would challenge the definition.
But please do so rather than just claiming it aint so while you define yourself
in the exact terms that irrational describes.

Like I tell everyone believe whatever the heck you like
2000 ton unicorns or deities or magical pixies
just don't expect others to respect your particular delusions.

I'm just saying that you should try to perceive it as a non-God-believer does.

Like I said, I have done that. But, at least in the case of the atheists I know personally, they don't call all theists irrational.

Honestly, good for you guys. That's very rare and cool.

:D

I guess I can agree that anybody who makes a solid conclusion about the existence of God(s) is in the same boat. However, I feel there is a tremendous gulf between an agnostic and a person who believes there IS or IS NOT a God/gods. To say that we have simply "come to different conclusions" is, to me, like saying that there's no difference between me and a racist because we've simply come to different conclusions on the subject of equality.

...except the fact that we can conclusively demonstrate that there is no inherent difference between ethnic groups that would make one inferior to the other. In fact, we can demonstrate that there is no inherent difference between ethnic groups at all. Generations of breeding only within a set group have simply brought about a difference in which traits are common in those groups. Thus, a racist is ignoring all evidence in order to be a racist. Ignoring evidence is irrational.

In the discussion of belief vs. non-belief in a God, there is no evidence one can point to and show to another person to declare one's position. In the end, it all comes down to personal experiences and personal reflection.

Hmmmm...I dunno. My gut reaction was to agree with you, but then I realized that I can't honestly do that. There are plenty of beliefs I rule to be irrational without first "being that person," and I can't think of any reason why I should exempt superstition.

You misunderstood. I am not saying that you cannot declare any ideas irrational without first being the other person. Like in the case above, you can delcare racist beliefs irrational because all evidence points to the contrary opinion. However, in the case of the discussion of the existence or non-existence of God, there is no evidence to point to. There may be personal evidence, but this can only be shared through discussion - which does not give the other person your experiences, upon which the whole idea is based. Thus, it is in that type of discussion, one in which there is no empirical evidence and the only evidence is personal, that one cannot declare another's point of view irrational without first being that person.

Some people believe the world is flat, and that God causes all our empirical evidence to trick us into believe it is round...I rule that belief irrational even though I have never been such a person.

And that makes sense, for several reasons. First off, they are trying to assert that something is true, despite all evidence to the contrary. Second, they are trying to assign absolute actions and motivations to an entity outside of humanity - something which cannot be positively asserted to another without evidence.

I feel similarly about all superstition; I believe there are very rational reasons why a person might come to believe in God, just as there may be rational forces behind why a person believes that magic pixies are telling them to burn things, but that doesn't make God-belief itself a rational belief.

That doesn't makes sense. "There are rational reasons for you to believe this, but the belief itself is irrational."

That is like saying, "This box is purple, but it has no color."

You really do not see that you are describing irrationality .

Evidence - that which can be seen
If it cannot be shown to someone else it is not evidence.

This is completely untrue. Evidence in the scientific sense must be measurable.

However, evidence to the individual does not have to be. An individual can perceive something that they cannot measure and demonstrate to another. Take, for instance, love. I love my mother. I love my boyfriend. I love my friend. I perceive all of these things and know them to be true. The evidence is within myself - within my own experience. However, I cannot show that evidence to someone else, as it stems from my own personal experience.

Irrational. That which lies beyond the bounds of what can be comprehended, explained, justified or rejected by human reasoning and science.
( Irrational does not mean incorrect or impractical reasoning, but the total absence of any reasoning.)

And that is where your assertion fails. To suggest that theism requires no reasoning on the part of the theist is ludicrous. Meanwhile, your assertion that something must be within the scientific method to be rational is equally ludicrous. The scientific method is a subset of reasoning, that works in certain situations. It is hardly the end-all, be-all of reasonging (and this, coming from a scientist).

Personal experience of God does not lie beyond the bounds of what can be comprehended, explained, justified, or rejected by human reasoning. In fact, that is exactly what one does when one comprehends that experience, and then reasons out what it is and explains it. You may have had dissimilar experiences, or you may have explained them differently - leading to a rejection of God. That does not make either position irrational.
That would be in relation to the foundation of your faith the existence of god.

Now you may well apply reason to anything stemming from it, you can use all kinds of logical arguments to get from various points to other various points but at the end of the day it all rests on the irrational belief in a deity.

It is only irrational if you have absolutely no reason to believe it - if you have perceived nothing which leads to the logical conclusion that a God exists. Fortunately, most of us don't come to our conclusions with no reason at all.

Like I tell everyone believe whatever the heck you like 2000 ton unicorns or deities or magical pixies just don't expect others to respect your particular delusions.

One could easily turn that around on you and say, "Believe whatever the heck you like. Reject God even though God's presence is obvious, just don't expect others to respect your particular delusions." They would be able to say this because their own personal experiences, the personal evidence which they have, and their own reasoning would have led them to the opposite conclusion than that which you have come to.

The funny thing is, neither of you would have any more evidence for your beliefs than the others, which is why I am willing to respect that you have come to a different conclusion than me, despite your utter disrespect for the majority of humanity.

Did your wife suddenly become a Southern Baptist out of the blue while you were married? without consulting you first? Just because you don't compare yourself with your wife that way, doesn't make it an odd occurance. If the two of you enjoyed the same lifestyle for years and suddenly your wife changed hers and now they conflicted, don't you think you'd look into it?


Actually, in the similar situation, I (as an Atheist) found myself reexamining all of my 'convictions', yes... but in order to see what it was my wife could see, but not I. I set out to seek Jesus, not to kill him.

And THAT, is part of the reason I doubt this charlatan author.


Ok forgive me but didn't you say exactly that?


No.

I said I didn't believe in any gods (Implicit Atheist)... but that I had Agnostic tendencies.


If you require evidence in order to give a man credit for what he says he believes, then I just don't see how you can ever believe anything at all. When you meet someone for the first time and the guy shakes your hand and tells you his name, do you also require a photo id?

I DON'T believe anything at all. My belief structure is somewhat clinical.

Grave_n_idle:

The Bible states this:

Mark 12:28-34

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
31 The second is this: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
32 "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.
33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God."

Galatians 2:16 - yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.

Galatians 2:20 - I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Philippians 3:9 - and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith;

Ephesians 2:8-10 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God-- 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

It is VERY clear that God commands us to LOVE Him and have FAITH in Him. That is the cornerstone of Christianity....CHOOSING God over all other things. Good works is the fruit of faith IN GOD....You can't truly love God and follow God without doing good works....but you can do good works out of the misconception that you have to EARN heaven....and that is not what God is after. God simply wants US to CHOOSE HIM over everything else in our life. Yes, a Christian is called to be like Jesus...but Jesus LOVED GOD ABOVE ALL THINGS....we are called to be like Jesus because He is without sin and is God and not because being like Jesus will earn ourselves a spot in heaven. Jesus ALREADY fought the battle of sin for us and we just have to accept that He is our Lord and Savior.

Again, I am just stating what the Bible says...and yes, how I interpret the passages. In order to fully understand the complexities of the Bible, you have to take the WHOLE Bible in context. One passage is not relevant without the others because the Bible's complete message is in the WHOLE book, not just in one or two passages. By the way, I just found our that I will be able to attend school this September. I'm SOOO excited....and a bit scared (but in a good way!!)

Personally, I am more tempted to follow the beatitudes preaching of Jesus... which I guess gives me a different perspective. I am more inclined to serve my fellow man, than allow a book to define my devotions.

Good news on the school, though. :) yay!

<snip> .


Ok on your own terms you are absolutely right

all we have to do is redefine irrational as rational
illogic as logic
and evidence being that which cannot be shown
and your argument works perfectly.

The number of people who agree with you
also explains why GW Bush was able to make the same
arguments using the same definitions of words
to go to war with Iraq due to WMD that he
had evidence of but couldn't show anyone
that it was logical to go to war on the basis that he did have them
was far less likely to use them if actually attacked by a superpower
and that it was rational to reject all evidence disproving any checkable
claims that he made

And that is one of the reasons why
religion which is irrational (in your own head, rational)
is a bad thing
as it encourages people to arrive at illogical conclusions ( logical in your mind)


It is my fervent hope that someday you and some if not all of the others
just like you, recover, as you are really missing out on life.
The pleasures and joy you feel in your belief are no better nor worse
than those enjoyed by people addicted to certain illegal substances.
It can be fun, but its not real and damages the cognitive abilities
and of course the sense of reality.

...except the fact that we can conclusively demonstrate that there is no inherent difference between ethnic groups that would make one inferior to the other. In fact, we can demonstrate that there is no inherent difference between ethnic groups at all. Generations of breeding only within a set group have simply brought about a difference in which traits are common in those groups. Thus, a racist is ignoring all evidence in order to be a racist. Ignoring evidence is irrational.

There are plenty of reasons to simply believe one race is superior to another, reasons which could be as rational as God belief; hell, plenty of people are racist BECAUSE of their God-belief! They say, "Yes, the evidence says one thing, but God tells me another, and humans are fallible while God is not."

In the discussion of belief vs. non-belief in a God, there is no evidence one can point to and show to another person to declare one's position. In the end, it all comes down to personal experiences and personal reflection.

Just like magic pixies who tell you to burn things.


You misunderstood. I am not saying that you cannot declare any ideas irrational without first being the other person. Like in the case above, you can delcare racist beliefs irrational because all evidence points to the contrary opinion. However, in the case of the discussion of the existence or non-existence of God, there is no evidence to point to. There may be personal evidence, but this can only be shared through discussion - which does not give the other person your experiences, upon which the whole idea is based. Thus, it is in that type of discussion, one in which there is no empirical evidence and the only evidence is personal, that one cannot declare another's point of view irrational without first being that person.

Like the magic pixies who tell you to burn things.


And that makes sense, for several reasons. First off, they are trying to assert that something is true, despite all evidence to the contrary. Second, they are trying to assign absolute actions and motivations to an entity outside of humanity - something which cannot be positively asserted to another without evidence.

I don't see how that's different from your God-belief. You are trying to assign actions and motivations to a being outside of humanity, something which cannot be positively asserted to another without evidence. And saying, "well, I personally experienced it," doesn't count :). You have chosen to interpret your "evidence" a certain way, and it is a way that cannot be empirically proven to be the correct interpretation; similarly, I cannot empirically prove that our evidence of the round Earth has not been tampered with by an all-powerful God.


That doesn't makes sense. "There are rational reasons for you to believe this, but the belief itself is irrational."

That is like saying, "This box is purple, but it has no color."

Sorry, I must not have been clear. There are rational causes for why a person might believe in magical pixies; organic brain trauma springs to mind. Very rational forces could have caused them to come to the conclusion that there are magic pixies, but that doesn't mean the belief itself is a rational one.


The funny thing is, neither of you would have any more evidence for your beliefs than the others, which is why I am willing to respect that you have come to a different conclusion than me, despite your utter disrespect for the majority of humanity.
Erm, pardon, but I'm hoping that wasn't aimed at me. It would be very inaccurate if it was; indeed, I have more evidence for my beliefs than any theist or "strong atheist," because my beliefs are founded ONLY on the evidence we have. My belief is that we cannot know whether or not there is a God (as currently defined), and that there is no way for me to conclude one way or the other about the actual nature/existence of such a creature. All the evidence we currently have supports my position, since my position is that all current evidence is inconclusive on the subject.

I do respect that you have come to a different conclusion than me, just as I respect that racists have come to a different conclusion than me, Communists have come to a different conclusion than me, mysogenists have come to a different conclusion than me, etc etc etc. You are a free and intelligent being, and I have the utmost respect for your ability to self-determine and reason on your own. Just because I feel your conclusions are incorrect does not mean I disrespect you or your freedom to reach your own conclusions.

Indeed, in the case of God-belief I think there are also certain social factors that make your God-belief less immediately alarming than pixie-belief (for example), so one could fairly say that I disrespect your belief LESS than other beliefs that have equal objective validity...in other words, I am unfairly biased in your favor! :)

Erm, pardon, but I'm hoping that wasn't aimed at me. It would be very inaccurate if it was; indeed, I have more evidence for my beliefs than any theist or "strong atheist," because my beliefs are founded ONLY on the evidence we have. My belief is that we cannot know whether or not there is a God (as currently defined), and that there is no way for me to conclude one way or the other about the actual nature/existence of such a creature. All the evidence we currently have supports my position, since my position is that all current evidence is inconclusive on the subject.

I do respect that you have come to a different conclusion than me, just as I respect that racists have come to a different conclusion than me, Communists have come to a different conclusion than me, mysogenists have come to a different conclusion than me, etc etc etc. You are a free and intelligent being, and I have the utmost respect for your ability to self-determine and reason on your own. Just because I feel your conclusions are incorrect does not mean I disrespect you or your freedom to reach your own conclusions.

Indeed, in the case of God-belief I think there are also certain social factors that make your God-belief less immediately alarming than pixie-belief (for example), so one could fairly say that I disrespect your belief LESS than other beliefs that have equal objective validity...in other words, I am unfairly biased in your favor! :)


No it was aimed at me,

Being aware as I am that there are an awful lot of people who while
not religious themselves still have this sense that somehow religion
is something in and of itself good.

Historical evidence tends to indicate otherwise so I personally think
that it is important that at least some people advise those who are
religious that it very much is not good.

It at its mildest has caused a lot of intelligent people to waste a lot of
time trying to prove the existence of something irrational ie existence of god.
When they could have been doing something useful.
And at its worst of course has been the justification used for the torture
and slaughter of millions.

In no way has it been a good thing for the world,
whatever peoples personal evidence that cannot be demonstrated believe.

Meanwhile, Grave, if this guy was an atheist and converted, he wouldn't be the only one. C.S. Lewis participated in all sorts of debates on the atheist side for years before his conversion, at which point he switched sides in the debate. Having been an atheist himself, he felt that he had a particular understanding of the arguments that atheists come from. It was actually a major point of contention between Lewis and Tolkien.

Oh, yes... I am aware of the 'conversion' of C. S. Lewis. Personally, the reasoning (the published, at least) he gave, seemed shot to pieces with logical flaws...

Honestly, good for you guys. That's very rare and cool.


Considering that both Dempublicents AND I, are in this particular boat... it can't be THAT rare...

It IS cool, though. :D

Ok on your own terms you are absolutely right

all we have to do is redefine irrational as rational illogic as logic and evidence being that which cannot be shown and your argument works perfectly.

I haven't redefined evidence. And I certainly never said that evidence = that which cannot be shown. I stated that a person can have evidence that they cannot show to others.

Let's have a hypothetical here. Suppose you were hit by a car. Amazingly, it hit you in such a position, speed, and direction, that you were completely unhurt - not a bruise on you, not a tear in your clothing, nothing. This is improbable, but not impossible. Now, suppose the car drives off without stopping, there were no witnesses, and you were too disoriented by the shock of having been hit by a car that you don't get a good look at the driver or the license plate.

You have been hit by a car - there is no doubt in your mind about that. However, you don't have a single speck of evidence that you can demonstrate to anyone else. You have evidence - your own experience, and that is all you need to reason that you were hit by a car. However, you cannot demonstrate that evidence to someone else, as they were not there and did not experience what you experienced.

In this case, it is in no way irrational for you to believe you were hit by a car - as you personally experienced it and know that it happened. However, you can never prove to another that it occurred.

And that is one of the reasons why religion which is irrational (in your own head, rational) is a bad thing as it encourages people to arrive at illogical conclusions ( logical in your mind)

My religion does no such thing. In fact, it encourages constant questioning of one's beliefs and constant examining of them within the context of all available evidence. Go figure.

It is my fervent hope that someday you and some if not all of the others just like you, recover, as you are really missing out on life. The pleasures and joy you feel in your belief are no better nor worse than those enjoyed by people addicted to certain illegal substances. It can be fun, but its not real and damages the cognitive abilities and of course the sense of reality.

That is ludicrous. "Damages the cognitive abilities"? Never mind that most of the great minds in science were theists. Never mind that no study has ever demonstrated that theists are any less likely to be intelligent and successful than atheists. Now you are just making things up - without any evidence at all - sounds like anybody's definition of "irrational" to me.

There are plenty of reasons to simply believe one race is superior to another, reasons which could be as rational as God belief; hell, plenty of people are racist BECAUSE of their God-belief! They say, "Yes, the evidence says one thing, but God tells me another, and humans are fallible while God is not."

And they leave out the key component - If human beings are fallible (which we certainly are), then human interpretation of God's will is also fallible. Thus, they must take all evidence into consideration when determining something, not just their inherently flawed interpretation of God.

Meanwhile, I challenge you to point me to a rational reason to disregard all evidence against racist belief.

I don't see how that's different from your God-belief. You are trying to assign actions and motivations to a being outside of humanity, something which cannot be positively asserted to another without evidence.

How exactly does believing that something exists automatically assign motivations to it? Is existence itself something that requires motivation? If so, what motivates butterflies to exist?

And saying, "well, I personally experienced it," doesn't count . You have chosen to interpret your "evidence" a certain way, and it is a way that cannot be empirically proven to be the correct interpretation; similarly, I cannot empirically prove that our evidence of the round Earth has not been tampered with by an all-powerful God.

No, neither of us can prove the assertion of belief or non-belief in a God either way. However, unless one makes the assumption that nothing we can measure is real, one cannot make the assumption that said God tampered with our evidence of the round Earth.

Erm, pardon, but I'm hoping that wasn't aimed at me.

No, it was aimed at Relative Power.

It would be very inaccurate if it was; indeed, I have more evidence for my beliefs than any theist or "strong atheist," because my beliefs are founded ONLY on the evidence we have.

You cannot found a belief on an absence of evidence. You can conclude that something is unlikely because you have no evidence for it, but an absence of evidence does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that something does not exist. Once upon a time, there was no known evidence of an electron, but it existed all the same.

Meanwhile, to say that you have more evidence for your beliefs than a theist is in error, as it discounts the possibility that they may have evidence you do not have. You would be perfectly correct in saying that you have the same amount of evidence.

My belief is that we cannot know whether or not there is a God (as currently defined), and that there is no way for me to conclude one way or the other about the actual nature/existence of such a creature. All the evidence we currently have supports my position, since my position is that all current evidence is inconclusive on the subject.

Change "we" to "I" and you are exactly right.

Being aware as I am that there are an awful lot of people who while not religious themselves still have this sense that somehow religion is something in and of itself good.

Religion in and of itself can be said to be neither inherently good nor bad. The various religious beliefs run the gamut on this one.

It at its mildest has caused a lot of intelligent people to waste a lot of
time trying to prove the existence of something irrational ie existence of god.
When they could have been doing something useful.

Anyone trying to prove the existence or non-existence of God empirically is wasting their time, as God would lie outside such testing by definition.

And at its worst of course has been the justification used for the torture and slaughter of millions.

And at its best it has been the justification used to help people in poverty, to do what one can to heal the sick, and to comfort the suffering.

If you are going to discuss the pros and cons of religion, at least be honest about it.

Oh, yes... I am aware of the 'conversion' of C. S. Lewis. Personally, the reasoning (the published, at least) he gave, seemed shot to pieces with logical flaws...

Well, in truth, any time you set out to empirically prove the exitence of God (which is what he was trying to do), you will end up with logical errors. I tended to enjoy some of his essays on Christianity much more than his "proofs" of God. Empirical proof of God cannot be forthcoming. The only proof one can have comes from personal experience.

Of course, to tell you the truth, his description of his actual conversion actually doesn't make much more sense to me than it does to any atheist I have spoken to. I think, in many of his writings - his autobiography especially, that he was trying too hard to keep a lot of his own emotions and feelings out of it - when what he was writing about necessitated them in his description.

You really do not see that you are describing irrationality .

Evidence - that which can be seen
If it cannot be shown to someone else it is not evidence.

you ever have a problem with you car but when you get to the mechanic you can't recreate the problem. No matter how hard you try? Does that mean the problem you had was irrational?

Irrational. That which lies beyond the bounds of what can be comprehended, explained, justified or rejected by human reasoning and science.
( Irrational does not mean incorrect or impractical reasoning, but the total absence of any reasoning.)

Faith is not necessarily a total absence of any reasoning.



Like I tell everyone believe whatever the heck you like
2000 ton unicorns or deities or magical pixies
just don't expect others to respect your particular delusions.

Why not? You don't have to agree or believe but what's wrong with expecting respect? Isn't that intolerant?

I haven't redefined evidence. And I certainly never said that evidence = that which cannot be shown. I stated that a person can have evidence that they cannot show to others.


ie evidence that cannot be shown


Let's have a hypothetical here. Suppose you were hit by a car. Amazingly, it hit you in such a position, speed, and direction, that you were completely unhurt - not a bruise on you, not a tear in your clothing, nothing. This is improbable, but not impossible. Now, suppose the car drives off without stopping, there were no witnesses, and you were too disoriented by the shock of having been hit by a car that you don't get a good look at the driver or the license plate.

You have been hit by a car - there is no doubt in your mind about that. However, you don't have a single speck of evidence that you can demonstrate to anyone else. You have evidence - your own experience, and that is all you need to reason that you were hit by a car. However, you cannot demonstrate that evidence to someone else, as they were not there and did not experience what you experienced.

In this case, it is in no way irrational for you to believe you were hit by a car - as you personally experienced it and know that it happened. However, you can never prove to another that it occurred.



A rational person in those circumstances would have to at least
doubt that it happened.

Given there were not witnesses and no harm done despite their
recollection of being hit by a car.
It requires a combination of circumstances each highly improbable on their
own.
A rational person certainly wouldn't expect anyone to believe them
when they told the story.



My religion does no such thing. In fact, it encourages constant questioning of one's beliefs and constant examining of them within the context of all available evidence. Go figure.



What an interesting religion you have that encourages you to constantly
question and examine the belief that there is a god.


That is ludicrous. "Damages the cognitive abilities"? Never mind that most of the great minds in science were theists. Never mind that no study has ever demonstrated that theists are any less likely to be intelligent and successful than atheists. Now you are just making things up - without any evidence at all - sounds like anybody's definition of "irrational" to me.


You are speaking of a time when all of society were theists and it
was dangerous if not suicidal to be otherwise.
Indeed though many great minds have also been theists and when they
have kept their scientific study separate from their irrational beliefs
they have brought forth wondrous new understandings of the universe.
Many of them also however wasted many of their most potentially
productive years dealing with the irrational which their theism
left them open to.

For example newton spent many years working on alchemy and only
when dragged away from that produced the amazing geometric proofs
that he is famous for.




You cannot found a belief on an absence of evidence. You can conclude that something is unlikely because you have no evidence for it, but an absence of evidence does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that something does not exist. Once upon a time, there was no known evidence of an electron, but it existed all the same.


well no one is talking about a belief based on absence of evidence.

If someone asks that you take the idea of a god seriously
and presents no evidence then there is no reason to believe them.
You don't have to actively disbelieve in the existence of gods
you just have no reason to believe in the existence of any gods.

Some people do disagree on the definitions of atheism and agnosticism.

However to me agnosticism implies there is roughly equal justification
for the belief in the existence of gods or to disbelieve in them
but without enough in either way to tip the balance

Some people believe that agnosticism means that you don't believe in
a god but are awaiting evidence.

I consider myself an atheist because while it is conceivable that someday
somebody might produce even the slightest evidence to make one consider
the possibility , that is really only based on the concept that you can never
be 100% certain about anything and not because of their being any real
probability of the situation arising.





Meanwhile, to say that you have more evidence for your beliefs than a theist is in error, as it discounts the possibility that they may have evidence you do not have. You would be perfectly correct in saying that you have the same amount of evidence.


again evidence is something that can be demonstrated or its not evidence.

Personal experience for example on an acid trip might lead you to believe
you had experienced all kinds of wonderful things but other than in your head
nothing actually happened.



Religion in and of itself can be said to be neither inherently good nor bad. The various religious beliefs run the gamut on this one.


Yes it can be said however history demonstrates that religions have
invariably done great harm to others.
What with all that necessary fighting against heresy and murder
and torture of non believers and taking back the holyland.


Anyone trying to prove the existence or non-existence of God empirically is wasting their time, as God would lie outside such testing by definition.


Yes because its irrational


And at its best it has been the justification used to help people in poverty, to do what one can to heal the sick, and to comfort the suffering.

If you are going to discuss the pros and cons of religion, at least be honest about it.


for the individuals doing the decent acts - they can be good people
for the religion itself its advertising or viral marketing if you prefer.


Plus non religious people do plenty of good deeds without belief in a deity.

Why not? You don't have to agree or believe but what's wrong with expecting respect? Isn't that intolerant?


If you want to claim 2 + 2 =5

or pi is 3
then you can do so

I believe in freedom of speech
and you are free to believe what you want

why do you think it would deserve respect ?

Grave_n_idle:

I try to follow EVERY aspect of Jesus' teachings...and serving and loving my fellow man is all part of that...but I do it BECAUSE I LOVE God and want to make Him smile and give Him joy...not because I FEAR God and am afraid He is going to send me to hell if I don't do His bidding. How can I TRULY love and obey God if I don't wish to please Him and give Him joy? Jesus Christ died on a cross so that my sins are ALREADY paid for and I can be reconciled with God...and all that God requires for me in return is to CHOOSE Him above all things. So that is what I try to do each day...and there are many times that I fail at it....which is why God knew that we CANNOT save ourselves through good works...because on our own, we can never be perfect enough and holy enough to stand before God, who IS perfect and IS holy. Again, this is not me telling you what you should believe. I'm just sharing with you what I believe. :) I've gotten into the habit on putting a disclaimer on my posts so people on here don't get the wrong idea of my intentions!! :)

Grave_n_idle:

I try to follow EVERY aspect of Jesus' teachings...and serving and loving my fellow man is all part of that...but I do it BECAUSE I LOVE God and want to make Him smile and give Him joy...not because I FEAR God and am afraid He is going to send me to hell if I don't do His bidding. How can I TRULY love and obey God if I don't wish to please Him and give Him joy? Jesus Christ died on a cross so that my sins are ALREADY paid for and I can be reconciled with God...and all that God requires for me in return is to CHOOSE Him above all things. So that is what I try to do each day...and there are many times that I fail at it....which is why God knew that we CANNOT save ourselves through good works...because on our own, we can never be perfect enough and holy enough to stand before God, who IS perfect and IS holy. Again, this is not me telling you what you should believe. I'm just sharing with you what I believe. :) I've gotten into the habit on putting a disclaimer on my posts so people on here don't get the wrong idea of my intentions!! :)


And you really think this isn't just your version of addiction?

And you really think this isn't just your version of addiction?Addiction to what?

Relative Power:

You can make any judgement on me that you wish, but that doesn't mean you are right....I am going to school to become a Youth Pastor...so it is my passion and it has been since I was a little girl...and anyone who knows me knows that!! :) I don't question your reason for posting on here, so what gives you the right to jump to conclusions about me? You know very little about me....and yet you are qualified to judge me?...hmmmm, do you think that I have the right to judge you?...no, I don't.......and I never will. And if you don't wish to show me the same courtesy...there is very little I can do about it.

I am going to school to become a Youth Pastor...so it is my passion and it has been since I was a little girl...and anyone who knows me knows that!! :)Way to go, Woodsprites!

Relative Power:

You can make any judgement on me that you wish, but that doesn't mean you are right....I am going to school to become a Youth Pastor...so it is my passion and it has been since I was a little girl...and anyone who knows me knows that!! :) I don't question your reason for posting on here, so what gives you the right to jump to conclusions about me? You know very little about me....and yet you are qualified to judge me?...hmmmm, do you think that I have the right to judge you?...no, I don't.......and I never will. And if you don't wish to show me the same courtesy...there is very little I can do about it.


You stated that finding god had broken a cycle of addiction that you said
ran through your family.

I'm simply suggesting that given the enormous part it plays in your life
it could seem to some people that it is just another form of addiction.

Everybody judges other people and themselves all the time.
It might be that many people do not simply act with people purely in accordance with their judgements
nor pronounce their judgements but I would say that
you do judge other people just as everyone else does.

I'm simply suggesting that given the enormous part it plays in your life it could seem to some people that it is just another form of addiction.I believe "devotion" would be a more accurate term. The two are very similar...

Addiction: to devote oneself to something habitually or obsessively

I believe "devotion" would be a more accurate term. The two are very similar...

Addiction: to devote oneself to something habitually or obsessively


I have no doubt that devotion would be the preferred word
much as an alcoholic might prefer to be considered a connoisseur of
fine wines, lagers or spirits

but it would still be an addiction

roses by any other name etc etc

I have no doubt that devotion would be the preferred word
much as an alcoholic might prefer to be considered a connoisseur of
fine wines, lagers or spirits

but it would still be an addiction

roses by any other name etc etcSuppose a model student spent many hours studying for a large test... Addiction or devotion?

I imagine that a poor student jealous of the better one would label it an "addiction", with all the negative connotations that it carries. Not that you are jealous of Woodsprites at all, I suppose...

Relative Power:

You can see whatever you want about me....but I guess that would mean that I was addicted at the age of 5 when I would ask my grandmother questions about the Bible and ask her to show me where things were in the Bible. I guess that would mean that when I was 3 and I wanted to name my brother Jesus, that it was just that darn addiction talking.....and I guess that when my other gramdmother died (the alcoholic one), and I was wondering why everyone was so sad because in my eyes my grandma got to go meet Jesus and that was exciting and good, that I was just be being blinded by the "religion" addiction. If you want to see it that way, go ahead....but, I know why I have a passion for God....and I can tell you it's not an addiction.

Suppose a model student spent many hours studying for a large test... Addiction or devotion?

I imagine that a poor student jealous of the better one would label it an "addiction", with all the negative connotations that it carries. Not that you are jealous of Woodsprites at all, I suppose...


Jealous of someone with an irrational belief in a supernatural being?
Gosh you're probably onto something there.

If that student decided to devote their life to preparing for a test
and that test wasn't scheduled and no one knew if it really existed or not
or what subject the test was on.

Then I think it reasonable to say that you would have to call it strange
at the very least.

If you then know that someone believes themselves to have an addictive
personality you might just think that they had become addicted to this
irrational behaviour.

But your probably right, it is really the most likely scenario that I am jealous.

Relative Power:

You can see whatever you want about me....but I guess that would mean that I was addicted at the age of 5 when I would ask my grandmother questions about the Bible and ask her to show me where things were in the Bible. I guess that would mean that when I was 3 and I wanted to name my brother Jesus, that it was just that darn addiction talking.....and I guess that when my other gramdmother died (the alcoholic one), and I was wondering why everyone was so sad because in my eyes my grandma got to go meet Jesus and that was exciting and good, that I was just be being blinded by the "religion" addiction. If you want to see it that way, go ahead....but, I know why I have a passion for God....and I can tell you it's not an addiction.


Children are so much less likely to get addicted to things than adults
thats why children are allowed as much alchohol and tobacco and narcotics
as they want, because we know that at an early age they won't get
addicted to things that adults might.

Jealous of someone with an irrational belief in a supernatural being?
Gosh you're probably onto something there.

If that student decided to devote their life to preparing for a test
and that test wasn't scheduled and no one knew if it really existed or not
or what subject the test was on.

Then I think it reasonable to say that you would have to call it strange
at the very least.

If you then know that someone believes themselves to have an addictive
personality you might just think that they had become addicted to this
irrational behaviour.

But your probably right, it is really the most likely scenario that I am jealous.


You might want to add the [sarcasm] tags lol people tend to miss it lol

Children are so much less likely to get addicted to things than adults
thats why children are allowed as much alchohol and tobacco and narcotics
as they want, because we know that at an early age they won't get
addicted to things that adults might.
Agan not sure they will catch the sarcasm lol lots of people miss it

Agan not sure they will catch the sarcasm lol lots of people miss it

Surely its enough that its posted by me.

If that student decided to devote their life to preparing for a test and that test wasn't scheduled and no one knew if it really existed or not or what subject the test was on.

Then I think it reasonable to say that you would have to call it strange
at the very least.No doubt that would be strange, but the situation is more like this:

The teacher has already scheduled the test and posted the subject on the classroom bulletin board. All that is required is to take the initiative to look for the information. When test day arrives, the teacher will not accept the excuse of "You didn't give enough information".

What are you waiting for? Start studying!

No doubt that would be strange, but the situation is more like this:

The teacher has already scheduled the test and posted the subject on the classroom bulletin board. All that is required is to take the initiative to look for the information. When test day arrives, the teacher will not accept the excuse of "You didn't give enough information".

What are you waiting for? Start studying!


Now what I really want to know is just exactly how, in your mind
studying for that exam equates with devoting your life to a supernatural
being and training to tell lots of young impressionable people all about
what a wonderful guy he is and how they too should devote their lives to
him.

Because there is no board , there is no information and it isn't a school

Edit

Ah sorry my mistake
Im getting your analogy now I thought you actually did mean a real teacher
in a real class where the student is taking a real subject

In your analogy as I understand it:
there is no teacher that you have ever seen
and as the next post says
the note doesn't have any provenance and is one amongst many
hundreds if not thousands of contradictory notes
all written in childish handwriting and in many different languages.

In that situation assuming there is a classroom
the intelligent pupils study their own projects to find out how things
work and what they can make them do

while other intelligent but delusional ones
convinced that there must be something to the notes
devote their entire lives to living as if one of the notes is true
and constantly try to interfere with the students projects
because their projects arent part of their interpretation of the note

No doubt that would be strange, but the situation is more like this:

The teacher has already scheduled the test and posted the subject on the classroom bulletin board. All that is required is to take the initiative to look for the information. When test day arrives, the teacher will not accept the excuse of "You didn't give enough information".

What are you waiting for? Start studying!
No it is closer to this

The note is badly written with another students scribbling translating it because the original is in a archaic language

Not only that but there is nothing but the note itself and some other students word that the note was not something that some other student threw up on the board

Not to mention that there are over a thousand other notes on the board all claiming a slightly different test

oooh...dueling metaphors time? nice! seriously though, you people are way off topic. Did you notice this thread was asking whether you understand what Christianity is? Your posts should amount to a yes and a brief explenation of what you think it is or a no with no explenation.

Because there is no board , there is no information and it isn't a schoolThe board is the world, the information is in the Holy Gospels, and we are here to learn about God by cultivating a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

oooh...dueling metaphors time? nice! seriously though, you people are way off topic. Did you notice this thread was asking whether you understand what Christianity is? Your posts should amount to a yes and a brief explenation of what you think it is or a no with no explenation.

At page 22, it doesn't matter. :p At least they're still talking about Christianity.

Relative Power:

I'm just trying to figure out why what I believe in makes any difference to you? Are you trying to start an argument? You are talking to the wrong person if you are. I feel no need to justify my faith to anyone. I feel no need to make people believe the things that I do....but I do have a passion to SHARE God with everyone that I meet. So, I won't try to explain my faith to you as you already have your mind made up. And with that being said, I truly wish you all of the happiness in the world. :)

Relative Power:

I'm just trying to figure out why what I believe in makes any difference to you? Are you trying to start an argument? You are talking to the wrong person if you are. I feel no need to justify my faith to anyone. I feel no need to make people believe the things that I do....but I do have a passion to SHARE God with everyone that I meet. So, I won't try to explain my faith to you as you already have your mind made up. And with that being said, I truly wish you all of the happiness in the world. :)

And I hope you someday overcome your addiction.
Preferably without passing it on to others first.

The note is badly written with another students scribbling translating it because the original is in a archaic languageThe multiplicity of copies of the Bible that we have makes up for any translational errors. The translations can be cross-checked with each other.

Not only that but there is nothing but the note itself and some other students word that the note was not something that some other student threw up on the board

Not to mention that there are over a thousand other notes on the board all claiming a slightly different testThe teacher has already pointed out which one is the true copy. You could check the handwriting against that of the teacher's and look for inconsistencies. However, the best thing you could do is go directly to the teacher and ask him to show you which one is correct.

Relative Power:

Well, if it is an addiction, then I hate to disappoint you, but I'll make sure that I pass it on to many people before I die and live for all of eternity with God. Have a good one and a happy one!! :)

Relative Power:

Well, if it is an addiction, then I hate to disappoint you, but I'll make sure that I pass it on to many people before I die and live for all of eternity with God. Have a good one and a happy one!! :)


Yup spread the misery why not

Get em young too, like the drug dealer in the schoolyard,

There's no problem with addiction. If you're addicted with spreading love and compassion, what's so bad about it? It's when you are addicted to earning money, "striving for your potential" (from the other thread), and other things such as Nationstates ( :p ) when it's bad. Addiction to Christianity is a good thing!

Relative Power:

Bye!! It was so nice chatting with you and I hope that we can do it again sometime! Stay happy and God bless! :)

Outdated belief systems in the face of rationality? Which aspect of it has been disproven?

Possibly another good point is, "which part of it has been proven?"

I believe I am the best lay in America. Care to disprove me? Then it must be true.

Right?

The multiplicity of copies of the Bible that we have makes up for any translational errors. The translations can be cross-checked with each other.
The teacher has already pointed out which one is the true copy. You could check the handwriting against that of the teacher's and look for inconsistencies. However, the best thing you could do is go directly to the teacher and ask him to show you which one is correct.
I did no answer ... in fact I could not find his office nor any sign of anyone claiming ownership to the test

That does not mean he is there but I have yet to find him and all I have is other students arguing over what he looks like and acts like to tell me what to look for

But all their descriptions are different

And they all tell me that they know the REAL teacher and that the other teachers are really false people, and if you believe them you will fail the test


But in the end I get no answer from the real teacher and a bunch of other students all telling me different stories

The multiplicity of copies of the Bible that we have makes up for any translational errors. The translations can be cross-checked with each other.
The teacher has already pointed out which one is the true copy. You could check the handwriting against that of the teacher's and look for inconsistencies. However, the best thing you could do is go directly to the teacher and ask him to show you which one is correct.

The one thing that is really clear however before you read the rest
is that the handwriting is definitely not the teacher's
because for the first hundred years after the teacher was alleged to
have given this info it was passed around verbally
written down finally by students who had no more idea of the teacher
than anyone in the room today

The gospels in the bible for starters aren't the only gospels written

but the christian variant of the one god thing isn't the only one
so you also have the talmud and the koran notes up there

but those are just the one god religions
then theres all the pantheistic notes on the board too

No one has ever seen the teacher
all that the pupils know
is that some pupils who have long since died
said that pupils who had died long before they came to the school
had handed down the information that
said that the notes on the board were important and that one
at least of them had been written under instruction from the teacher.

In fact one of them may just have said
my mom said she'd pick me up but I've waited an hour
tell her I've gone to joeys house


You know how information can get corrupted
chinese whispers anyone

Bye!! It was so nice chatting with you and I hope that we can do it again sometime! Stay happy and God bless! :)Good luck in your future ministries!

Woldenstein:

Thank you so much! I hope and pray that God blesses you in all that you do!! :)

Possibly another good point is, "which part of it has been proven?"

I believe I am the best lay in America. Care to disprove me? Then it must be true.

Right?


If you are in America then there is actually more reason to believe that
your statement is true than there is to believe in the existence of god.

Although it may be true I think it is unlikely
after all you are online instead of doing something rl <g>

Edit

I have to say that in my opinion
your gross comment to woodsprite was crass and unwarranted.

Thanks.

Actually, I just did something, and I did it very well.

Second, I wasn't online. I just left the page up when I went out and smoked a smoke and bullshitted with my security guard.

Lastly, my comment was gross, though if taken in proper context, not unwarranted.

That was the point.

Ok on your own terms you are absolutely right

all we have to do is redefine irrational as rational
illogic as logic
and evidence being that which cannot be shown
and your argument works perfectly.

Cute, but I don't think so.

The number of people who agree with you
also explains why GW Bush was able to make the same
arguments using the same definitions of words
to go to war with Iraq due to WMD that he
had evidence of but couldn't show anyone
that it was logical to go to war on the basis that he did have them
was far less likely to use them if actually attacked by a superpower
and that it was rational to reject all evidence disproving any checkable
claims that he made

Um...what?

And that is one of the reasons why
religion which is irrational (in your own head, rational)
is a bad thing
as it encourages people to arrive at illogical conclusions ( logical in your mind)

Based on your previous statement, I'd say you don't need religion for that.


It is my fervent hope that someday you and some if not all of the others
just like you, recover, as you are really missing out on life.
The pleasures and joy you feel in your belief are no better nor worse
than those enjoyed by people addicted to certain illegal substances.
It can be fun, but its not real and damages the cognitive abilities
and of course the sense of reality.

:rolleyes:

I don't see how that's different from your God-belief. You are trying to assign actions and motivations to a being outside of humanity, something which cannot be positively asserted to another without evidence. And saying, "well, I personally experienced it," doesn't count :). You have chosen to interpret your "evidence" a certain way, and it is a way that cannot be empirically proven to be the correct interpretation; similarly, I cannot empirically prove that our evidence of the round Earth has not been tampered with by an all-powerful God.

I hear this round earth thing all the time. Am I mistaken that the man who discovered it wasn't flat was a Christian?


Sorry, I must not have been clear. There are rational causes for why a person might believe in magical pixies; organic brain trauma springs to mind. Very rational forces could have caused them to come to the conclusion that there are magic pixies, but that doesn't mean the belief itself is a rational one.

Your pixie analogy doesn't work. If you were talking about one person who said magic pixies told them to burn things, you would be correct. However, millions of Christians, most of which have never met each other, from all over the world will attest they've had personal experiences with God.

Yes it can be said however history demonstrates that religions have
invariably done great harm to others.
What with all that necessary fighting against heresy and murder
and torture of non believers and taking back the holyland.

And obviously no non-religious groups have ever done harm to others? This is the most irrational arguement against religion ever constructed and it seems to be your focal point. Its an absurd arguement.






for the individuals doing the decent acts - they can be good people
for the religion itself its advertising or viral marketing if you prefer.


Plus non religious people do plenty of good deeds without belief in a deity.

:rolleyes: And plenty of non religious people do horrible discusting deeds as well. What's your point?

If you want to claim 2 + 2 =5

or pi is 3
then you can do so

I believe in freedom of speech
and you are free to believe what you want

why do you think it would deserve respect ?

But I don't claim 2+2=5. I don't claim anything that you can prove false. The math equation can be proven false, my belief cannot. So your inability to prove me wrong should at least be accompanied by respect.

I have no doubt that devotion would be the preferred word
much as an alcoholic might prefer to be considered a connoisseur of
fine wines, lagers or spirits

but it would still be an addiction

roses by any other name etc etc

faith isn't an addiction any more than homosexuality is. move on.

Haha! Eat some of Jesus's menstrual blood. I love you. :-)

Uncalled for, rude, inappropriate, disgusting, and trollish.

But I don't claim 2+2=5. I don't claim anything that you can prove false. The math equation can be proven false, my belief cannot. So your inability to prove me wrong should at least be accompanied by respect.


If you invent or believe in somebody elses invention of an invisible friend
then that is how you choose to waste your time.


It does not command or invite respect however.

You offer no proof at all.
Offering proof might invite respect
offering none deserves nothing but contempt.

As you say so impressively

move on

faith isn't an addiction any more than homosexuality is. move on.


faith doesn't have to be an addiction, not everyone with faith
feels the need to inform all and sundry that it is the focus of their life.
They do not feel the need to implant and encourage their irrationality
in others.

I was having a discussion with a person who felt that their particular
faith had rescued them from addiction to other things.
I simply pointed out that faith as described by that person had
indications that it was itself just another form of addiction,

people can be addicted to sex itself
whether hetero or homo

move on yourself

And obviously no non-religious groups have ever done harm to others? This is the most irrational arguement against religion ever constructed and it seems to be your focal point. Its an absurd arguement.


:rolleyes: And plenty of non religious people do horrible discusting deeds as well. What's your point?


Your argument here seems to be that religions have done harm
but then so has nazi-ism so thats alright then?

Non religious people do and have done horrible deeds but they don't have
organisations behind them justifying them in the name of whatever
god or goddess is flavour of the millenium.

There is nothing good done by religions that would not be done by decent
people anyway, religion , in particular this one god with absolute everything,
once believed in makes people think there are absolutes in terms of
how other people should behave or be punished.
It encourages the moral absolutism that is normally the preserve of only
very young children and leads to things like inquisitions and burnings
of witches and murders of heretics.

Very very few christian sects have taken a path where they
do not feel they should punish people for not following whatever
rules they decide define christianity in whatever period they are in
or where their belief that the laws of a country or region affecting
all should not be the same as the laws they imagine their god has laid
down for his followers.

And while I can think of none, I will say very few of the other religions
based on the same principle of one all powerful god have held back
from trying to inflict their insanities on non believers either.



If you stick by your belief at least accept it is irrational and don't
expect it to be respected any more than if you claimed to be the reincarnation
of elvis or that John Lennon sings songs to you from the other side.

You may be a perfectly nice decent person and if I knew you I might well
respect the things you do and how you treat people but I certainly
would not respect your irrational belief in your invisible friend.

Cute, but I don't think so.

Um...what?


Based on your previous statement, I'd say you don't need religion for that.


:rolleyes:


Razor sharp
incisive
keenly logical

as always

btw it seems theres something wrong with your eyes.

Relative Power:

I NEVER said that God "saved" me from an addiction. I've NEVER been addicted to drugs or alcohol. I have just felt the pull of addictive behavior, like playing solitaire until I win, or playing a computer game until I finish it....that is how I know that I have addictive behavior in my genes. What I did say was this:

"I fight the urge to BE addictive because I have a WONDERFUL life and I know that God wants to USE me for AMAZING things!! I believe that my addictive personality is something that He gave me to challenge me in my OBEDIENCE to Him. Life is a test and life is a trust."

I KNOW that God has a plan for me, so I trust Him with my life. I NEVER said I WAS addicted to something and FOUND God, which saved me from an addiction. I have ALWAYS believed in God....even BEFORE my grandmother died of alcoholism....and before I even knew what alcoholism was....so please DON'T put words in my mouth. You see, I know that God tests me and sometimes my urge to be addictive, like when I'm obsessed with a computer game, takes me away from doing things that would please Him...like opening my Bible and reading His Word. Please go back to my post and re-read what I wrote because at no point and time did I say that God "saved" me from addiction!!

I think sadly many people belive Christainity IS about beliving in Christ. Beliving Chirst walked on water, turned water to wine, and knew an old widow with two fateful copper coins. Bull crap. Now don't take me wrong, I have fath he did. However the idea of christity is not corly based on weather some guy in the desert walked across water or not. It is taking the ideas of christ and making the world a better place. Now I think we spend some much needed time quibling about stuff like "Jesus turned water to wine does that mean we can all become alcohalics? Der." When we could be giving stuff to the poor, and helping people out... I think ((acctually even according to the red letter words)) Jesus would much rather us giving coats to homeless people in the winter, than bowing down to him in a nice cozy church. If we do this we are showing our faith in him, or if not him at least his ideas.

Relative Power:

I NEVER said that God "saved" me from an addiction. I've NEVER been addicted to drugs or alcohol. I have just felt the pull of addictive behavior, like playing solitaire until I win, or playing a computer game until I finish it....that is how I know that I have addictive behavior in my genes. What I did say was this:

"I fight the urge to BE addictive because I have a WONDERFUL life and I know that God wants to USE me for AMAZING things!! I believe that my addictive personality is something that He gave me to challenge me in my OBEDIENCE to Him. Life is a test and life is a trust."

I KNOW that God has a plan for me, so I trust Him with my life. I NEVER said I WAS addicted to something and FOUND God, which saved me from an addiction. I have ALWAYS believed in God....even BEFORE my grandmother died of alcoholism....and before I even knew what alcoholism was....so please DON'T put words in my mouth. You see, I know that God tests me and sometimes my urge to be addictive, like when I'm obsessed with a computer game, takes me away from doing things that would please Him...like opening my Bible and reading His Word. Please go back to my post and re-read what I wrote because at no point and time did I say that God "saved" me from addiction!!


I never meant to imply that you had been addicted to something and then
been saved by finding god.

I thought the implication from what you said that was without your
religion you would be likely to go down the road of addiction
due to your family tendencies and that therefore your belief, your god or
your religion saved you from that.


which led me to suggest that
your religion was possibly the form addiction was taking in you.

Relative Power:

I wasn't saying that my religion is WHY I'm not addicted to something....but that I KNOW that God doesn't want me to indulge in my addictive personality because it would hurt my relationship with Him. I don't think that I ever WOULD HAVE chosen a life of addiction regardless of my beliefs. In fact, for some of my early twenties, I completely ignored what God wanted from me, but I still chose quality of life over addiction. But since I DO believe in God, I try to live my life in a way that pleases Him and choosing to OBEY Him and ignore my natural tendancy towards addictive behavior is part of living for God. Make sense?

You got those props from Grav-n-idle? I'm definitely reading up on this thread.

I think one of the major cornerstones of the religion can be found in Matthew 25. The whole message of the Judgement of the Nations is to treat all those who are less fortunate than u as though they were God. :) Mercy and forgiveness are also major themes in Christianity. I think its a very very pure religion( certainly the best one I've come across) Jesus was friggin' awesome.

I think the problem is u have too many televangelists who focus more on the Old Testament version of God, who's favorite hobby seemed to be crushing people with fire and brimstone. And as Thomas Paine said " Belief in a cruel God makes for a cruel man". It is sad that that brand of Chrisitianity is all that some people are exposed to.

Yeah, exactly. Because most fundamental-conservative christian-traditions aren't so much about "love thy neighbor" as much as they about "If-you-don't-accept-me-as-your-personal-lord-and-savior-you-are-going-to-Hell."
That's what really gets me; the fact that people think that the man/god was the savior, when the truth is that it was the message/Jesus' teaching that was meant to be our salvation.

I assure you. Mainstream religion with a book and a lot of testimonies to back it up, Christianity is the only one out there where LOVE is one of the most important cornerstones.


Have you never learned of Ghandi? the Dalai Lama? Their teachiings are even more compassionate than that of christianity, since they tend to extend that compassion to all living creatures.

How can you say it's the "only one out there"? Or is your restrictive qualifications of having a "book and a lot of testimonies" meant to limit it enough to make the statement true?

Technically, the Beatles had a book, and there's way more testimonies about them than Jesus. They sang "all you need is love". I rest my case :)

Bingo! That's what Christianity is about! :D At least SOMEBODY knows. :rolleyes:
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

:rolleyes:

You cannot just believe in in him. His WORD was the salvation. His teachings, most of which were rendered all but obsolete; thanks to Constantine, who may have originated the phrase, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and the lesser known phrase, "Just make sure you burn all the other histories that aren't congruent with what we are hoping to perpetuate!"
I love to take that "What Would Jesus Do?" saying to task. For instance, I'm pretty sure Jesus would NOT have invaded Iraq, a nation that, it's former leaders' facination with facism notwithstanding, held a good deal of ancient history secured in it's museums.
Unfortunately, said museums were heavily shelled, maybe the insurgents were hiding there, I dunno. (Actually, there really was no insugency untill about six months after the White House basically declared "WE WON!") Anyway, no one thought it was very important to protect the world's antiquities in the winter/spring of 2003.
Anyway, I went off on a tangent. I think the point was, "No, sorry, you cant believe in Jesus, you have to practice what he preached." Not many people do that these days. Not even the most devout christians.

My understanding is that a Christian is a follower of Christ. I interperet this to mean that Christianity requires one make every effort to be 'Christ-like'.

So if, for example, George Bush says he's christian, he's a damn liar?
Cause bombing countries isn't exactly turning the other cheek is it?

For every one person you have quoting Leviticus, it seems, you have twenty five leaping down his throat.
Jesus pretty much said that all those old "moses Laws" were a bit outdated. That's why the Pharisees whipped the crowds into a frenzy to demand his cruxifiction, remember? Duh!
This is why I love asking fundamentalists with whom I am acquainted (as they are so hung up on Moses's Law) how their husband fared slaughtering the goat offering necessary after the birth of their latest child. I get twisted horrified looks from these women, BTW.
Note: you cannot adhere to some of the scripture while completely disregarding the next sentence. I want goat's blood. I want the soup. Or soap or something.

So if, for example, George Bush says he's christian, he's a damn liar?
Cause bombing countries isn't exactly turning the other cheek is it?


Its a big negative against him.

Also the 11th Commandment was "Thou Shalt not be a tyrranical bastard."

Seems hes not too good at obeying that one either.

That is why i love being an anarchist, I don't have to think about what some obscure guy in an unknown (or unseen) place wants me to do, I'm just trying to improve life for those I like and love, ye don't need a god to do that, right?

Anyway, the fact that there is a discussion like this proves that religion can be easily used to manipulate people, you just say: god wants it that way, and I know better, 'cause I'm a priest!

Don't say it isn't true, Bush and Bin Laden both did the same thing!

Well, 5 pages further and still no answer, so i'll ask again: Why is jezus the son of god ?

What makes that so ?
And before anyone says: because its in the bible!. Harry Potter books claim theres a hidden society of wizards living among us, doesnt make it true though.

That is why i love being an anarchist, I don't have to think about what some obscure guy in an unknown (or unseen) place wants me to do, I'm just trying to improve life for those I like and love, ye don't need a god to do that, right?

Anyway, the fact that there is a discussion like this proves that religion can be easily used to manipulate people, you just say: god wants it that way, and I know better, 'cause I'm a priest!

Don't say it isn't true, Bush and Bin Laden both did the same thing!

Am I the only one confused about what the heck anarchy has to do with religion? Couldnt there easily be Christians who believe in an anarchist political system? In fact, I remember something about Anabaptists being anarchist and they are a Christian group.

So if, for example, George Bush says he's christian, he's a damn liar?
Cause bombing countries isn't exactly turning the other cheek is it?
Yeah, something like that. Only Bush isn't really Christian. He's more like the anti-christ.

Well, 5 pages further and still no answer, so i'll ask again: Why is jezus the son of god ?
Because every man who ever walked the face of this earth, from the idiot Cro-magnon to that jerk in front of me on line at the gas station today, is the son of God. Regardless of what what one's religious propensities may have to offer, you and every one like you is a product of the same force of creation.
It may not be the God of Abraham and Isaac, it may not be the "Father" of Jesus, it may not be the "Allah" of Islam or the "Force" of all those Star Wars freaks. But it's something, okay? Trust me, it's there. You don't have to worship it. You don't have to pray. (Though it might help, but very few know how to properly do so).
You don't even have to believe in it. Frankly, it doesn't even care. But it is there. And it's not going to judge you or hurt you or send demons to torment you; any demons in your life you have sent to youself.

That's why Jesus is the son of god, and YOU are the son of god. Now chew that up real good and swallow it and call it a new day in the morning.

And, I'd agree with you. However, most of the world's 'Christians' probably consider you to be an extremist in a fundamentlist cult.

Cuts both ways...
Again, true. They wouldn't be far off either (except the cult bit), but that doesn't make me any less right. ;)
Because he didn't act like a non-believer. If you saw a supposed-Christian sacrificing babies to Satan, you'd question his veracity. <snip>
Well, to be honest I'd probably do something far more permanent than question him. :p
<snip>
In no way has it been a good thing for the world,
whatever peoples personal evidence that cannot be demonstrated believe.
Ah, the argument from ignorance.
"I don't know what societies were like before Christianity, so it must have been better!"

That is why i love being an anarchist, I don't have to think about what some obscure guy in an unknown (or unseen) place wants me to do, I'm just trying to improve life for those I like and love, ye don't need a god to do that, right?
Anarchism:
1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).

Do you actually believe that if you abolished the state power would not be assumed by whoever was best at organising/manipulating people to their own personal benefit?
Or do you have another definition of Anarchism?


Anyway, the fact that there is a discussion like this proves that religion can be easily used to manipulate people, you just say: god wants it that way, and I know better, 'cause I'm a priest!

Don't say it isn't true, Bush and Bin Laden both did the same thing!
The various (Atheist) communist parties manipulated people to the same if not a greater extent. So people are sheep and don't like thinking for themselves. What's your point?

If you invent or believe in somebody elses invention of an invisible friend
then that is how you choose to waste your time.


It does not command or invite respect however.

You offer no proof at all.
Offering proof might invite respect
offering none deserves nothing but contempt.

As you say so impressively

move on

There is plenty of evidence, just because you choose not to recognize it as valid does not mean it isn't there. If you cannot at least show respect to those you debate with, then expect none in return.

Melkor Unchained:

You talk about not liking Christianity because it tells you that your faith should be placed in something other than yourself. I will share with you WHY a Christian places their faith in God. I'm not asking you to convert or even to agree with me. But I think you should know WHY a Christian puts faith in God's will. The following ideas are all based on Christian doctrine, but are directly out of a book called, "The Purpose Driven Life" by Rick Warren. This is what life's purpose looks like through a Christian's eyes:

- Snip -

These are just some of the reasons WHY Christians CHOOSE to rely on God vs. themselves. I have found that, by living my life completely through God's direction, I am fufilled, at peace and happy because I know that what God wants for me will be best for me. I also know that without God, I have nothing. Every breath, ablility, talent, pleasure, and blessing were all given to me by Him and for that, I am eternally humbled and grateful. Again, I am not out to convert you or change your mind on how you view Christianity, but I did want you to know WHY Christians decide to rely on God and not themselves. :)

I have to say it, with no intention of insult, but that sounds very much like slavery to me. In fact it's the only word that comes into my head as I read it.

Your argument here seems to be that religions have done harm
but then so has nazi-ism so thats alright then?

At what point did I ever say anything was alright? I'm arguing that your assertion that religion is bad because bad things have happened in the past by religion. This is garbage. Bad things were done by the white people to both Indians and black people in the past, does that make the white race a bad thing? Does that mean its bad to be white? Your argument is what is irrational here.

Non religious people do and have done horrible deeds but they don't have
organisations behind them justifying them in the name of whatever
god or goddess is flavour of the millenium.

No? What ABOUT the nazis? What about the KKK? What about the KGB? What about National Man/Boy Love Association?

There is nothing good done by religions that would not be done by decent
people anyway, religion , in particular this one god with absolute everything,
once believed in makes people think there are absolutes in terms of
how other people should behave or be punished.
It encourages the moral absolutism that is normally the preserve of only
very young children and leads to things like inquisitions and burnings
of witches and murders of heretics.

Maybe nothing that other decent people wouldn't do, but certainly quite a lot more. What other organizations band millions of people together to ease suffering? You don't want to believe in my invisible friend, that's fine, that's your business, but do not sit and impune the good work those people have done for this world. THEY deserve respect.

Very very few christian sects have taken a path where they
do not feel they should punish people for not following whatever
rules they decide define christianity in whatever period they are in
or where their belief that the laws of a country or region affecting
all should not be the same as the laws they imagine their god has laid
down for his followers.

I swear some of your sentences stop making sense after the 30th word. What punishment are Christian sects doling out in THIS time period and to whom?

I have to say it, with no intention of insult, but that sounds very much like slavery to me. In fact it's the only word that comes into my head as I read it.
It made me think of an abusive relationship, personally. I know some people get off on being a "bottom," but I think this is taking it a bit too far.

I have to say it, with no intention of insult, but that sounds very much like slavery to me. In fact it's the only word that comes into my head as I read it.

evidently you missed the word "choose" in there.

evidently you missed the word "choose" in there.

Erm... there's a difference between choosing to believe and choosing to have been created for the pleasure of a voyeuristic divine being. I can choose to be a Christian, but if I then do become a Christian I'll end up believing all people were created by god for whatever reason, regardless of whether they like that idea or not.

Erm... there's a difference between choosing to believe and choosing to have been created for the pleasure of a voyeuristic divine being. I can choose to be a Christian, but if I then do become a Christian I'll end up believing all people were created by god for whatever reason, regardless of whether they like that idea or not.

well my point was, I don't see how you can toss in the word slavery where the word choice exists. Woodsprites CHOOSES to live her life for God, she isn't forced to. She CHOOSES to honor God in everything she does, He doesn't MAKE her. She is grateful for His mercy, so she gives her life to Him in gratitude, He didn't take it from her. I don't see slavery in this anywhere, not even a shade of it.

well my point was, I don't see how you can toss in the word slavery where the word choice exists. Woodsprites CHOOSES to live her life for God, she isn't forced to. She CHOOSES to honor God in everything she does, He doesn't MAKE her. She is grateful for His mercy, so she gives her life to Him in gratitude, He didn't take it from her. I don't see slavery in this anywhere, not even a shade of it.

To start with, I don't think that you can actually 'choose' a religion. I am an atheist not because I choose to be but because the idea of god and all that religion entails doesn't work in my brain -- it's like trying to install Mac-only software on a PC. I'm sure the same can be said for the religious -- the idea of there not being a god doesn't make any sense to them either. You can't simply 'choose' to have faith in something, as it doesn't work like that.

Secondly, whether or not she chose to believe isn't the issue. That's like saying that African slaves centuries ago chose to believe they weren't actually slaves, therefore they mustn't have been. Denial doesn't equate to truth. What Woodsprites says is that Christianity is about believing that we are all created for god's pleasure, and that she simply chooses to acknowledge that as a fact.

Just for the record, the KKK is a Christian organization. Protestant, actually. Don't try to argue this one, my father is a Protestant minister, and we've been over this issue many, MANY times.

There is plenty of evidence, just because you choose not to recognize it as valid does not mean it isn't there. If you cannot at least show respect to those you debate with, then expect none in return.

So you now have evidence ?

I rather suspect your referring to the kind of evidence that doesn't bear scrutiny
just like the evidence GW claimed to have
that Iraq actually had stockpiles of WMD and was manufacturing more in 2002.
You failed to understand this one before,
only the truly credulous,
those who for example are used to accepting as fact statements that are
irrational could have found his stance credible.
Now what type of people are used to accepting the irrational as fact,
gosh , that would be religious types now, wouldn't it.

Evidence that cannot be shown or when shown doesn't bear examination
is not evidence.
I don't expect any respect nor do I see any benefit to getting any
from irrational people.

There is plenty of evidence, just because you choose not to recognize it as valid does not mean it isn't there. If you cannot at least show respect to those you debate with, then expect none in return.
Ahh, that would be the less known "tarnished silver rule": Do unto others as they do unto you.

I can choose to be a Christian, but if I then do become a Christian I'll end up believing all people were created by god for whatever reason, regardless of whether they like that idea or not.
Only if you choose that, too.

At what point did I ever say anything was alright? I'm arguing that your assertion that religion is bad because bad things have happened in the past by religion. This is garbage. Bad things were done by the white people to both Indians and black people in the past, does that make the white race a bad thing? Does that mean its bad to be white? Your argument is what is irrational here.

There is a difference between being born white and joining
an organisation with a history as bad as christianity's has been.



No? What ABOUT the nazis? What about the KKK? What about the KGB? What about National Man/Boy Love Association?


The previous comment had been about groups, the one you are responding
to was about individuals. But look you've kept talking about groups.



Maybe nothing that other decent people wouldn't do, but certainly quite a lot more. What other organizations band millions of people together to ease suffering? You don't want to believe in my invisible friend, that's fine, that's your business, but do not sit and impune the good work those people have done for this world. THEY deserve respect.


There are good people who do good for the people of the world who suffer,
they do in fact get respect, especially if to be a recipient of their good deeds
does not mean converting or accepting an alien god as their saviour.

But people who work for the poor and sick etc
are no more likely to be religious than otherwise.
Furthermore and much more commonly now that more people no
longer class themselves as religious you find a lot of non religious
doing their work for the people who need help through what are
nominally religious organisations.


I swear some of your sentences stop making sense after the 30th word. What punishment are Christian sects doling out in THIS time period and to whom?

So regardless of the history of them you want me to point to
punishments being inflicted by christian sects right now.
Right now nazis are not running concentration camps and the KKK aren't
lynching people, it doesn't make them organisations that most people
would want to join or be considered part of.

Relative Power:

I wasn't saying that my religion is WHY I'm not addicted to something....but that I KNOW that God doesn't want me to indulge in my addictive personality because it would hurt my relationship with Him. I don't think that I ever WOULD HAVE chosen a life of addiction regardless of my beliefs. In fact, for some of my early twenties, I completely ignored what God wanted from me, but I still chose quality of life over addiction. But since I DO believe in God, I try to live my life in a way that pleases Him and choosing to OBEY Him and ignore my natural tendancy towards addictive behavior is part of living for God. Make sense?


Well it was a good try but it involves an irrational belief in a supernatural power so no it doesn't make sense.

ie evidence that cannot be shown

It is evidence that canot be shown to other people.

Of course, evidence doesn't have to be shown to other people. It has to be something that can be perceived by a human being.

A rational person in those circumstances would have to at least doubt that it happened. Given there were not witnesses and no harm done despite their recollection of being hit by a car. It requires a combination of circumstances each highly improbable on their own. A rational person certainly wouldn't expect anyone to believe them when they told the story.

Yes, a rational person would have to doubt that it happened. But, without some evidence that they were hallucinating at the time, or some evidence that they might have had a chemical imbalance, etc., etc., most rational people would come to the conclusion that it really did happen, not that they were crazy.

I agree that a rational person would not expect someone else to believe them fully when they told the story, but assuming that they made it up or didn't experience it would be just as irrational as taking every word they said to be absolutely true.

What an interesting religion you have that encourages you to constantly question and examine the belief that there is a god.

Yes, it is interesting.

well no one is talking about a belief based on absence of evidence.

Hard atheism is exactly that.

If someone asks that you take the idea of a god seriously and presents no evidence then there is no reason to believe them. You don't have to actively disbelieve in the existence of gods you just have no reason to believe in the existence of any gods.

I haven't asked you to believe in any gods. I have simply pointed out to you that I may have experiences that you don't. Thus, your immediate labeling of any theist as irrational is nothing more than your inability to imagine that anyone could possibly have experiences that you yourself have not had, or that you yourself have looked at differently.

again evidence is something that can be demonstrated or its not evidence.

Incorrect. Evidence is something which can be perceived, experienced, or seen. However, it does not have to be seen by every human being on the Earth to still be evidence.

Take, for instance, the recent sitings of a believed-to-be extinct woodpecker. The first people to see it again had ample evidence to say that it was not extinct. They had seen it with ther own eyes. However, they did not have anything that they could show to another person. Afrter all, it isn't like they caught the bird, and it happened too quickly for them for them to get any clear pictures. Thus, they had ample evidence to convince them personally, always admitting the possibility that they could have been wrong, but no evidence that could be shown to another person. Thus, others were rightfully sceptical of their siting.

Personal experience for example on an acid trip might lead you to believe you had experienced all kinds of wonderful things but other than in your head nothing actually happened.

It might. Of course, unless you were somehow on an acid trip without knowing it, you would have to rationally figure in the fact that you were on an acid trip when trying to determine whether these things had actually happened. However, we aren't talking about something with a known and measured outside cause. If we were, we wouldn't be having a discussion. If someone conclusively demonstrated evidence that my experience of God was actually something else, then I would take that evidence into account, and possibly come to the conclusion that I was wrong before. However, no such evidence has been demonstrated. Thus, trusting my own senses and what evidence I currently have, I believe that it was God.

Yes it can be said however history demonstrates that religions have
invariably done great harm to others. What with all that necessary fighting against heresy and murder and torture of non believers and taking back the holyland.

None of these things are "necessary" to religion. You are taking a power struggle between a few people who used religion to try and gain power and trying to apply it to every theist - a completely irrational application. It is like looking at a few poisonous berries and concluding that all berries are poisonous and that no one should ever eat any berries.

Yes because its irrational

No, because it is not possible under the scientific method. The scientific method is a very powerful tool, but has its limitations.

for the individuals doing the decent acts - they can be good people
for the religion itself its advertising or viral marketing if you prefer.

Plus non religious people do plenty of good deeds without belief in a deity.

Guess what? Non religious people do plenty of horrible deeds - murder, persecution, war, etc. without belief in a deity. Like you said, religion has been used as justification for horrible things. As I pointed out, it has also been used as a justification for very good things. Both the horrible and the good things are acts that some people would engage in whether they were religious or not.

So you now have evidence ?

I rather suspect your referring to the kind of evidence that doesn't bear scrutiny
just like the evidence GW claimed to have
that Iraq actually had stockpiles of WMD and was manufacturing more in 2002.
You failed to understand this one before,
only the truly credulous,
those who for example are used to accepting as fact statements that are
irrational could have found his stance credible.
Now what type of people are used to accepting the irrational as fact,
gosh , that would be religious types now, wouldn't it.

Evidence that cannot be shown or when shown doesn't bear examination
is not evidence.
I don't expect any respect nor do I see any benefit to getting any
from irrational people.

You can stop with the GW claims. Everyone, including John Kerry and the UN council, and Bill Clinton, and everyone else in the world also thought Iraq had those WMDs. You may believe you aren't playing the hindsight game but I don't.

I did no answer ... in fact I could not find his office nor any sign of anyone claiming ownership to the test

That does not mean he is there but I have yet to find him and all I have is other students arguing over what he looks like and acts like to tell me what to look for

But all their descriptions are different

And they all tell me that they know the REAL teacher and that the other teachers are really false people, and if you believe them you will fail the test

But in the end I get no answer from the real teacher and a bunch of other students all telling me different stories

Never listen exclusively to your fellow students. They don't know the subject any better than you do. Your options are to keep looking for the teacher, or decide that the class isn't necessary to you.

There is a difference between being born white and joining
an organisation with a history as bad as christianity's has been.




The previous comment had been about groups, the one you are responding
to was about individuals. But look you've kept talking about groups.

I was responding to this comment. Its about groups. Some people who have done horrible deeds have had these groups behind them attempting to justify them in the name of whatever blah blah blah. Nice attempt to derail it though.

Non religious people do and have done horrible deeds but they don't have
organisations behind them justifying them in the name of whatever
god or goddess is flavour of the millenium.






There are good people who do good for the people of the world who suffer,
they do in fact get respect, especially if to be a recipient of their good deeds
does not mean converting or accepting an alien god as their saviour.
so people who do good deeds are less deserving of respect if they are religious? Now you're sounding bigoted.

But people who work for the poor and sick etc
are no more likely to be religious than otherwise.
have you got proof of this statement? I can counter with "people who work for the poor and sick may be no more likely to be religious, but people who are religious are more likely to work for the poor and sick."

Furthermore and much more commonly now that more people no
longer class themselves as religious you find a lot of non religious
doing their work for the people who need help through what are
nominally religious organisations.
Got anything to back this one up too?



So regardless of the history of them you want me to point to
punishments being inflicted by christian sects right now.
Right now nazis are not running concentration camps and the KKK aren't
lynching people, it doesn't make them organisations that most people
would want to join or be considered part of.

So what punishments have been inflicted by Christians since WWII?

Non religious people do and have done horrible deeds but they don't have organisations behind them justifying them in the name of whatever god or goddess is flavour of the millenium.

No, but they do often have organizations behind them justifying them in the name of something else. People will always form organizations to justify their actions, especially when they know they are doing something wrong.

There is nothing good done by religions that would not be done by decent people anyway, religion , in particular this one god with absolute everything, once believed in makes people think there are absolutes in terms of how other people should behave or be punished. It encourages the moral absolutism that is normally the preserve of only very young children and leads to things like inquisitions and burnings of witches and murders of heretics.

Religion does not encourage these things - leaders of religions do. My religion, whie suggesting that there may be moral absolutes, does not suggest that any given human being actually knows them. Thus, they are all open to scrutiny - meaning that human beings cannot act as if moral absolutism is known. Now, certain leaders of certain religions have attempted to claim that they knew the absolute morals - because it increased their power. If they couldn't claim that, they would find another claim to increase their claim to power.

Very very few christian sects have taken a path where they do not feel they should punish people for not following whatever rules they decide define christianity in whatever period they are in or where their belief that the laws of a country or region affecting all should not be the same as the laws they imagine their god has laid down for his followers.

(a) This is untrue. The vast majority of Christian denominations believe that they should follow their rules, and that others should follow them, but cannot be forced to do so. Thus, those people go on living their lives as they see fit, and those in the denomination simply hope that they will eventually see it from another point of view.

(b) Many, many Christians aren't even a part of a particular sect, often because there are those who think as you describe above and also because, having examined all evidence themselves, they do not feel that a given denomination actually has it all correct.

its all about the love kids! love for you, love for me, and most importantly, love for God. you love everyone and you care for everyone. cuz thats what Jesus did. he was pure kindness and goodness and mildness and joy and happiness and love and all that jazz! so yea, love and be Christ-like. hence the name "CHRIST ianity."

[QUOTE=Melkor Unchained]
The problem I have with Christianity is it tells me that my faith should be placed in something other than myself. It urges mysticism, asserting [flying in the face of eons of gathered knowledge] that reason alone is not a sufficient tool for discerning the nature of reality. It, along with any other religion I can think of, urges that we dispense with reason in favor of blind faith: we are to feel right and wrong as opposed to knowing them.

:) YES YES YES!!!!!
I for one totally agree with this statement!
ALL ORGANIZED RELIGIONS teach that you must follow what they say. And what do you do when you find out what "they" say is not right? You become dissolusioned and disenchanted with what you thought was "right" and then you try to find a different "religion" to tell you yet again what to do with your life, how to live it and that you are wrong to think the way you do about whatever you and "they" disagree with. Say what you want about CHrist, God, Allah, Gods/Goddess, etc it all comes down to the same thing. ANY AND ALL ORGANIZED RELIGIONS (from Catholics to Wiccans) ARE TRYING TO MAKE YOU INTO WHAT THEY THINK YOU SHOULD BE AND WHAT YOU SHOULD BELIEVE.

For the record: I have studied many different religions and they are all basically the same. Read the Bible, the Torah, etc and they are all THE SAME BOOK with certain names changed and geared toward the policies that the particular people want to indocturnate into you. I have no use for ANY organized religion and do not believe that anyone should have to choose to believe in only one "GOD". Its all the same people!

I rather suspect your referring to the kind of evidence that doesn't bear scrutiny just like the evidence GW claimed to have
that Iraq actually had stockpiles of WMD and was manufacturing more in 2002.

Poor analogy. Evidence of WMDs is falsifiable. We can demonstrate, through scientific means, that they either exist or do not exist because they are a part of this world, one way or the other.

We are not talking about something that can be, by any stretch of logic, examined by scientific means.

Evidence that cannot be shown or when shown doesn't bear examination is not evidence.

So no one has ever loved another human being?

There is a difference between being born white and joining an organisation with a history as bad as christianity's has been.

Chrsitianity is not "an organization". It is a set of many organizations, as well as individuals who do not belong to any given organization. If you want to complain about a particular organization under the umbrella of the word Christianity, by all means go ahead.

But people who work for the poor and sick etc are no more likely to be religious than otherwise.

Depends on what you mean by religious. If you mean any theist, then this is an untrue statement. By sheer probability, people who work to help the sick are much, much more likely to be theists than otherwise.

Now, if you mean "following a particular sect of a given religion ruled over by human beings", you may be correct.

Furthermore and much more commonly now that more people no longer class themselves as religious you find a lot of non religious doing their work for the people who need help through what are nominally religious organisations.

Most people who don't "class themselves as religious" are still theists.

I see christianity in this way, an outgrowth of previous religions. (From www.vetssweatshop.net/dogma.htm)

“The faithful referred to Mithra as "the Light of the World", symbol of truth, justice, and loyalty.* He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a Holy Trinity.* According to Persian mythology, Mithras was born of a virgin given the title 'Mother of God'.* The god remained celibate throughout his life, and valued self-control, renunciation and resistance to sensuality among his worshippers.* Mithras represented a system of ethics in which brotherhood was encouraged in order to unify against the forces of evil.** The worshippers of Mithras held strong beliefs in a celestial heaven and an infernal hell. They believed that the benevolent powers of the god would sympathize with their suffering and grant them the final justice of immortality and eternal salvation in the world to come. They looked forward to a final day of Judgment in which the dead would resurrect, and to a final conflict that would destroy the existing order of all things to bring about the triumph of light over darkness.

Purification through a ritualistic baptism was required of the faithful, who also took part in a ceremony in which they drank wine and ate bread to symbolize the body and blood of the god. Sundays were held sacred, and the birth of the god was celebrated annually on December the 25th. After the earthly mission of this god had been accomplished, he took part in a Last Supper with his companions before ascending to heaven, to forever protect the faithful from above.
However, it would be a vast oversimplification to suggest that Mithraism was the single forerunner of early Christianity.* Aside from Christ and Mithras, there were plenty of other deities (such as Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Balder, Attis, and Dionysus) said to have died and resurrected.*”*

The problem I have with Christianity is it tells me that my faith should be placed in something other than myself. It urges mysticism, asserting [flying in the face of eons of gathered knowledge] that reason alone is not a sufficient tool for discerning the nature of reality. It, along with any other religion I can think of, urges that we dispense with reason in favor of blind faith: we are to feel right and wrong as opposed to knowing them.

Excuse me. Do you farm the food you eat? Do you draw the water you drink? Make the clothes you wear? Design and manufacture your computer? If you didn't, and acquired it from some other source, then you have put your faith on somebody else - and somebody else I bet you didn't see either. What makes you trust that the water you drink isn't poisoned? Blind faith.

You can stop with the GW claims. Everyone, including John Kerry and the UN council, and Bill Clinton, and everyone else in the world also thought Iraq had those WMDs. You may believe you aren't playing the hindsight game but I don't.


The millions of people who marched before the war
to prevent the war were playing the hindsight game?

Interesting concept of hindsight you have.

The UN council did not buy the idea that Iraq had WMD
that was why neither GW nor TB couldnt get them to approve a war on the basis of WMD despite threats and blandishments.
They attempted to resolve the situation where the US
was making baseless claims by getting the weapons inspectors back in.
Operating on the assumption that there might maybe be some
good faith in the US claims.
It was clear to most countries that there was not
but normal standards of political politeness apply.

Excuse me. Do you farm the food you eat? Do you draw the water you drink? Make the clothes you wear? Design and manufacture your computer? If you didn't, and acquired it from some other source, then you have put your faith on somebody else - and somebody else I bet you didn't see either. What makes you trust that the water you drink isn't poisoned? Blind faith.
Bzzzt, wrong.

I can meet the people who provide the things you talk about. I've actually met many of them. Believe it or not, I even visited the water treatment plant in my old home town, and saw precisely how my water was purified (I made the mistake of dating an environmentalist...what a second date that was...). But even if I hadn't, the point remains that I COULD. Just because I don't know, right now, how to build a computer or purify my water doesn't mean I couldn't learn. Whereas, in the case of God, you CAN NEVER KNOW. Period. You can never even know if you met God, because you might think you have but it was actually some non-God being that is powerful enough to deceive you into THINKING it is God.

For your edification, one of my favorite little essays:

The Parable of the M&Ms
(from http://www.hankfox.com/M&Ms.htm)

There's this thing that godders do that always leaves me at a loss.

Their basic approach to any mystery that confronts them – and "mystery" here can mean anything from ordinary and well-known facts which these people don’t presently happen to be aware of, to the complex unknowns of the larger universe – is "If I can’t explain it … if YOU can’t explain it … it must be God."

My first problem with these people is that they’re so convinced of their one pat answer that they’re not interested in listening to any other answer. Or of questioning the matter further to find still other possible answers.

They’re not CURIOUS about mysteries, they’re SATISFIED with them.

So here’s a simple way for you, and hopefully them, to think about things you yourself can’t presently explain.

Think about all the candy bars you’ve eaten in your lifetime. Snickers, Mars bars, Almond Joy, Mounds, Hershey bars, Payday, Zero (do they even make Zero anymore?), York Peppermint Patties, all those other things.

If you’re like me, you’ve never been to a candy factory, and you really have no solid proof about how these things are put together.

But … you could probably figure out the basic scheme of each bar with little trouble.

You start with a thick caramel-like ooze, mix it with lots of peanuts, form it into little bars, dip those bars into molten milk chocolate, and then lay them out on a cool surface to harden. Voila! Snickers.

Or you start with a chewy-gooey candy turdlet, roll it in peanuts so as to coat the entire outside, and then lay it out on a cool surface to harden. Voila! Payday.

You stamp out discs of peppermint dough, send them for a swim through dark chocolate, then lay them out on a cool surface to harden. Kazaam! York Peppermint Patty.

You take a short strip of candied coconut, drop a couple of almonds on top of it, dunk it in milk chocolate, and then lay it out on a slick marble countertop to cool and harden. Poof! Almond Joy.

See? Nothing to it. No magic, no gods, no super-scientific alien civilizations required.

Ah, but …

Think about M&Ms.

There’s this little button of chocolate in the middle, coated with a hard candy shell, and then painted with some kind of candied color. Or a peanut covered with chocolate, then the hard candy, then the color.

And it has no flat side.

There is never a time in an M&M’s life when it lies on a cool surface to harden.

How the heck do they DO that??

If you’ve been through the M&Ms factory, you probably know the answer. But I don’t know the answer, and in a way I don’t want to know it. In this case, I’m content with the fun mystery – content to let it serve as a little koan for godders convinced that anything you can’t explain must be due to the influence of this god or that.

Because in this case, though I don’t know the answer, I know I could find it out in about five minutes.

I could find out just exactly how M&Ms are made.

They make them in the space shuttle, I’ll bet, and they spray on the candy coating and the color while they’re floating in zero gravity. It hardens in mid-air, and never has any flat spot because it never touches anything until it’s hardened.

Or they drop them from a tower a thousand feet high, and they get sprayed with the chocolate and candy and color as they float down. When they reach the bottom, they’re cool and solid and they go right into the bags.

Or they form them like every other type of candy bar, but they then put them in a jeweler’s lapidary tumbler with a fine grit that, over a period of weeks, polishes off the flat side to a perfect roundness.

They grow them in the Andes Mountains on genetically-engineered mutant chocolate plants, where they’re picked by child labor. Hundreds of old guys who look exactly like Juan Valdez carry them down the mountain with long strings of pack donkeys, and they take them to a factory where thousands of tiny Filipino women making 11 cents a day snip off the stems and paint over the scar with matching colored paint.

Okay, it’s none of those things. You and I both know it. And those are all fairly mundane answers, with no magic or god-power required.

I don’t know how the cheap speakers in my stereo were made, but I know it wasn’t magic. They were put together by low-paid technicians in a big industrial facility somewhere, and they work by simple principles of physics.

I don’t know how my computer was made, but I know there’s no magical elf in the box, no telepathic alien. It’s basically a light switch on steroids, programmed by nerdy young guys hopped up on Jolt Cola and strawberry Pop Tarts until they’re driven so insane they start to think in computer code.

I don’t know exactly how the supermarket door knows to open when I walk up to it, but I’m pretty sure – no, I’m absolutely certain – that it isn’t an invisible genie enslaved by sorcery. It’s hidden switches and motors and this infrared electric eye thingie that -- because I'm so short -- misses seeing me about half the time.

Physics. Electricity. Ordinary everyday stuff, with a lot of technical skill thrown in to make it jump through complex and useful hoops.

Just because I don’t know how these things work is not reason enough to leap at the Almighty Master of the Universe as the answer.

In this case, the answers to these mysteries, though they’re not known to me, are known to SOMEBODY. I just haven’t gotten around to looking into them myself.

It’s friggin’ amazing to me that a lump of metal, a magnet, can repel another magnet with a totally invisible force. And that when you turn one of them around, it works just opposite – they cling together like Vulcan lovers in the throes of their every-seven-years mating frenzy.

And it’s fascinating to me that a wound on your arm can heal back to be level with the rest of your skin, instead of healing into a ragged little canyon, or bubbling up with new flesh until it forms a large irregular lump.

Does anybody know the explanation to these mysteries? Maybe. I hope so. But even if they don’t, is there reason to believe they’re magic? Reason to call on the Big Magic Juju Guy as the One. True. Answer?

No.

Just because you don’t know the answer does NOT mean that it’s evidence of God, or gods – or witches or demons or mind-reading aliens from Planet Z.

Our here in the real world, things just don’t work like that.

God didn’t make M&Ms. They only taste that way.

Poor analogy. Evidence of WMDs is falsifiable. We can demonstrate, through scientific means, that they either exist or do not exist because they are a part of this world, one way or the other.

We are not talking about something that can be, by any stretch of logic, examined by scientific means.


Not so poor an analogy.
The US made claims without presenting evidence.
Only the irrational would believe those type of claims.


So no one has ever loved another human being?


If the only basis for believing that some people have loved other people
was them saying so then that position could be argued.

But right throughout history and today the love people have for others
can be observed in their treatment of those people.


Chrsitianity is not "an organization". It is a set of many organizations, as well as individuals who do not belong to any given organization. If you want to complain about a particular organization under the umbrella of the word Christianity, by all means go ahead.


As I pointed out before there are very darn few branches of christianity
that haven't committed crimes - at least as far as I am aware there
are some that probably haven't but then I don't know very much about
for example the quakers and while they may not have committed
terrible deeds , I couldn't stand 100% behind a claim that they haven't
because I simply do not know.

The fact that they base their lives on irrational belief and are organised into a group gives them the possibility of heading off in the direction of evil
actions to support their belief.

History shows us that this has happened too many times in the past
to be dismissed.


Depends on what you mean by religious. If you mean any theist, then this is an untrue statement. By sheer probability, people who work to help the sick are much, much more likely to be theists than otherwise.


That very much depends,
If you mean that the vast majority of peoples of many nations are theists and therefore by numbers more people who work with the
sick or whatever are going to be theists then you are probably right.

If you however were to take a breakdown
and calculate what percentage of theists go to do good works
as compared to what percentage of atheists go to do good works

I believe you will find very little difference.



Most people who don't "class themselves as religious" are still theists.

That may or may not be so
however I think I have made effectively 2 claims

1 that belief in a supernatural being is irrational

2 that religion is harmful

Often the 2 flow into one another belief in god means join a religion.
But if someone is irrational in some belief but it doesn't impact on anyone
else and it doesn't add to the strength of a religious organisation
(which invariably leads to harm to some people, sometimes just members
of the organisation who break the rules , other times to anyone who
doesn't agree with them) then there isn't any harm being done to anyone
other than that person themselves and depending on how much attention
they pay to it that could be negligible.

For example a doctor may believe he is the reincarnation of napoleon but
if he doesn't try to be napoleon and he simply thinks that but gets on with
his life as normal then its harmless,

If he tried to invade other countries then it would be a serious problem
and of course there is the whole range between those two points on the scale.

Bzzzt, wrong.

*snip*

Just because you don’t know the answer does NOT mean that it’s evidence of God, or gods – or witches or demons or mind-reading aliens from Planet Z.

Our here in the real world, things just don’t work like that.

God didn’t make M&Ms. They only taste that way.

Cute story

I don't know any Christians who believe everything THEY can't understand must be God's doing. Whenever I hear an odd noise outside that I can't recognize, I'm the guy with the flashlight searching the bushes to learn what it is. I'm the husband who pisses his wife off on a continuous basis because I like to take everything we own apart to figure out how it works. I'm all for finding the logical answers for everything...THAT HAS ONE.

I'm well aware that God didn't make M&Ms, I'm equally aware that M&M/Mars didn't create the Universe and put life on Earth.

There's this thing that godders do that always leaves me at a loss.

This little rant doesn't describe all theists, just some - generally those too lazy or too afraid to try and question.

Just because I don’t know how these things work is not reason enough to leap at the Almighty Master of the Universe as the answer.

No, it isn't.

Not so poor an analogy. The US made claims without presenting evidence. Only the irrational would believe those type of claims.

You are correct, but it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Only the irrational would believe in a God because some other human being told them it was so. However, if I had personally seen the WMDs, I would believe the claims. And since I have personally experienced God, I believe that God exists. I'm not asking you to take my word for it.

If the only basis for believing that some people have loved other people was them saying so then that position could be argued.

But right throughout history and today the love people have for others can be observed in their treatment of those people.

Incorrect. You cannot demonstrate love through treatment of others, as you may simply be treating that person well for your own self-serving purposes. You may not care about them at all. The only person who ever knows if they truly love a person is the person feeling that emotion themselves. As far as anyone else is concerned, the motives for those actions are unknown.

As I pointed out before there are very darn few branches of christianity that haven't committed crimes - at least as far as I am aware there are some that probably haven't but then I don't know very much about
for example the quakers and while they may not have committed
terrible deeds , I couldn't stand 100% behind a claim that they haven't
because I simply do not know.

And there are darn few people who fully support or lead a given branch of Christianity. There are many, many people who are not even a part of any given branch.

The fact that they base their lives on irrational belief and are rganised into a group gives them the possibility of heading off in the direction of evil actions to support their belief.

The fact that they are human beings gives the the possibility of heading off in the direction of evil actions. And, if they are the type to do so, they will use whatever justification comes to mind.

That may or may not be so however I think I have made effectively 2 claims

1 that belief in a supernatural being is irrational

2 that religion is harmful

You have made neither claim "effectively".

You have demonstrated that belief in a supernatural being just because someone else said so is irrational - something that I would not dispute.

You have demonstrated that some people can use religion for harmful purposes. You have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that religion, in and of itself, is harmful. Again, your discussion is like saying, "These berries are poisonous. Therefore, all berries must be poisonous."

<snip>

So what punishments have been inflicted by Christians since WWII?


Right I'm not going to respond to everything you had in this one
and I won't bother responding to you again because
quite frankly your delusions will carry you through regardless of anything
I say seeing as you still are unable to grasp that not presenting evidence
does not mean you have a rock solid argument.
It is simply nonsensical.

Christian organisations like all other religions always tend to punish those
who break their rules and the fact of the inquisition alone should be enough
to put anyone off, never mind that is just one of the horrendous
doings of one of many different branches of christianity
yet you still ask what have they done recently.
The fact we could use the same argument about nazis who certainly
haven't had any concentration camps since the 2nd world war but no one
with any decency would consider becoming one doesn't bother you in
the slightest.

I will therefore give you one and only one because I am not
going to research a long list for you to turn around and say it doesn't
cover all christian sects.

The catholic church in Ireland that being the majority insanity there.
When a woman got pregnant without being married and particularly
at a young age they arranged for them to go to work in the Magdalene
laundries often with the complicity of the authorities (who of course
were catholic) although this was not in accordance with state law.
These women were effectively imprisoned and many lived out the rest
of their days in these institutions.
That continued right up until the 70's and possibly the mid 1980's

You can google it for more details.

You might look at the cover ups regarding the abuse of children in the
care of religious organisations too, because of course if the truth coming
out might damage a religious organisation then what happened or was happening to children did not matter enough.

.

You have demonstrated that some people can use religion for harmful purposes. You have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that religion, in and of itself, is harmful. Again, your discussion is like saying, "These berries are poisonous. Therefore, all berries must be poisonous."


No, I have said the berries on that bush have time and time again proven
poisonous so don't eat them and don't treat the belief that they
are just fine and dandy put forward by people who extol their
virtues or want you to try them, with respect .

You have argued that other bushes also have poisonous berries.

Killer argument that one

You have argued that some bushes don't have poisonous berries therefore
the bush that has time and again proven to be poisonous is okay cos
some of the people who eat them don't die.

Anytime you get a large group of people organise together especially
where they have a sense of their own rightness you get abuses of people
that don't measure up to that sense of rightness both within and outside
the organisation.

It was true of the nazis and the communists and the christians.
nazis and communists based their absolute correctness on the thinking
and writings of men which while with the nazis and the soviets did not
lead to them being softened or mollified the possibility that they could be
was at least there, tiny though it may have been with those two.

But how can anyone every challenge what a christian god says
he being the absolute defintion of absolutely everything,
who can contradict.

But how can anyone every challenge what a christian god says
he being the absolute defintion of absolutely everything,
who can contradict.

Well, I can. I could contradict the Christian god whenever I like, if I had a mind to. Doesn't mean I'm right or that Christians (or, indeed, anyone else) will believe me.

No, I have said the berries on that bush have time and time again proven poisonous so don't eat them and don't treat the belief that they are just fine and dandy put forward by people who extol their
virtues or want you to try them, with respect .

You aren't talking about a single bush. "Religion" is not a single, unified principle. It includes lots and lots of different types of bushes, some of which have been poisonous in the past, and some of which have not. It also includes lots of plants that aren't bushes, and only have one berry - again, some of them poisonous and some of them not.

You have argued that some bushes don't have poisonous berries therefore the bush that has time and again proven to be poisonous is okay cos some of the people who eat them don't die.

I have argued no such thing. I have pointed out that poisons, whether they are found in berries or not. Some berries are poisonous, and some are not. Some roots are poisonous, some are not. Some flowers are poisonous, some are not. I am simply not, like you, calling for people to avoid eating all berries, roots, and flowers simply because a few of them are poisonous.

Anytime you get a large group of people organise together especially
where they have a sense of their own rightness you get abuses of people
that don't measure up to that sense of rightness both within and outside
the organisation.

Religion is not necessarily an organization.

Meanwhile, you are correct that people who organize together into a large group with a sense of their own rightness, that abuses generally occur. I suppose then that you are all for getting rid of all human organizations? All nations, all political parties, all families, even all charities?

But how can anyone every challenge what a christian god says he being the absolute defintion of absolutely everything, who can contradict.

No one can contradict or challenge what God actually says, but no one can actually know for certain what God says either. We can know what we feel that God has said. Some will listen to what other people tell them God has said. Others think that God hasn't said anything, because they believe that God doesn't exist. Thing is, there is no way to know with 100% certainty which is correct. Thus, a rational person must allow for all possibilities, examine all evidence, and come to their own conclusions - with the knowledge that they are not infallible.

Right I'm not going to respond to everything you had in this one
and I won't bother responding to you again because
quite frankly your delusions will carry you through regardless of anything
I say seeing as you still are unable to grasp that not presenting evidence
does not mean you have a rock solid argument.
It is simply nonsensical.

I havn't claimed I have a rock solid argument. However, you have no more evidence than I and yet the rock solid feeling of the argument is coming from you. My only argument is about you calling people you don't understand irrational.

You stated that finding god had broken a cycle of addiction that you said
ran through your family.

I'm simply suggesting that given the enormous part it plays in your life
it could seem to some people that it is just another form of addiction.

Everybody judges other people and themselves all the time.
It might be that many people do not simply act with people purely in accordance with their judgements
nor pronounce their judgements but I would say that
you do judge other people just as everyone else does.

I have to ask... since Woodsprites directed the original post to me... and since it isn't strictly on topic, but was more about what Woodsprites and I were discussing...

WHY are you jumping all over her about it?

I beleive we are here to debate what 'Christianity means'... not to try to prove Christians 'wrong'?

I have to ask... since Woodsprites directed the original post to me... and since it isn't strictly on topic, but was more about what Woodsprites and I were discussing...

WHY are you jumping all over her about it?

I beleive we are here to debate what 'Christianity means'... not to try to prove Christians 'wrong'?

Indeed. How did this thread end up as a debate over the existence of God?

Not so poor an analogy.
The US made claims without presenting evidence.
Only the irrational would believe those type of claims.

there was evidence and they presented it. It got everyone's attention and everyone believed it. The fact that it later turned out to possibly be inaccurate doesn't change that.



If the only basis for believing that some people have loved other people
was them saying so then that position could be argued.

But right throughout history and today the love people have for others
can be observed in their treatment of those people.

What evidence can you possibly have that someone in the past loved someone else? For that matter, what evidence is there it happens today?



As I pointed out before there are very darn few branches of christianity
that haven't committed crimes - at least as far as I am aware there
are some that probably haven't but then I don't know very much about
for example the quakers and while they may not have committed
terrible deeds , I couldn't stand 100% behind a claim that they haven't
because I simply do not know.

branches of Christianity? My church is a branch of Christianity. I've only been attending it for almost a year but I'm pretty certain that this branch of Christianity hasn't committed any crimes against humanity. The Catholic church around the corner hasn't, to my knowledge, committed any either. The Baptist church I went to last year before I moved, I'm dead certain they didn't...at least not as an organized group, I can't speak for each individual. I think the Quakers actually tried but couldn't get anyone to take their pitchforks seriously. I had a visit from a Jehova's Witness this weekend. He knocked on my door and before I could stop him he maliciously read a bible verse at me. I barely survived that close call. With the exception of the lunacy of walking around in 110 degree heat wearing sleeves and a tie, I thought he was a pretty nice guy. I'll certainly check them out and let you know if I think the JWs are doing anything unduly untoward.

The fact that they base their lives on irrational belief and are organised into a group gives them the possibility of heading off in the direction of evil
actions to support their belief.

What about little leaguers joining baseball teams and singing We Are the Champions when they clearly are not, should we be concerned about these people? The potential is there. I think you just have organiphobia.

History shows us that this has happened too many times in the past
to be dismissed.

History has also shown us too many times in the past how organized groups (religious or not) have done great things but apparantly not enough times to stop you from dismissing them.





If you however were to take a breakdown
and calculate what percentage of theists go to do good works
as compared to what percentage of atheists go to do good works

I believe you will find very little difference.

I doubt you can provide evidence for this so we'll just have to chalk this one up as irrational.




That may or may not be so
however I think I have made effectively 2 claims

1 that belief in a supernatural being is irrational

2 that religion is harmful

Yes, you've made them. Not effectively but the claims are made.


For example a doctor may believe he is the reincarnation of napoleon but
if he doesn't try to be napoleon and he simply thinks that but gets on with
his life as normal then its harmless,

If he tried to invade other countries then it would be a serious problem
and of course there is the whole range between those two points on the scale.

I loved this analogy. I don't think it fits but the thought of a doctor invading countries just struck me as hilarious. :D

Your pixie analogy doesn't work. If you were talking about one person who said magic pixies told them to burn things, you would be correct. However, millions of Christians, most of which have never met each other, from all over the world will attest they've had personal experiences with God.

And, millenia of people, from all over the world, have been 'meeting Little People'.

By your logic, Fairies must be real.... they are much better 'supported' than any one 'god'.

Indeed. How did this thread end up as a debate over the existence of God?
I would be surprised if a discussion on religion did NOT end up on the topic of the existence of god

Indeed. How did this thread end up as a debate over the existence of God?

In truth, it isn't so much a debate over the existence of God as a debate over whether or not a conclusion of such could be rational.

I doubt you can provide evidence for this so we'll just have to chalk this one up as irrational.

Relative Power has said some irrational things, but his assertion that the percentage of theists vs. the percentage of atheists that would do charity work is probably roughly equal is not irrational in the least. I doubt a specific study has been done on this subject, but there is no reason at all to believe any differently.

I would be surprised if a discussion on religion did NOT end up on the topic of the existence of god

Yeah, it's sad really. Eventually, it seems, debates on the existence of God end up as:

Believer: "Yuh-huh!"
Non-Believer: "Nuh-uh!"
Believer: "Yuh-huh!"
Non-Believer: "Nuh-uh!"
Believer: "Nuh-uh!"
Non-Believer: "Yuh-hu--- Dammit, you tricked me! You suck!"
Believer: "No, YOU suck!"
Non-Believer: "No, YOU suck!"

And so on, ad infinitum.

In truth, it isn't so much a debate over the existence of God as a debate over whether or not a conclusion of such could be rational.


Egh, it amounts to the same thing, really. This one's better than a lot I've been witness to, though.

Relative Power has said some irrational things, but his assertion that the percentage of theists vs. the percentage of atheists that would do charity work is probably roughly equal is not irrational in the least. I doubt a specific study has been done on this subject, but there is no reason at all to believe any differently.

Oh I agree, I was just using his own logic to make the determination.

Yeah, it's sad really. Eventually, it seems, debates on the existence of God end up as:

Believer: "Yuh-huh!"
Non-Believer: "Nuh-uh!"
Believer: "Yuh-huh!"
Non-Believer: "Nuh-uh!"
Believer: "Nuh-uh!"
Non-Believer: "Yuh-hu--- Dammit, you tricked me! You suck!"
Believer: "No, YOU suck!"
Non-Believer: "No, YOU suck!"

And so on, ad infinitum.

:eek: :D :D

Irrational != Illogical

Making an irrational statement in an argument just means that some of the explanation has been left out.

And, millenia of people, from all over the world, have been 'meeting Little People'.

By your logic, Fairies must be real.... they are much better 'supported' than any one 'god'.

you say that, but I've never met anyone who's said that. I don't even know anyone who's ever claimed they met someone who claimed that. I think this only happens in the UK and my short little 2 week stint over there was insufficient for me, personally, to make a determination. So, no, I don't think they are better supported than God.

I'm sorry for joining this thread so late, but I just thought my input might be of some interest.
In the last few years I, as I know many others have, had a question of faith and sought to find some solace with religion. I was brought up in a methodist family and as I came of age I began to reflect on the religion and decided that I wanted more from it. So I decided to try going to church more often, but I as I attended service I found myself wondering if, by going to only one church, I was restricting some clarity that I seemed to be lacking.
After going to various other churches I realised that in each one I was hearing almost completely different interpretations of one text.
I decided the only thing I could do was to read the bible and decide on my own interpretation, and lead my life as an individual and not share prayer with others. But this only made me realise the bible was not an account, but possibly no more than an interpretation in itself.

So, to answer the original question, I will say that Christianity is just an interpretation of the way Jesus believed life should be led in order to obtain erternal happiness.
But this brings the question down to whether the Bible was merely a set of rules on how to be a good person, or the real truths behind the meaning of life and death. I'm not sure if Christians really believe they will go to a real place when they die of it is just a metaphor they use to find some security.
Either way, I personally have resigned to atheism.

I am Jewish, and mostly agree with this statement about Christians.While the faith itself is also about spreading Christianity to non-Christians, I feel that in general, most Christians do not do this. I am quite happy about that, as I feel that it is wrong to try to force your religion upon others. As I said, the vast majority of Christians do not try to do this, which is good.

Actually the key point is preaching the Gospel; not (as some would) converting anyone in particular.

The original point was the preach the Gospel to the unconverted; and let God do the work, increasing the numbers...... Many in the present world seem to think that since that does not work good enough (in their minds) to increase the numbers (as they see fit); they take it on themselves to bring people in by either altering the message, making it more palatable; or by attempting to force conversion through civil operation.... Neither one is what this faith should be centered around.

you say that, but I've never met anyone who's said that. I don't even know anyone who's ever claimed they met someone who claimed that. I think this only happens in the UK and my short little 2 week stint over there was insufficient for me, personally, to make a determination. So, no, I don't think they are better supported than God.

Then, I'm afraid, you are preaching entirely from ignorance. Every (inhabited) continent has native 'fairy' tales, with surprising amounts of overlaps in the stories.

Australia has 'mimis', China has the 'hu hsien', Finland has 'Tomtra', France has 'Corrigan and Grimelin', Germany has 'Wichtlein, Nixies, and 'Weisse Frau', Iceland has 'illes, vardogls and fylgiars', India has 'devis' and 'nagas', Iran has 'Peri', Italy has 'Folletti' and 'Grandinilli', Japan has 'Kappa' and 'Tengu', Mexico has 'Jimaninos' and 'Zips', the Middle East has variants of 'Lilitu', 'Shideem', 'Shehireem', 'Ghulla', 'Afreet' and 'Mazikeen', The Netherlands have the 'Alven', Native Americans have a wealth: 'Mekumwasuck', 'Nagumwasuck', 'Kul', 'Bokwus'... and, of course, the most commonly known, the HUGE variety of English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish fairy folk: 'Ellyllon', 'Sluag', 'Shellycoats'... and hundreds of others... I can go on, if you wish.

Then, I'm afraid, you are preaching entirely from ignorance. Every (inhabited) continent has native 'fairy' tales, with surprising amounts of overlaps in the stories.

Australia has 'mimis', China has the 'hu hsien', Finland has 'Tomtra', France has 'Corrigan and Grimelin', Germany has 'Wichtlein, Nixies, and 'Weisse Frau', Iceland has 'illes, vardogls and fylgiars', India has 'devis' and 'nagas', Iran has 'Peri', Italy has 'Folletti' and 'Grandinilli', Japan has 'Kappa' and 'Tengu', Mexico has 'Jimaninos' and 'Zips', the Middle East has variants of 'Lilitu', 'Shideem', 'Shehireem', 'Ghulla', 'Afreet' and 'Mazikeen', The Netherlands have the 'Alven', Native Americans have a wealth: 'Mekumwasuck', 'Nagumwasuck', 'Kul', 'Bokwus'... and, of course, the most commonly known, the HUGE variety of English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish fairy folk: 'Ellyllon', 'Sluag', 'Shellycoats'... and hundreds of others... I can go on, if you wish.

no need, as I'm neither preaching nor denying the possibility. I'm not aware of any "little folk" in Texas lore. My point is, I've never met anyone who claims to know anyone who's claimed they've seen these people. This being said, I've never spent any time researching the idea and therefor will reserve judgement on the subject. I certainly won't start calling people who do claim this any names out of my admitted ignorance of the subject.

Actually the key point is preaching the Gospel; not (as some would) converting anyone in particular.

The original point was the preach the Gospel to the unconverted; and let God do the work, increasing the numbers...... Many in the present world seem to think that since that does not work good enough (in their minds) to increase the numbers (as they see fit); they take it on themselves to bring people in by either altering the message, making it more palatable; or by attempting to force conversion through civil operation.... Neither one is what this faith should be centered around.

Exactly! That has always been my stance on the subject. My belief is its my job to put the word out there, what happens after that is between God and the person who heard the word. I have no business, authority, or even talent for converting people.

Yeah, it's sad really. Eventually, it seems, debates on the existence of God end up as:

Believer: "Yuh-huh!"
Non-Believer: "Nuh-uh!"
Believer: "Yuh-huh!"
Non-Believer: "Nuh-uh!"
Believer: "Nuh-uh!"
Non-Believer: "Yuh-hu--- Dammit, you tricked me! You suck!"
Believer: "No, YOU suck!"
Non-Believer: "No, YOU suck!"

And so on, ad infinitum.


That is because, all too often, neither can understand that the other side is arguing from a completely different set of axioms, and that they must agree on some common ground in order to have a discussion.

To have a productive discussion, one must either be able to see the point of the other's axioms, or must be willing to argue from that point of view, even if they do not personally take those axioms. It isn't always easy to find such people.

no need, as I'm neither preaching nor denying the possibility. I'm not aware of any "little folk" in Texas lore. My point is, I've never met anyone who claims to know anyone who's claimed they've seen these people. This being said, I've never spent any time researching the idea and therefor will reserve judgement on the subject. I certainly won't start calling people who do claim this any names out of my admitted ignorance of the subject.

Did you not claim that 'fairy folk' were NOT better supported than any given 'god'? And yet, now, you admit that you actually know nothing about them?

I think I've shown that there are indeed native fairy tales from ALL around the globe, it certainly is NOT particular to any one locale... although the Celtic fairies seem to be the most well documented.

Regarding 'Texas' fairies... you perhaps fail to realise that Native American fairy stories are tribal... thus are common to a group of people, rather than any specific location. I did list four Native American 'fairy folk', and, in certain areas of the US (mainly the Cherokee areas of Tennessee, Carolina and Georgia) I could actually take you to 'fairy haunts'.

It is folly, my friend, to claim that one thing is more 'anything' than some other thing... when you are (by your own admission) entirely ignorant of the 'other' subject.

repackaged version of an older religion... :D

Did you not claim that 'fairy folk' were NOT better supported than any given 'god'? And yet, now, you admit that you actually know nothing about them?

I think I've shown that there are indeed native fairy tales from ALL around the globe, it certainly is NOT particular to any one locale... although the Celtic fairies seem to be the most well documented.

Regarding 'Texas' fairies... you perhaps fail to realise that Native American fairy stories are tribal... thus are common to a group of people, rather than any specific location. I did list four Native American 'fairy folk', and, in certain areas of the US (mainly the Cherokee areas of Tennessee, Carolina and Georgia) I could actually take you to 'fairy haunts'.

It is folly, my friend, to claim that one thing is more 'anything' than some other thing... when you are (by your own admission) entirely ignorant of the 'other' subject.

I stand by what I said. I have met many people in many cities, states, and countries who have had some personal experience with God and have shared said experience. I've never met a single soul who's claimed they've met a fairy. However, like I said, I wouldn't judge a person if I did come across one because I am admittedly ignorant of the subject. I've read many books that claim personal experiences with God, I've read letters, emails, and testimonies of all sorts of people who've had personal experiences with God. With the exception of fictional books (fiction by the author's standard mind you) I've never read or heard one single account of personal experience with fairies. Therefor, my conclusion is God is better documented. This, however, is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

I should have asked this question much earlier. To me it seems that a lot of you think Christianity is about gay-bashing and stopping people from having fun. What exactly do you think Christianity is corely about?


"Jesus said unto him, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.'"

Matthew 22:37-40.

That pretty much sums it up.

there was evidence and they presented it. It got everyone's attention and everyone believed it. The fact that it later turned out to possibly be inaccurate doesn't change that.



repeatedly saying everyone believed it serves no purpose except to make
me think perhaps you are trying to convince yourself that it was so.

everyone did not believe it

evidence previously given and plenty more freely available to be found online.
millions of ppl etc marching against the war before the war started
sec council completely unwilling to authorize the war because there
was not sufficient evidence to back up the claim
The previous un weapons inspectors saying they didn't believe he had any
The current (at the time, 2002/3) weapons inspectors saying they were
not finding any.
The complete about face between feb 2001 and november 2001
that the administration took without any change in any evidence
Colin Powell happily saying in february that containment had worked
and that Saddam did not have wmd or the ability to make them.

They were lying , they were quite clearly lying and very few people around
the world had any doubt but that they were intending to go to war and
that wmd was the excuse because any other reason would be illegal.
Even amongst people who supported the war there were plenty
who felt there was no reason to believe wmd existed.
In fact for them the fact there were no wmd meant it was a good time to invade.

You may have believed it
I'm even prepared to entertain the possibility that GW believed it
as he has the same contempt for evidence that you do
and is ooh what a surprise some kind of christian and therefore quite
used to thinking that irrationality is okay.

But then I think GW is not one of the brightest people on the planet
and if you told him Polo was going to attack the US he would talk
up getting Polo before it could do harm to americans in their own country.
Who knows what would have happened if he had been president in the 60's
the british invasion, beatles etc , could have ended up very badly for Britain.

I have no doubt that the people who fed him this junk however knew exactly
what they were doing and that there were no wmd in iraq in 2002
nor any means to produce them.


What evidence can you possibly have that someone in the past loved someone else? For that matter, what evidence is there it happens today?



in the past obviously not too much except what was the reports
so not necessarily reliable
in the present I've seen people give up their lifes work to tend 24/7
for people they love
There was no benefit to them in any way in doing it
didnt make them richer and given that the situations I am talking about
specifically has been alzheimers in the other person
the other person didnt even know who the heck they were.




History has also shown us too many times in the past how organized groups (religious or not) have done great things but apparantly not enough times to stop you from dismissing them.


Nope that is my point, religion is one of those sets of organized groups
just like the nazis and soviet communists.

Communist principles are also not evil and wrong but for some reason
when you get a load of people all pulling for them then everyone else
gets the sharp end.

I don't expect people to think they ought to be respected for joining up
to a nazi party or any offshoot of the nazi party
and ditto fail to see why christians should think they should be respected
for declaring their allegiance to something that has brought death and torture
and incarceration and misery to many people throughout the last 2 millenia.


And you are right about the percentage breakdown of whether
religious people are more likely to help others or not
I don't have a study and I don't have figures and thereby may be wrong

But I do know people who have been involved in these things and some of them have been religious and some of them have been atheists.
So unless figures demonstrate otherwise I have no reason to think
that religious people are any more or less likely to go and help people in dire need than atheists.
Which makes me think perhaps it has nothing to do with belief in god.
I suppose however I should have phrased it other than as belief.
So let us just say that I suspect it may be so.


The argument with the term irrational to describe religious belief
seems to be based on the definition of the word evidence.
I state that unless it can be shown to someone else it is not evidence.

Your definition of it seems to be personal experience which while you admit
it can be unreliable such as people under the influence of drugs or whatever,
you still think carries some meaning.

If there is no evidence given there is nothing to be disproven.
That is not the same as people not being able to disprove something.

To disprove a theory it has to exist, some form of evidence, which leads
at least to a hypothesis.

I will point out once again the definition of irrational
Irrational. That which lies beyond the bounds of what can be comprehended, explained, justified or rejected by human reasoning and science.
Irrational does not mean incorrect or impractical reasoning, but the total absence of any reasoning.

Reason cannot lead to belief in a god as reason does require evidence.
You are already quite happy to state that science will not lead
to proving god either.

One of the big things about this supernatural creator of yours is that
he cannot be comprehended or explained.


I don't know you but as a general rule
people are primed in their youth to be believers
normally but not always before they reach the age of reason
and they become christian rather than a moslem, jew or hindu
as an accident of birth that put them in the time and place they grew up in rather than in India, Iran or Israel.

Sometimes they will reject the original religion but feel the need to have one
and so may join another either mainstream or smalltime cult.

If it was about anything other than the irrational belief you share you just might
consider it brainwashing or programming and like me consider it abhorrent.

ps for the person who brought it up
You can travel to every state in the union and every country in the world
and find people who have psychosomatic illnesses too it doesn't make it real.

Which also btw means they have their own personal evidence that
they experience of feeling unwell.

in the past obviously not too much except what was the reports so not necessarily reliable in the present I've seen people give up their lifes work to tend 24/7 for people they love There was no benefit to them in any way in doing it didnt make them richer and given that the situations I am talking about specifically has been alzheimers in the other person the other person didnt even know who the heck they were.

Have you ever heard of co-dependency? Are you aware that some people derive pleasure for themselves out of helping others? Are you aware that some people do things out of what they perceive as duty, rather than an emotional attachment?

Again, all you have to believe that any of these people loved the other is their word for it. You don't know for sure, as you don't feel what they felt.

Nope that is my point, religion is one of those sets of organized groups
just like the nazis and soviet communists.

Religion can hardly be said to be an organized group. Depending on which one you are talking about, a specific religion might be, but does not have to be.

But I do know people who have been involved in these things and some of them have been religious and some of them have been atheists.
So unless figures demonstrate otherwise I have no reason to think
that religious people are any more or less likely to go and help people in dire need than atheists.
Which makes me think perhaps it has nothing to do with belief in god.

You know, this could be completely rephrased:

But I do know that, in history, people have been involved in evil actions that were related to religion and evil actions that were not related to religion. So unless figures demonstrate otherwise, I have no reason to think that religious people are any more or less likely to commit evil actions than atheists. Which makes me think perhaps it has nothing to do with a belief in God.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

The argument with the term irrational to describe religious belief seems to be based on the definition of the word evidence. I state that unless it can be shown to someone else it is not evidence.

And yet you conceded that someone who was hit by a car, but was unharmed and thus had no evidence would be rational in beleiving that they were hit by a car. They must at least admit the possibility that they were not hit, you said, but it would be rational to believe that it had occurred, as they had witnessed it. In other words, they had evidence that they could not show to others, but it was perfectly rational for them to use that evidence in their own perception of events.

The same goes for those who saw the believed-to-be-extinct woodpecker. They did not have evidence that they could show others, at least not that would convince them. However, they knew what they had seen. Thus, they had evidence, just not evidence that could be shown to others.

If someone walks up to me in a deserted field and says, "I'm going to kill you," that is evidence to me that they have intentions of harming me. I cannot show that evidence to someone else (unless I start carrying a high-definition tape recorder everywhere I go), but it is evidence nonetheless.

Your definition of it seems to be personal experience which while you admit it can be unreliable such as people under the influence of drugs or whatever, you still think carries some meaning.

This wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyways. What I said was that, all evidence must be taken into account along with personal experience. If one has a reason to believe that they were under the influence of drugs or whatever, then one must take that into account when determining whether or not their recollection of personal experiences is accurate. However, if one has no reason to believe that they were hallucinating, or chemically imbalanced, etc, then personal experience is perfectly good evidence to that person.

Take, for example, an experiment in the lab. If I go through an experiment and my results seem unusual, I will look for possible areas in which I might have improperly done the experiment. I will check the chemicals I was using for possible contaminants or inactivation. I will check the protocol I followed to be sure that it was proper. If I find something that could have altered my results improperly, I must view those results with suspicion. However, if I find nothing at all wrong with the methodology, then the results stand.

To disprove a theory it has to exist, some form of evidence, which leads at least to a hypothesis.

You are talking in the realm of science again. Science is a good way to look at certain types of data, but is hardly the only way to discuss the world.

I will point out once again the definition of irrational
Irrational. That which lies beyond the bounds of what can be comprehended, explained, justified or rejected by human reasoning and science. Irrational does not mean incorrect or impractical reasoning, but the total absence of any reasoning.

You can point that out all you like. You still have yet to demonstrate how a person's personal experiences cannot be comprehended, explained, justified, or rejected by human reasoning. You also have yet to support your assertion that the scientific method is the only rational method of investigation.

Meanwhile, you keep talking about the total absence of any reasoning, when I have repeatedly pointed out how reasoning is a part of the process. Thus, your definition does not hold in this instance.

One of the big things about this supernatural creator of yours is that he cannot be comprehended or explained.

The creator may not be able to be fully comprehended or explained, but its existence can.

I don't know you but as a general rule people are primed in their youth to be believers normally but not always before they reach the age of reason
and they become christian rather than a moslem, jew or hindu as an accident of birth that put them in the time and place they grew up in rather than in India, Iran or Israel.

Sometimes they will reject the original religion but feel the need to have one
and so may join another either mainstream or smalltime cult.

Sometimes they will investigate many different religions, and even the absence of religion, pondering all choices and, through reason, coming upon the one which best fits all the evidence they have in front of them.

I guess after all that
what I am saying is that religion - in this case christianity

Is the human equivelant of the computer viruses referred to as trojans.

It is spread to vulnerable systems to sit there more or less quiescent
except for continuing to try to spread until the day the owner
be it pope, minister or whatever title wants to use them for some task.

But just like trojans, some variants are poorly written and harm
the host while installing or cause harm by being installed.

They also make their hosts vulnerable to further infection by other viruses
and just like some trojans can clean out the hosts bank account.

It can be argued that they could be used for good works
but it would definitely take someone irrational to know they have
a trojan and not want it gone or to leave their system vulnerable
to infection.

I guess after all that what I am saying is that religion - in this case christianity

Is the human equivelant of the computer viruses referred to as trojans.

It is spread to vulnerable systems to sit there more or less quiescent except for continuing to try to spread until the day the owner be it pope, minister or whatever title wants to use them for some task.

The idea that any human being owns Christianity, the pope included, is ludicrous.

Meanwhile, your example only works if people are mindlessly following a pope, minister, title of some sort, whatever. A human being does not have to mindlessly follow another human being in order to form their own views on religion. Some do that - and it is a dangerous situation - one that many of us who are religious try to combat as well. However, many of us don't bow to any human being, as no human being can determine these things any better than we can.

The idea that any human being owns Christianity, the pope included, is ludicrous.

Meanwhile, your example only works if people are mindlessly following a pope, minister, title of some sort, whatever. A human being does not have to mindlessly follow another human being in order to form their own views on religion. Some do that - and it is a dangerous situation - one that many of us who are religious try to combat as well. However, many of us don't bow to any human being, as no human being can determine these things any better than we can.


Thats right there have been no instances of christians being mobilized
by a leader whether pope or just senior ministers of any kind
There is nothing called the christian right
and people cannot be brought together to fight off things that
christian leaders think are anti christian like abortion.

Or to support people who are viewed as being more in tune
with christianity than another candidate.

It does not happen
it cannot happen

I was a fool to even suggest it.

I completely and utterly recant.

Thats right there have been no instances of hristians being mobilized by a leader whether pope or just senior ministers of any kind
There is nothing called the christian right and people cannot be brought together to fight off things that christian leaders think are anti christian like abortion.

Or to support people who are viewed as being more in tune with christianity than another candidate.

It does not happen it cannot happen

I was a fool to even suggest it.

I completely and utterly recant.

You better watch out. Your utter irrationality is showing.

I never said any of these things.

In fact, I quite clearly said that these things do happen, that they happen when people mindlessly follow religious (or any, for that matter) leaders instead of thinking for themselves, and that I see them as just as much of a problem as you. The difference is that I am rational enough to see that they don't have to happen, and are a product of people putting faith in other human beings, not a product of religion itself.

Congratulations on demonstrating that your bias is so strong that you can't even see when someone is agreeing with you.

You better watch out. Your utter irrationality is showing.

I never said any of these things.

In fact, I quite clearly said that these things do happen, that they happen when people mindlessly follow religious (or any, for that matter) leaders instead of thinking for themselves, and that I see them as just as much of a problem as you. The difference is that I am rational enough to see that they don't have to happen, and are a product of people putting faith in other human beings, not a product of religion itself.

Congratulations on demonstrating that your bias is so strong that you can't even see when someone is agreeing with you.


Some do isn't agreeing with me its implying most don't

Whereas the situation is more that most do but some don't
and to stick with the virus metaphor
some get onto computers but for one reason or another to do not respond
to the commands of the owner.

I still stick with the argument that belief in god is irrational
so mindless followers is what you normally get.

You do need to realise that from an atheists point of view
religion is a product or creation of people.

You didn't come to your conclusion there is a god and you will worship
him in your own individual way out of the blue.
It's not like you grew up never hearing or coming into contact with anyone
who spoke about religion.
In the complete absence of "having heard about god or religion"
never having seen a bible, never having so much as spoken the pledge
of allegiance, you didn't through any process of logic and observation
conclude there must be a god.
You got infected by others.
Now yours while still being irrational may not lead you to slavishly follow
the orders of a leader but thems the breaks sometimes it doesn't work
as intended.

Some do isn't agreeing with me its implying most don't

No, it isn't. It is implying that some do and some do not. I have implied nothing about their relative frequency, although I would say that the increasing numbers of people who no longer affiliate themselves with any given religious institution, despite being religious themselves, would point the the idea that the percentage of those who do not mindlessly follow a leader is growing in reference to those who do.

I still stick with the argument that belief in god is irrational so mindless followers is what you normally get.

You can stick with that argument all you want, but you have no more evidence for it than I have for the existence of God. All you have thus far provided is, "Religion is irrational because rational people don't trust their own senses." Of course, science itself, and rational thinking are completely based in the assumption that we can trust that which we discover with our senses.

You do need to realise that from an atheists point of view religion is a product or creation of people.

I fully realize that. However, that doesn't make it automatically harmful any more than the fact that Harry Potter is a creation of a person does.

Meanwhile, if you expect me to see something from the point of view of an atheist, you must be willing to return the favor and attempt to see things from my point of view. Thus far, you have been utterly unwilling to do so and so steeped in your own bias that all you can do is rant and rail against those who use religion to commit evil actions, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of religious people never commit such actions.

You didn't come to your conclusion there is a god and you will worship him in your own individual way out of the blue.

One should never come to any conlclusion "out of the blue". That would truly be irrational.

It's not like you grew up never hearing or coming into contact with anyone who spoke about religion.[/qutoe]

And it's not like I grew up never hearing or coming into contact with anyone who didn't speak about religion, or who spoke about it in a derisive manner. Human beings don't live in a vacuum, my dear.

[quote]In the complete absence of "having heard about god or religion" never having seen a bible, never having so much as spoken the pledge of allegiance, you didn't through any process of logic and observation conclude there must be a god.

No, I didn't. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't have, even had I never heard anyone else talk about it. I guess that is something we can't really know, now can we? Of course, I didn't come to that conclusion without hearing people who said that there was no God, that the Bible was bunk, and that we should alter the pledge of allegiance back to its original form (something I agree with btw). I heard both sides, examined the evidence, and came to my own conclusion.

Now yours while still being irrational may not lead you to slavishly follow the orders of a leader but thems the breaks sometimes it doesn't work
as intended.

You still have yet to back up this "irrational" statement with anything remotely close to reality. You have made up your own definitions for words - adding qualifiers that do not exist in commonly used English words, but you haven't backed it up within the confines of the accepted definitions.

Meanwhile, I don't follow the orders of a leader because, if there is a human leader for my religion, it is me. The same goes for many of us out there - those who go about their religion in a rational manner. Yes, there are those who create a religious system so that they can have power over others - and there are those who will submit to that power. However, the existence of the rest of us clearly demonstrates that religion does not equate to those things. They are simply a possibility involved in religion, as they are involved with any human endeavor.

You know, this could be completely rephrased:

But I do know that, in history, people have been involved in evil actions that were related to religion and evil actions that were not related to religion. So unless figures demonstrate otherwise, I have no reason to think that religious people are any more or less likely to commit even actions than atheists. Which makes me think perhaps it has nothing to do with a belief in God.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!


Can I profess my love for you now? :eek:

You can stick with that argument all you want, but you have no more evidence for it than I have for the existence of God. All you have thus far provided is, "Religion is irrational because rational people don't trust their own senses." Of course, science itself, and rational thinking are completely based in the assumption that we can trust that which we discover with our senses.
Me too. ;)

(Refering to the prior post, of course.)

And it's not like I grew up never hearing or coming into contact with anyone who didn't speak about religion, or who spoke about it in a derisive manner. Human beings don't live in a vacuum, my dear.
[quote]

rather like being exposed to the virus and also not exposed to the virus
equal opportunity there

[quote]
No, I didn't. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't have, even had I never heard anyone else talk about it. I guess that is something we can't really know, now can we? Of course, I didn't come to that conclusion without hearing people who said that there was no God, that the Bible was bunk, and that we should alter the pledge of allegiance back to its original form (something I agree with btw). I heard both sides, examined the evidence, and came to my own conclusion.

So without evidence lying around to be found
without logic and without reason
you think you still might have become a christian even if you never knew
it existed.
Well anything is possible, even if incredibly unlikely.


You still have yet to back up this "irrational" statement with anything remotely close to reality. You have made up your own definitions for words - adding qualifiers that do not exist in commonly used English words, but you haven't backed it up within the confines of the accepted definitions.


it has not been my definition of the word but it was a nice complete one
admittedly like any word you can find different places defining it slightly
differently = the one I've been using I have taken from
http://www.mises.org/easier/I.asp

would you prefer this one from english-test.net
Definition of irrational (adjective forms: more irrational; most irrational; less irrational; least irrational)
unreasonable; illogical; groundless

or this one from answers.com

Not endowed with reason.

Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike

or this one from allwords.com

irrational
unreasonable.

As opposed to rational
Consistent with or based on reason; logical

And while you can indeed base a chain of reasoning on an unproven
assumption, if you cannot in some way test that original assumption
then it is irrational.

As with ID you can claim certain complex forms could only be created
by a designer but if you cannot prove a designer then it is pointless
even discussing it.


It has been claimed in this thread that god exists outside of the universe
and his existence cannot be proven.
Some even think that makes a strong argument as it also cannot be disproven.

I am well aware that people can believe in things without having
or understanding evidence.
I am well aware that people can arrive at a conclusion without following
a logical train of reasoning.
It can be seen that people do so on a daily basis.
But those conclusions and beliefs are irrational.

Some of them may even be right as may or may not be discovered
by people approaching the subject rationally and logically evaluating
evidence.
But even if they were right their belief without evidence without logic or reason will still have been irrational


Meanwhile, I don't follow the orders of a leader because, if there is a human leader for my religion, it is me. The same goes for many of us out there - those who go about their religion in a rational manner. Yes, there are those who create a religious system so that they can have power over others - and there are those who will submit to that power. However, the existence of the rest of us clearly demonstrates that religion does not equate to those things. They are simply a possibility involved in religion, as they are involved with any human endeavor.

You never do say from where you get this idea that there are many
who have a belief that do not belong to a religious organisation with
one or many "leaders"

The catholic church for one claims millions upon millions of followers.
Even the looser protestant organisations can muster quite a few themselves
when they choose to and in the states they do seem to do so for elections
at least.

Religion as practiced by one person alone without reference to any other
person and assuming that one person does not attempt to pass it on
to others is relatively harmless.
Unfortunately that is not the history of christianity.

Soviet communism did not have to be a bad thing.
Hitler's could conceivably had his nazis doing good works.

So it is nice that you are such a nice person who won't be led astray
by religious leaders.
Perhaps someday christianity will be about individuals with a personal relationship with their god who don't band together into groups and churches etc. But that is not the situation today and it isn't a valid description
of christianity over the last 2000 years.
It is also not what was intended by the people who selected which gospels
to include in the bible and which to leave out who very much did intend
for it to be about a mass of people in a hierarchical system who would
do what they were told.

Can I profess my love for you now? :eek:

But of course. =) (I won't tell my boyfriend).

Me too.

I'm just racking up the professions of love today. Boosts my self-esteem. =)

So without evidence lying around to be found without logic and without reason you think you still might have become a christian even if you never knew it existed.
Well anything is possible, even if incredibly unlikely.

Become a Christian? Probably not. One would have to have access to the teachings of Christ to become a Christian. Become a theist? I very well might have become a theist without any more evidence than that which I have received personally, even if no one had ever discussed God with me. That conclusion would not have been reached without logic and reason, however, any more than the conclusion was reached without those things with all the evidence.

it has not been my definition of the word but it was a nice complete one
admittedly like any word you can find different places defining it slightly
differently = the one I've been using I have taken from
http://www.mises.org/easier/I.asp

Doesn't look like a credible source on the English language to me.

*snip a bunch of definition that simply make my point for me*

All of those are close to the actual definition, yes, without the needless additions and qualifiers added in by the first site.

And none of them describe the way I have come to my religious conclusions. Thus, none of them apply.

And while you can indeed base a chain of reasoning on an unproven
assumption, if you cannot in some way test that original assumption
then it is irrational.

The only assumption I have made is that my own perceptions are accurate. Considering that I have never found anything that I have discovered with said perceptions to be inaccurate, or been provided with any evidence that they are inaccurate, it seems like a pretty rational assumption to make.

As with ID you can claim certain complex forms could only be created
by a designer but if you cannot prove a designer then it is pointless
even discussing it.

Within the scientific method, you are correct. (Of course, the scientific method can never prove anything anyways, it can only disprove. Thus, the correct thing would be to say that, since it is logically impossible to disprove a designer, then a designer cannot be assumed within science).

I am well aware that people can believe in things without having
or understanding evidence.
I am well aware that people can arrive at a conclusion without following
a logical train of reasoning.
It can be seen that people do so on a daily basis.
But those conclusions and beliefs are irrational.

I am well aware that this occurs as well. What you have yet to demonstrate is that any of this applies to all theists. You have made the assumption that they do not have evidence you do not have, and thus made the assumption that they are irrational. However, your first assumption is completely unfounded.

You never do say from where you get this idea that there are many
who have a belief that do not belong to a religious organisation with
one or many "leaders"

(a) My own experience.

(b) Religiosity studies clearly demonstrating that more and more people are identifying themselves as theists, or even as religious, without identifying themselves with any particular group of the same.

The catholic church for one claims millions upon millions of followers.
Even the looser protestant organisations can muster quite a few themselves
when they choose to and in the states they do seem to do so for elections
at least.

Yes, but the vast majority of those followers would not do just anything that the church hierarchy told them to. Most of them disagree with their churches on some, if not many counts. Thus, while they may be followers, they are not mindless followers. You generally find them within the ranks of the more fundamentalist sects.

So it is nice that you are such a nice person who won't be led astray
by religious leaders.

As are quite a few of my peers.

Perhaps someday christianity will be about individuals with a personal relationship with their god who don't band together into groups and churches etc. But that is not the situation today and it isn't a valid description
of christianity over the last 2000 years.

First of all, banding together into churches does not necessarily mean that you will do anything the leadership of that church asks.

Secondly, it is a valid description of *some* of Christianity from its very inception. Not everyone has been leaders of the church, and not everyone has blindly followed said leaders.

Meanwhile, this is perhaps what Christianity was always meant to be about, but many people abused it. Many people have abused all sorts of ideas over the years, it hardly means that the ideas themselves are harmful.

It is also not what was intended by the people who selected which gospels to include in the bible and which to leave out who very much did intend for it to be about a mass of people in a hierarchical system who would
do what they were told.

So? You are telling me that a bunch of people who wanted power tried to ensure that they kept that power? Congratulations! You just described a part of human nature.

Ah you can tell him, I won't try and steal you away. I'll just stand here with large cartoon hearts coming from my chest.

I stand by what I said. I have met many people in many cities, states, and countries who have had some personal experience with God and have shared said experience. I've never met a single soul who's claimed they've met a fairy. However, like I said, I wouldn't judge a person if I did come across one because I am admittedly ignorant of the subject. I've read many books that claim personal experiences with God, I've read letters, emails, and testimonies of all sorts of people who've had personal experiences with God. With the exception of fictional books (fiction by the author's standard mind you) I've never read or heard one single account of personal experience with fairies. Therefor, my conclusion is God is better documented. This, however, is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

I could point out, of course, that you actively seek out Christian confirmations, and have ignored the wealth of evidence for fairy-folk.

It's hard to even pretend, with a straight face, to have found more evidence for one thing... when you haven't even looked for any others...

It's hard to even pretend, with a straight face, to have found more evidence for one thing... when you haven't even looked for any others...
That's very true.

I could point out, of course, that you actively seek out Christian confirmations, and have ignored the wealth of evidence for fairy-folk.

It's hard to even pretend, with a straight face, to have found more evidence for one thing... when you haven't even looked for any others...

I can, however, point out that a lot of the evidence found me without me actively looking. The same isn't true about fairies.

The third thing that you need to know is that you were planned for God's pleasure. Now that is TRULY silly. Pleasure is a temporary state. Happiness is permenant. God is not in the business of temporary stuff.

"This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."

I can, however, point out that a lot of the evidence found me without me actively looking. The same isn't true about fairies.

And what did you find without looking?

Testimonies at church? You go to a dedicated Christian building... some MIGHT say that is active.

Testimonies on the Christian network? Again... how do you define 'active'?

Testimonies in Christian literature... same thing.

How much effort have you put into seeking testimony of fairies? Can you HONESTLY say that you spend the same amount of time actively pursuing goals that MIGHT lead to Christian 'evidence' as you do for the Kindly Ones?

And what did you find without looking?

Testimonies at church? You go to a dedicated Christian building... some MIGHT say that is active.

Testimonies on the Christian network? Again... how do you define 'active'?

Testimonies in Christian literature... same thing.

How much effort have you put into seeking testimony of fairies? Can you HONESTLY say that you spend the same amount of time actively pursuing goals that MIGHT lead to Christian 'evidence' as you do for the Kindly Ones?

alright, let me give you an example because obviously we're hopelessly stuck on this tangent. I visit this forum. I read quite a lot of topics on this forum and I respond to several. This forum, is quite a lot like another forum I visit frequently. This is not a religious forum and neither is the other. The other, in case you ask, is a Pink Floyd fan site forum. On both of these forums, I see thread after thread, post after post about religion. Over the last couple years I've seen thousands of them. I was not actively seeking Christian evidence the day I searched Pink Floyd on google. I wasn't seeking Christian evidence when I signed up on NationStates either. And yet, I'm seeing testimonies galore. Yes I spend a lot of time actively pursuing goals that MIGHT lead to Christian evidence but I also pursue OTHER goals that sometimes STILL lead to Christian evidence. All this being said, I can honestly say that THIS is the very first time I've ever been approached or even SEEN a thread on fairies on either forum.

alright, let me give you an example because obviously we're hopelessly stuck on this tangent. I visit this forum. I read quite a lot of topics on this forum and I respond to several. This forum, is quite a lot like another forum I visit frequently. This is not a religious forum and neither is the other. The other, in case you ask, is a Pink Floyd fan site forum. On both of these forums, I see thread after thread, post after post about religion. Over the last couple years I've seen thousands of them. I was not actively seeking Christian evidence the day I searched Pink Floyd on google. I wasn't seeking Christian evidence when I signed up on NationStates either. And yet, I'm seeing testimonies galore. Yes I spend a lot of time actively pursuing goals that MIGHT lead to Christian evidence but I also pursue OTHER goals that sometimes STILL lead to Christian evidence. All this being said, I can honestly say that THIS is the very first time I've ever been approached or even SEEN a thread on fairies on either forum.

Because Nationstates roleplaying forums, and the Pink Floyd forums are representative of an accurate cross-section of the populace?

Because the Internet is the perfect balance of persons of differing beliefs?

Maybe it COULD be because Christians insist on evangelising, while the researchers of fairies don't feel the need to force THEIR evidence into other's faces?

Perhaps you should allow for the fact that, even if the internet DOES lean towards Christianity... it is new. The fairy folk are documented consistently from around the world, for several thousand years.

Because Nationstates roleplaying forums, and the Pink Floyd forums are representative of an accurate cross-section of the populace?

Because the Internet is the perfect balance of persons of differing beliefs?

Maybe it COULD be because Christians insist on evangelising, while the researchers of fairies don't feel the need to force THEIR evidence into other's faces?

Perhaps you should allow for the fact that, even if the internet DOES lean towards Christianity... it is new. The fairy folk are documented consistently from around the world, for several thousand years.

I really don't quite remember what you and I are debating or why. Did I say anything about roleplaying forums and Pink Floyd forums representing accurate cross-sections of the populace? I was giving you an example of my point. What exactly are you trying to prove me wrong on? The internet is new. Yes I agree. Christians evangelise. Yes I agree. Fairy researchers (if there are such persons) don't force their evidence on people, obviously I agree because that's been my whole point ever since you brought it up. Fairy stories have documented for several thousand years. Ok, I'll take your word on that, I don't dispute it. What "facts" am I not allowing? What certainty do you believe I'm attempting to push here and why are you so dead set on defending against it? I haven't once tried to judge anyone on their habits of fairy worship. I havn't once claimed they don't exist. I havn't once shown disdain of any sort for anyone who might believe in fairies from anywhere in the world. What exactly are we debating?

I really don't quite remember what you and I are debating or why. Did I say anything about roleplaying forums and Pink Floyd forums representing accurate cross-sections of the populace? I was giving you an example of my point. What exactly are you trying to prove me wrong on? The internet is new. Yes I agree. Christians evangelise. Yes I agree. Fairy researchers (if there are such persons) don't force their evidence on people, obviously I agree because that's been my whole point ever since you brought it up. Fairy stories have documented for several thousand years. Ok, I'll take your word on that, I don't dispute it. What "facts" am I not allowing? What certainty do you believe I'm attempting to push here and why are you so dead set on defending against it? I haven't once tried to judge anyone on their habits of fairy worship. I havn't once claimed they don't exist. I havn't once shown disdain of any sort for anyone who might believe in fairies from anywhere in the world. What exactly are we debating?

As I recall:

Bottle, and yourself were debating the rationality of believing in the Christian God, as opposed to, for example, magic pixies.

You posted the following rebuttal: "Your pixie analogy doesn't work. If you were talking about one person who said magic pixies told them to burn things, you would be correct. However, millions of Christians, most of which have never met each other, from all over the world will attest they've had personal experiences with God".

Thereby implying that, independent witnesses, in large numbers, over a broad area, carried some kind of significance. i.e. that ‘God’ is more ‘real’ than magic pixies, effectively, because he is popular.

My response: "And, millenia of people, from all over the world, have been 'meeting Little People'... By your logic, Fairies must be real.... they are much better 'supported' than any one 'god'."

Because, if the argument of widespread, multiple witnesses is some assurance of reality, Fairies are arguable better represented than any ONE god.

From there, you proceeded to argue that fairies were NOT better documented than ’God’… and the basis of your argument was ignorance… i.e. YOU hadn’t heard anything about it…

The side-topic is reference to some sort of assertion that God was not comparable to some abberant thought, because he is too well documented. If that IS the case, then fairies are arguably even MORE likely to be real than 'god', because of their well-recorded history.

As I recall:

Bottle, and yourself were debating the rationality of believing in the Christian God, as opposed to, for example, magic pixies.

You posted the following rebuttal: "Your pixie analogy doesn't work. If you were talking about one person who said magic pixies told them to burn things, you would be correct. However, millions of Christians, most of which have never met each other, from all over the world will attest they've had personal experiences with God".

Thereby implying that, independent witnesses, in large numbers, over a broad area, carried some kind of significance. i.e. that ‘God’ is more ‘real’ than magic pixies, effectively, because he is popular.

Ok hold on, that was not my implication. my rebuttal was if one single person (because his analogy gave one single person) said something like this, then it would be reasonable to assume (not certain but reasonable) that you could discount it. Independent witnesses in large numbers, over a broad area, DOES carry some kind of significance. I never made an assertion that God is more real than magic pixies (for the record I believe He is but I am not arguing that at this point). Popularity has nothing to do with it. If millions of Pixians from all over the globe starting talking about personal experience with Magic pixies all of a sudden, I'd be willing to listen and to attempt to check it out for myself. You seem to think I'm arguing God vs. Pixies. I'm not. My point was one independant witness vs. millions of independant witnesses. So you say they've been documented for thousands of years. Ok so I stand corrected there. I still have never heard anyone say they've seen one. Have you?

My response: "And, millenia of people, from all over the world, have been 'meeting Little People'... By your logic, Fairies must be real.... they are much better 'supported' than any one 'god'."

Because, if the argument of widespread, multiple witnesses is some assurance of reality, Fairies are arguable better represented than any ONE god.

From there, you proceeded to argue that fairies were NOT better documented than ’God’… and the basis of your argument was ignorance… i.e. YOU hadn’t heard anything about it…

The side-topic is reference to some sort of assertion that God was not comparable to some abberant thought, because he is too well documented. If that IS the case, then fairies are arguably even MORE likely to be real than 'god', because of their well-recorded history.

I claim ignorance on fairy history yes. God has been documented for thousands of years as well all over the world. How are pixies better represented? Is that the debate? Which is better documented? Is this the technicality you're trying to catch me on? I'd be willing to bet the Bible has sold more and has been read more than any book about any fairy. I have no proof, but if there was a bet, I'd take it. I don't know what else you want from me.

As I recall:

Bottle, and yourself were debating the rationality of believing in the Christian God, as opposed to, for example, magic pixies.

You posted the following rebuttal: "Your pixie analogy doesn't work. If you were talking about one person who said magic pixies told them to burn things, you would be correct. However, millions of Christians, most of which have never met each other, from all over the world will attest they've had personal experiences with God".

Thereby implying that, independent witnesses, in large numbers, over a broad area, carried some kind of significance. i.e. that ‘God’ is more ‘real’ than magic pixies, effectively, because he is popular.

My response: "And, millenia of people, from all over the world, have been 'meeting Little People'... By your logic, Fairies must be real.... they are much better 'supported' than any one 'god'."

Because, if the argument of widespread, multiple witnesses is some assurance of reality, Fairies are arguable better represented than any ONE god.

From there, you proceeded to argue that fairies were NOT better documented than ’God’… and the basis of your argument was ignorance… i.e. YOU hadn’t heard anything about it…

The side-topic is reference to some sort of assertion that God was not comparable to some abberant thought, because he is too well documented. If that IS the case, then fairies are arguably even MORE likely to be real than 'god', because of their well-recorded history.

Unfortunately, your logic is flawed a bit here, Grave.

Yes, there may be (although I wouldn't be sure) more evidence of people believing in "little people" than there are of people believing in any one god. Of course, you are comparing all of the possible variations of "little people" to a single god, when a more adequate comparison would be to compare belief in a single version of "little people" to a single version of god, or all versions of "little people" to all versions of god.

At that point, you couldn't logically argue that faeries are better documented than the existence of some sort of deity. Just as civilizations throughout history have made reference to faeries of sorts, civilizations throughout history have made reference to gods of sorts.

Unfortunately, your logic is flawed a bit here, Grave.

Yes, there may be (although I wouldn't be sure) more evidence of people believing in "little people" than there are of people believing in any one god. Of course, you are comparing all of the possible variations of "little people" to a single god, when a more adequate comparison would be to compare belief in a single version of "little people" to a single version of god, or all versions of "little people" to all versions of god.

At that point, you couldn't logically argue that faeries are better documented than the existence of some sort of deity. Just as civilizations throughout history have made reference to faeries of sorts, civilizations throughout history have made reference to gods of sorts.

also a good point

Unfortunately, your logic is flawed a bit here, Grave.

Yes, there may be (although I wouldn't be sure) more evidence of people believing in "little people" than there are of people believing in any one god. Of course, you are comparing all of the possible variations of "little people" to a single god, when a more adequate comparison would be to compare belief in a single version of "little people" to a single version of god, or all versions of "little people" to all versions of god.

At that point, you couldn't logically argue that faeries are better documented than the existence of some sort of deity. Just as civilizations throughout history have made reference to faeries of sorts, civilizations throughout history have made reference to gods of sorts.

No - the whole point was that, if multiple witnesses, and multiple recordings are some kind of assurance of truth, then fairies are arguably better represented than any ONE god. I am aware that MOST cultures have ALSO had 'god' myths... but the other poster seems to be using multiple references as weighted proof of the reality of the CHRISTIAN god.

By that token - fairies must have the same weighting, or greater, because of the strength of documentary evidence, over such a prolonged duration.

I'm not arguing ALL fairies versus ALL gods - because 'all gods' wasn't presented as the well supported concept... just one. Add to that, of course, some of the fairy folk have ALSO been worshipped as gods, or godlike beings (like the Japanese Myoo, or the figures of Badb, Macha and Morrigan in Celtic lore).

Ok hold on, that was not my implication. my rebuttal was if one single person (because his analogy gave one single person) said something like this, then it would be reasonable to assume (not certain but reasonable) that you could discount it. Independent witnesses in large numbers, over a broad area, DOES carry some kind of significance. I never made an assertion that God is more real than magic pixies (for the record I believe He is but I am not arguing that at this point). Popularity has nothing to do with it. If millions of Pixians from all over the globe starting talking about personal experience with Magic pixies all of a sudden, I'd be willing to listen and to attempt to check it out for myself. You seem to think I'm arguing God vs. Pixies. I'm not. My point was one independant witness vs. millions of independant witnesses. So you say they've been documented for thousands of years. Ok so I stand corrected there. I still have never heard anyone say they've seen one. Have you?

I claim ignorance on fairy history yes. God has been documented for thousands of years as well all over the world. How are pixies better represented? Is that the debate? Which is better documented? Is this the technicality you're trying to catch me on? I'd be willing to bet the Bible has sold more and has been read more than any book about any fairy. I have no proof, but if there was a bet, I'd take it. I don't know what else you want from me.

Do you believe Fairies are real?

No - the whole point was that, if multiple witnesses, and multiple recordings are some kind of assurance of truth, then fairies are arguably better represented than any ONE god. I am aware that MOST cultures have ALSO had 'god' myths... but the other poster seems to be using multiple references as weighted proof of the reality of the CHRISTIAN god.

By that token - fairies must have the same weighting, or greater, because of the strength of documentary evidence, over such a prolonged duration.

I'm not arguing ALL fairies versus ALL gods - because 'all gods' wasn't presented as the well supported concept... just one. Add to that, of course, some of the fairy folk have ALSO been worshipped as gods, or godlike beings (like the Japanese Myoo, or the figures of Badb, Macha and Morrigan in Celtic lore).

Well for one thing, I never said it was "weighted proof". I havn't said that once. Its evidence. Evidence is not synonomous with weighted proof.

And just like you, when you decided this was a necessary tangent, I was responding to an analogy of one person claiming to see a fairy. My respsonse was it is reasonable to deduce that one person claiming something like this can be written off as nothing to concern yourself with. However in Christianity, millions believe their claims. There is more weight in millions of experiences than there is in one. You are the one that turned this into a god vs. fairy thing. I still can't see how you can still say fairies are "better documented" than God though. Have you got any weighted proof of this claim?

Do you believe Fairies are real?

no, I dont'.

I still have never heard anyone say they've seen one. Have you?

I have.

I have.

do tell :)

no, I dont'.

Then collected evidence is no proof of truth to you, EXCEPT where you want it to be.

Well for one thing, I never said it was "weighted proof". I havn't said that once. Its evidence. Evidence is not synonomous with weighted proof.

And just like you, when you decided this was a necessary tangent, I was responding to an analogy of one person claiming to see a fairy. My respsonse was it is reasonable to deduce that one person claiming something like this can be written off as nothing to concern yourself with. However in Christianity, millions believe their claims. There is more weight in millions of experiences than there is in one. You are the one that turned this into a god vs. fairy thing. I still can't see how you can still say fairies are "better documented" than God though. Have you got any weighted proof of this claim?

Here you go again... one person 'can be written off'. You don't seem to be able to maintain a logical footing here... you keep changing your position to suit your arguments.

By your logic, Jesus can be written off, because he was just one man.

Regarding the fairy thing... Christianity basically has the Bible, and a few people that even MOST CHRISTIANS would discount, who claim to have literally witnessed 'god'. Fairies, on the other hand, have been documented in sightings for centuries.

So - Christian testimony = 'I believe', but Fairy testimony = 'I have SEEN".

Then collected evidence is no proof of truth to you, EXCEPT where you want it to be.

I never said it was proof. I've called it evidence all along. You keep trying to turn my words around on me. My evidence for believing in God is I HAVE EXPERIENCED HIM and and so have millions of others. I HAVE READ testimonies from a lot of people on thier experiences as well. This is powerful EVIDENCE in my book. You have several people who've said they've EXPERIENCED God just on this forum. I would say how many have claimed experience with a fairy, but the answer is now one. :eek:

I never said it was proof. I've called it evidence all along.


And yet, you ONLY seem to accept it as valid evidence, when it is something YOU WANT it to be evidence for.


You keep trying to turn my words around on me. My evidence for believing in God is I HAVE EXPERIENCED HIM

This is the ONLY evidence that matters, surely? Of course - I'd say (having BEEN a Christian) that you have experienced normal, human phenomena, and have blamed them on this 'god' figure, because you want to...


and and so have millions of others. I HAVE READ testimonies from a lot of people on thier experiences as well. This is powerful EVIDENCE in my book.


Sounds like mob-hysteria to me. "Lots of people think they've seen something"... hell, I'm convinced...


You have several people who've said they've EXPERIENCED God just on this forum. I would say how many have claimed experience with a fairy, but the answer is now one. :eek:

Actually... there is evidence to suggest otherwise... since I assume MORE people might claim UFO experiences... most of which are identical (except in the fine details) to Fairy abduction stories a hundred years ago.

Here you go again... one person 'can be written off'. You don't seem to be able to maintain a logical footing here... you keep changing your position to suit your arguments.

By your logic, Jesus can be written off, because he was just one man.

Regarding the fairy thing... Christianity basically has the Bible, and a few people that even MOST CHRISTIANS would discount, who claim to have literally witnessed 'god'. Fairies, on the other hand, have been documented in sightings for centuries.

So - Christian testimony = 'I believe', but Fairy testimony = 'I have SEEN".

I'm sorry, did Jesus claim to see fairies? Stop twisting my words. I know you're better at understanding context than this.

One person shouting they saw fairies = tiny evidence/not really worth checking out.
Millions of people shouting they saw fairies = much stronger evidence.

The statement made HAD NOTHING TO DO with your argument on how much documentation there is on fairies. The ORIGINAL claim was Christianity was equal to some guy saying he saw magic pixies. I rebutted that this was not true (IT IS NOT TRUE THAT CHRISTIANITY IS EQUAL TO ONE GUY CLAIMING FAIRY SIGHTINGS). How much more plain can I make it? Better yet, how much more creative can you be twisting this simple argument around? I havn't changed my story once. Except I misspoke when I was referring to the Hebrew language translation thing, I've said the same thing over and over and over. Do I need to also give the definition of the word "is" when I'm speaking to you?

And yet, you ONLY seem to accept it as valid evidence, when it is something YOU WANT it to be evidence for.

Bullshit! I havn't experienced pixies and I havn't heard anyone else claim they have. It is TOTALLY DIFFERENT! This argument you're using is ludicrous.



This is the ONLY evidence that matters, surely? Of course - I'd say (having BEEN a Christian) that you have experienced normal, human phenomena, and have blamed them on this 'god' figure, because you want to...

Have I said its all that matters? I just said it is powerful evidence. I didn't say it was the ONLY evidence. You can say what you like about what you THINK my experiences are, but since you don't know me, you don't know my experiences and you can't possbly know they are normal human phenomena, you can knock yourself out trying to back your statement up. X-Christian or not.



Sounds like mob-hysteria to me. "Lots of people think they've seen something"... hell, I'm convinced...

I think you better define mob-hysteria for me again. I've stated before I havn't seen a mob, I havn't been accompanied by a mob, and I havn't spoken to a mob. And since this "mob" has been speaking for 2000 years its hard to imagine its "mob-hysteria".



Actually... there is evidence to suggest otherwise... since I assume MORE people might claim UFO experiences... most of which are identical (except in the fine details) to Fairy abduction stories a hundred years ago.

There is evidence to suggest what? That more than one person on this board has claimed fairy experience? I've only seen one. What evidence are you speaking of? Now we're gonna debate UFOs? I tell you what, when a fairy says PSST! to me next time I'm in the woods or the next time I get picked up by a UFO I'll have experience in both and we can then discuss their merits. As of now, I know what I know. I've experienced what I've experienced and millions of others for 2000 years have had similar experiences. My experience, to me, is undeniable proof. I can't make you see that because you didn't experience it. The millions of testimonies from around the world are strong evidence to SUPPORT my experience. I don't know what else I can tell you on this subject.

I'm sorry, did Jesus claim to see fairies? Stop twisting my words. I know you're better at understanding context than this.

One person shouting they saw fairies = tiny evidence/not really worth checking out.
Millions of people shouting they saw fairies = much stronger evidence.

The statement made HAD NOTHING TO DO with your argument on how much documentation there is on fairies. The ORIGINAL claim was Christianity was equal to some guy saying he saw magic pixies. I rebutted that this was not true (IT IS NOT TRUE THAT CHRISTIANITY IS EQUAL TO ONE GUY CLAIMING FAIRY SIGHTINGS). How much more plain can I make it? Better yet, how much more creative can you be twisting this simple argument around? I havn't changed my story once. Except I misspoke when I was referring to the Hebrew language translation thing, I've said the same thing over and over and over. Do I need to also give the definition of the word "is" when I'm speaking to you?

Surely anything Jesus said (fairies or otherwise) can be written off... like you said, just one man shouting his head off is worth nothing.

One man shouting about magic pixies has exaclty the same significance as any one man shouting about Jesus. There is no irrefutable evidence for either the Christian mythology, or the fairy mythology - so both are as significant as each other.

Sure - there are millions of Christians singing the praises of Jesus - but none of them have SEEN him, have they? So what you ACTUALLY have, is a million 'one men' yelling about magic pixies/dead carpenters.

You choose to see the dead carpenter worship as a coherent thing, because that suits your belief bias.

Bullshit! I havn't experienced pixies and I havn't heard anyone else claim they have. It is TOTALLY DIFFERENT! This argument you're using is ludicrous.


Your PERSONAL experiences are insignificant... the point I was making is that you ONLY give credence to the 'mountains of evidence' that support what YOU want to believe.


Have I said its all that matters?


No - I did. You might want to look in to that.


I just said it is powerful evidence. I didn't say it was the ONLY evidence. You can say what you like about what you THINK my experiences are, but since you don't know me, you don't know my experiences and you can't possbly know they are normal human phenomena, you can knock yourself out trying to back your statement up. X-Christian or not.


Actually - I can make a very informed assertion about what you have experienced. I had the same experiences... which I later discovered could more rationally be attributed to pretty basic human functions.

Maybe you disagree with my assertion... but that doesn't make it wrong.


I think you better define mob-hysteria for me again. I've stated before I havn't seen a mob, I havn't been accompanied by a mob, and I havn't spoken to a mob. And since this "mob" has been speaking for 2000 years its hard to imagine its "mob-hysteria".


I guess the mob doesn't have to be literally mobbing.... the peer-pressure second-hand, seems to be enough to modify behaviour.


There is evidence to suggest what? That more than one person on this board has claimed fairy experience? I've only seen one. What evidence are you speaking of? Now we're gonna debate UFOs? I tell you what, when a fairy says PSST! to me next time I'm in the woods or the next time I get picked up by a UFO I'll have experience in both and we can then discuss their merits. As of now, I know what I know. I've experienced what I've experienced and millions of others for 2000 years have had similar experiences. My experience, to me, is undeniable proof. I can't make you see that because you didn't experience it. The millions of testimonies from around the world are strong evidence to SUPPORT my experience. I don't know what else I can tell you on this subject.

Here is the crux... "to you, your experience is undeniable proof'. And, to the pixie fellow discussed earlier, the pixie is equally well 'proved' and undeniable.

Millions of testimonies do nothing to support your experience, UNLESS you ALSO acknowledge the existence of fairies.... which you don't.

Like I said, you rubbish the ideas you wish to rubbish (regardless of number of witnesses), and you choose to accept 'swathes of evidence' ONLY for what suits your belief.

Surely anything Jesus said (fairies or otherwise) can be written off... like you said, just one man shouting his head off is worth nothing.

One man shouting about magic pixies has exaclty the same significance as any one man shouting about Jesus. There is no irrefutable evidence for either the Christian mythology, or the fairy mythology - so both are as significant as each other.

Sure - there are millions of Christians singing the praises of Jesus - but none of them have SEEN him, have they? So what you ACTUALLY have, is a million 'one men' yelling about magic pixies/dead carpenters.

You choose to see the dead carpenter worship as a coherent thing, because that suits your belief bias.

There is no irrefutable evidence for either, you are right. So believe what you want to believe or don't. I don't need irrefutable evidence to believe. I'm capable of at least some thought on my own. I don't need my entire world handed to me by a scientist. I have no irrefutable evidence that tomorrow it will be hot in Texas to believe that when I wake up tomorrow, it'll be hotter than hell. It will be, MY EXPERIENCE dictates this knowledge to me. I don't need some weather man in a bow-tie to make this a reality for me. Could it possibly snow tomorrow? I suppose it could, but my experience leads me to believe that is very unlikely. I can't make YOU believe it'll be hot here tomorrow, unless you are here and you've had the same experiences I have about the heat. So YOU need the weatherman to fill you in. However YOU can claim he's delusional and decide NOT to believe. That's fine with me because whether you believe in it or not, I'm wearing shorts to work tomorrow so that I don't feel like I'm burning in hell.

How do you know no one has SEEN Jesus? All the people from His time saw Him, but you don't believe them either. So what does it matter to YOU if anyone's seen Him?

A million (one men) have a much louder voice than one man. Sorry, it just happens to be so. I can't tell you why, but even if I could you wouldn't believe me.

I see dead carpenter belief as valid because I have experienced it. No other reason. There is a lot of evidence out there to support my belief. I have no experience of pixies and UFOs so those subjects mean nothing to me. I don't refute either, I just don't subscribe to them.

There is no irrefutable evidence for either, you are right. So believe what you want to believe or don't. I don't need irrefutable evidence to believe. I'm capable of at least some thought on my own. I don't need my entire world handed to me by a scientist. I have no irrefutable evidence that tomorrow it will be hot in Texas to believe that when I wake up tomorrow, it'll be hotter than hell. It will be, MY EXPERIENCE dictates this knowledge to me. I don't need some weather man in a bow-tie to make this a reality for me. Could it possibly snow tomorrow? I suppose it could, but my experience leads me to believe that is very unlikely. I can't make YOU believe it'll be hot here tomorrow, unless you are here and you've had the same experiences I have about the heat. So YOU need the weatherman to fill you in. However YOU can claim he's delusional and decide NOT to believe. That's fine with me because whether you believe in it or not, I'm wearing shorts to work tomorrow so that I don't feel like I'm burning in hell.

How do you know no one has SEEN Jesus? All the people from His time saw Him, but you don't believe them either. So what does it matter to YOU if anyone's seen Him?

A million (one men) have a much louder voice than one man. Sorry, it just happens to be so. I can't tell you why, but even if I could you wouldn't believe me.

I see dead carpenter belief as valid because I have experienced it. No other reason. There is a lot of evidence out there to support my belief. I have no experience of pixies and UFOs so those subjects mean nothing to me. I don't refute either, I just don't subscribe to them.

"I don't need irrefutable evidence to believe. I'm capable of at least some thought on my own". Thought has nothing to do with belief... independent thought or otherwise. I find it comical that someone would claim that 'independent thought' leads them to believe something they found in a book.

Not sure where you are going with the weatherman thing... surely you must see there is a difference between something-predicted and something-happening.


"How do you know no one has SEEN Jesus? All the people from His time saw Him". Didn't think that one through, did you? Surely, you are aware that very few people saw Jesus.... according the the texts, merely a few thousands. And THAT is only if all the stories are true.

Considering we have no concrete evidence that the man they call 'Jesus' even EXISTED, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that 'All the people from His time saw him'.

You are right about one thing. A million voices ARE louder than one voice. However, that doesn't make the million voices right, now does it? Again - the appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

I see the dead carpenter belief as false, because I have experienced it. There is NO evidence out there to support your belief.

Your PERSONAL experiences are insignificant... the point I was making is that you ONLY give credence to the 'mountains of evidence' that support what YOU want to believe.

My personal experiences are insignificant? To you they are, but I don't have to prove anything to you. To me, they're quite significant. To other believers their personal experiences are quite significant. To claim they're insignificant is arrogant on your part.

No - I did. You might want to look in to that.

why?



Actually - I can make a very informed assertion about what you have experienced. I had the same experiences... which I later discovered could more rationally be attributed to pretty basic human functions.

Maybe you disagree with my assertion... but that doesn't make it wrong.[/quite]

No you can't. You don't even know why my experiences are. You are assuming you do, but you have no idea. So your experiences didn't inspire belief for you? I'm sorry, but that has no bearing on me.



[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]I guess the mob doesn't have to be literally mobbing.... the peer-pressure second-hand, seems to be enough to modify behaviour.

If you say so. This seems ludicrous to me.



Here is the crux... "to you, your experience is undeniable proof'. And, to the pixie fellow discussed earlier, the pixie is equally well 'proved' and undeniable.

and to the pixie fellow, if I was approached, I already said I would not judge him, nor speak ill of him, or anything else. I would listen and if later I met another fellow that claimed the same, I might decide to check into it.

Millions of testimonies do nothing to support your experience, UNLESS you ALSO acknowledge the existence of fairies.... which you don't.

why must I also acknowledge fairies? The evidence for them doesn't have anything to do with my experiences.

Like I said, you rubbish the ideas you wish to rubbish (regardless of number of witnesses), and you choose to accept 'swathes of evidence' ONLY for what suits your belief.

I didn't rubbish anything. Again you're putting words in my mouth.

"I don't need irrefutable evidence to believe. I'm capable of at least some thought on my own". Thought has nothing to do with belief... independent thought or otherwise. I find it comical that someone would claim that 'independent thought' leads them to believe something they found in a book.

Not sure where you are going with the weatherman thing... surely you must see there is a difference between something-predicted and something-happening.


"How do you know no one has SEEN Jesus? All the people from His time saw Him". Didn't think that one through, did you? Surely, you are aware that very few people saw Jesus.... according the the texts, merely a few thousands. And THAT is only if all the stories are true.

Considering we have no concrete evidence that the man they call 'Jesus' even EXISTED, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that 'All the people from His time saw him'.

You are right about one thing. A million voices ARE louder than one voice. However, that doesn't make the million voices right, now does it? Again - the appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

I see the dead carpenter belief as false, because I have experienced it. There is NO evidence out there to support your belief.

You are assuming I found it in a book. Yet I've told you I've experienced it personally. I experienced before I found it in a book. That's the reason I sought the book. I believe Pink Floyd wrote the greatest music ever. If I heard millions of people chanting that they thought it was too, then that would just bolster my belief. Right or wrong, there it is.

Sure there's a difference between prediction and happening. So what? I think the weatherman thing is a good analogy. And I'm not appealing to popularity, I'm appealing to unison. Millions of voices being really loud and confirming MY experience, well all I can say is, it works for me. There is plenty of evidence out there to support my belief. You just can't see it because you don't want to see it. I'm sorry that your life has to be so clinical. Sounds dreadful.

EDIT: And yes, thought has quite a LOT to do with belief. If I use my brain to think, to decipher, and process experience, in my belief, then thought plays a good part of belief.

Oh and I'm not predicting it'll be hot tomorrow...I have faith that it will be. I plan on wearing shorts to work. When I get up, I don't care if its snowing, I'll STILL wear shorts because I have faith that it will hit over 100 degrees anyway. Seem delusional to you? Maybe but guess what, when it gets hot I'll be comfortable.

You are assuming I found it in a book. Yet I've told you I've experienced it personally. I experienced before I found it in a book. That's the reason I sought the book.


I find it very hard to believe this to be true.. sicne you must be able to see the flaw in the logic. You sought the book BECAUSE you already believed.... how did you know you believed what was in the book? How did you know which book?

You already knew SOME of the content of the book, when you discovered you believed, obviously.

You didn't just wake up in isolation and think "Hey maybe there's some kind of god thing... I bet there is a religion out there called Christianity, and I just BET they believe the same things I believe...."


I believe Pink Floyd wrote the greatest music ever. If I heard millions of people chanting that they thought it was too, then that would just bolster my belief. Right or wrong, there it is.


Again - appealing to popularity is a logical fallacy. I happen to like Pink Floyd, too.... but that doesn't mean anything about the 'quality' of their music... just about it's POPULARITY.


Sure there's a difference between prediction and happening. So what? I think the weatherman thing is a good analogy. And I'm not appealing to popularity, I'm appealing to unison. Millions of voices being really loud and confirming MY experience, well all I can say is, it works for me. There is plenty of evidence out there to support my belief.


If you say so. Empirical analysis fails to show it.


You just can't see it because you don't want to see it. I'm sorry that your life has to be so clinical. Sounds dreadful.


Why must my life be 'clinical'? There is beauty, and hope, and love, in the world, WITHOUT having to buy into some form of mythology. I've 'seen' Christianity... I've been there. It's not a matter of not wanting to see it... it's a matter of growing out of that phase of my life.


EDIT: And yes, thought has quite a LOT to do with belief. If I use my brain to think, to decipher, and process experience, in my belief, then thought plays a good part of belief.


Thought and belief are two separate things. Or, are you arguing that a good enough argument would STOP your belief?

I find it very hard to believe this to be true.. sicne you must be able to see the flaw in the logic. You sought the book BECAUSE you already believed.... how did you know you believed what was in the book? How did you know which book?

You already knew SOME of the content of the book, when you discovered you believed, obviously.

You didn't just wake up in isolation and think "Hey maybe there's some kind of god thing... I bet there is a religion out there called Christianity, and I just BET they believe the same things I believe...."

You're right I didn't. I had my experience with God and then I started looking. Yes I had some preconception of Christianity beforehand. But I'd never read the Bible until after I had my experience. Therefore, I didn't find my belief from a book.



Again - appealing to popularity is a logical fallacy. I happen to like Pink Floyd, too.... but that doesn't mean anything about the 'quality' of their music... just about it's POPULARITY.

You keep using popularity and I'm not entirely agreeing that the popularity is the key. My belief is the 'quality' of the music the greatest. Others who believe likewise give me evidence that my belief is true. I'm not interested in if they're popular, but in the quality of the music. All the Christians in the world can stop believing, effectively wiping out its popularity, my faith will remain. The fact that others share my belief bolsters my faith, but it isn't dependant on them.



Why must my life be 'clinical'? There is beauty, and hope, and love, in the world, WITHOUT having to buy into some form of mythology. I've 'seen' Christianity... I've been there. It's not a matter of not wanting to see it... it's a matter of growing out of that phase of my life.

I say clinical because according to you, you believe nothing that you can't see, and apparantly unless some scientists have proven it for you, you won't.



Thought and belief are two separate things. Or, are you arguing that a good enough argument would STOP your belief?

Thought and belief are two separate things. yet they can coincide and be used together harmoniously to form one's view. I hope that someday my faith is strong enough that it could stand blind on its own. At the moment, my faith is strenghthened by my thoughts and most importantly my experiences.

You're right I didn't. I had my experience with God and then I started looking. Yes I had some preconception of Christianity beforehand. But I'd never read the Bible until after I had my experience. Therefore, I didn't find my belief from a book.


Yes, you did. You just hadn't READ the book yourself. You'd just heard the 'stories' from the book.


You keep using popularity and I'm not entirely agreeing that the popularity is the key. My belief is the 'quality' of the music the greatest. Others who believe likewise give me evidence that my belief is true. I'm not interested in if they're popular, but in the quality of the music. All the Christians in the world can stop believing, effectively wiping out its popularity, my faith will remain. The fact that others share my belief bolsters my faith, but it isn't dependant on them.


Many of the bands I like are NOT popular... in fact, one might go so far as to say they are actively UNPOPULAR. But, does it matter to me that millions of people in this world do not 'get' Einsturzende Neubauten? Not at all - because I believe that most people are herd-beasts, and are, more to the point, wrong.

The 'number' of people who like the bands I like does nothing to bolster, or in anmy way affect, my tastes. Quality is not based on quantity.


I say clinical because according to you, you believe nothing that you can't see, and apparantly unless some scientists have proven it for you, you won't.


How is that clinical? Clinical implies some kind of bereft atmosphere... some lack of prettiness... some over-indulgence in utility.

Why do you assume that, just because I don't believe idle speculations?


Thought and belief are two separate things. yet they can coincide and be used together harmoniously to form one's view. I hope that someday my faith is strong enough that it could stand blind on its own. At the moment, my faith is strenghthened by my thoughts and most importantly my experiences.

You've just described pretty much the most abhorent thing I can imagine.

I say clinical because according to you, you believe nothing that you can't see, and apparantly unless some scientists have proven it for you, you won't.

I don't see why it's "clinical" to only express solid belief about those things that can be solidly experienced. Where I come from, we call that "sanity."

I don't see why it's "clinical" to only express solid belief about those things that can be solidly experienced. Where I come from, we call that "sanity."

The True Believer needs nothing from this thing you call 'sanity'....

The True Believer needs nothing from this thing you call 'sanity'.... In times of insanity, the madman leads the way.

But really. I'm not sure how to explain it to you… I wouldn't have understood how people got faith a couple of years back, now I'm here typing this on this forum.

In times of insanity, the madman leads the way.

But really. I'm not sure how to explain it to you… I wouldn't have understood how people got faith a couple of years back, now I'm here typing this on this forum.

To be honest, I have no problems with 'true believers'. I've been a believer, and many of my best friends are believers.

Each to their own, and all that.

The only problem I have, is when one person tries to claim their belief as an imperical and unquestionable fact... ESPECIALLY when they try to dictate the actions of others due to that belief.

Other than that, as a wise philospher once wrote: "It's all gravy, baby".

The True Believer needs nothing from this thing you call 'sanity'....
What's odd is that "true believers" seem to really value expressing certainty about things they are not certain of. They like to express how certain they are of unknowables (like the existence of God), as though that makes them important some how. I can claim to be certain about all sorts of uncertain things, too, but that would show me to be an arrogant and pathetic jackass...instead, I admit my limitations, and the fact that I can never know whether or not there is a God. The "true believers" claim to value humility, and deride science for claiming it can "know" more than humans have any right to, but they are the ones making such leaps of thinking in the first place! Science doesn't claim to "know" anything other than what it can demonstrate to everybody, while religion claims to "know" that which it cannot possibly support.

Who cares what Christianity is supposed to be. To me Christianity is Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwel, Ann Coultier, etc.

What's odd is that "true believers" seem to really value expressing certainty about things they are not certain of.

A true believer need not claim 100% certainty. We can know things within a great deal of certainty, but never 100%.

A true believer need not claim 100% certainty. We can know things within a great deal of certainty, but never 100%.

As ever, my friend, you are the most reasonable, (if not the most typical), example of Christianity. :)

What's odd is that "true believers" seem to really value expressing certainty about things they are not certain of. They like to express how certain they are of unknowables (like the existence of God), as though that makes them important some how. I can claim to be certain about all sorts of uncertain things, too, but that would show me to be an arrogant and pathetic jackass...instead, I admit my limitations, and the fact that I can never know whether or not there is a God. The "true believers" claim to value humility, and deride science for claiming it can "know" more than humans have any right to, but they are the ones making such leaps of thinking in the first place! Science doesn't claim to "know" anything other than what it can demonstrate to everybody, while religion claims to "know" that which it cannot possibly support.

The thing that scares me, is that I have seen someone on these threads, in the last few days, express a desire to reach a point where they could believe blindly. As though rationalising it is a BAD thing...

As ever, my friend, you are the most reasonable, (if not the most typical), example of Christianity. :) Also, belief is not certainty. You can believe with all the fire of your heart, but it is still not certainty. Little is certain on this earth.

Slightly veering to the side, what's so bad about Pat Robertson? I've never known anything about him, so I can't make judgements… I've read an interview of Jerry Falwell, so I know that he's not good news, though.

The thing that scares me, is that I have seen someone on these threads, in the last few days, express a desire to reach a point where they could believe blindly. As though rationalising it is a BAD thing...

That's not what I said. Once again you're twisting my words. I said I hope someday my faith will be strong enough to stand as blind faith. I'm referring to the strength of faith, not a desire to have blind faith.

Who cares what Christianity is supposed to be. To me Christianity is Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwel, Ann Coultier, etc.
If you measure all groups by their lowest common denominator you will be in a sad place your whole life, (though I have a feeling you don’t measure your own demographic by the lowest common denominator)

That's not what I said. Once again you're twisting my words. I said I hope someday my faith will be strong enough to stand as blind faith. I'm referring to the strength of faith, not a desire to have blind faith.

Not intentionally twisting any words... just interpreting as it seems to be written. If you wish to have 'strength of faith' that can withstand any obstacle, it must, logically, be 'above' logic.

Sounds like blind faith to me.

And that, to me, is a pretty terrifying desire.

What is christianity?
Enough dictionary definitions have been given as to what it is in a technical sense, but I think the most telling definition of Christianity is what is going on in this forum...

Christians, of varying levels of zealousness or faith, have proclaimed their faith openly.

Non-christians then join in, also of varying levels of discomofort or not to the idea of christianity.

Some of the first group get overly defensive 'twisting my words' etc.
Some of the second group get overly offensive and act atheistically, rather than the much more reasonable agnostic stance.

Personally, the idea of a God who has created AN ENTIRE UNIVERSE solely so that its occupants can glorify Him (Her, whatever), demonstrates a bit of a .... well... God complex.

I think it was Richard Feynman who put it best on his death-bed...
'I much prefer to have doubts and not know some things, then to think I know the answers, and those answers possibly being wrong.'

Ultimately, not only Christianity but almost all religion comes down to a discomfort with the unknown, hence the huge comfort that the religious people find in their faith. That comfort is something that many non-religious people (including myself) miss out on, and I don't think it is an entirely unreasonable suggestion that the animosity that some non-believers have for the religious is a sense of envy for this comfort.
(Though the hardened atheist would simply say that he hates the smug attitude of the religous)

Yes, there's crackpots who rely on their bibles, and crackpots who rely on the scientific method, but surely anyone, christian or not can take a christian attitude and just let people do their own thing provided they're not enfringing on the freedom of others.

(But if one of the minority of christians comes along pontificating to me as to where I'm going after I die and that my beliefs on everything from homosexuality to birth control are going to get me burnt in hell for eternity, he better be very comfortable with his crucifix, 'cause he won't be gettin it outta there too easily! :eek: )

UpWardThrust

See the thing is with my beliefs is that the lowest common denominator in it isn't very load. Pat Robertson and friends is very load and very influential. He isn't part of a bad fringe group. He is part of a bad main group. I've been to several churches around Syracuse NY that are either afiliated with him or afiliated with one of his pet groups.

That's not what I said. Once again you're twisting my words. I said I hope someday my faith will be strong enough to stand as blind faith. I'm referring to the strength of faith, not a desire to have blind faith.

Blind faith is much, much weaker faith that reasoned faith. One with blind faith has not developed faith at all, and is so weak of faith that any question can shake it and bring it down. Any wish to have faith that can even be compared to blind faith is a wish to have a much weaker faith.

Blind faith is much, much weaker faith that reasoned faith. One with blind faith has not developed faith at all, and is so weak of faith that any question can shake it and bring it down. Any wish to have faith that can even be compared to blind faith is a wish to have a much weaker faith. How exactly would you distinguish between blind faith and reasoned faith? One thing's for sure: you don't arrive at faith by reasoning.

I thought christianity was about sitting in a really old building for an hour a week.

I thought christianity was about sitting in a really old building for an hour a week. In Ireland it would be half an hour.

How exactly would you distinguish between blind faith and reasoned faith?

Well, for one, someone with blind faith follows whatever they are told about God and religion, without any attempt to try and figure it out for themselves. They think that the trick is to do whatever the preacher says and then they are obviously "saved". Another problem is that such a person does not realize their own fallibility (or their preacher's) and thus thinks that questioning is a bad thing.

A person with reasoned faith has come to it on their own terms - through questioning and seeking. Such a person realizes that they may be wrong, and that others may be wrong (or right). This peron is constantly questioning - trying to move closer to truth.

One thing's for sure: you don't arrive at faith by reasoning.

If you really believe this, then you don't know what faith is.

If you really believe this, then you don't know what faith is.

Ooh, I wouldn't take that if I were you.

I should have asked this question much earlier. To me it seems that a lot of you think Christianity is about gay-bashing and stopping people from having fun. What exactly do you think Christianity is corely about?

I think Christianity is about Christ. Unfortunately, that's a shaky as hell foundation since nothing he ever did was proven. But that's what it is. It's unfortunate the amount of self-sublimation that goes into joining that faith, but there it is...religion.

Blind faith is much, much weaker faith that reasoned faith. One with blind faith has not developed faith at all, and is so weak of faith that any question can shake it and bring it down. Any wish to have faith that can even be compared to blind faith is a wish to have a much weaker faith.

See - that's how I see it, too... it demands a faith that cannot deal with reason... which also means it cannot STAND in the face of reason.

I believe Christianity is about following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I'm an example of an atheist/agnostic who isn't a moronic Christian basher. Having been Christian at one point, I am not completely ignorant of the religion. Heh, I might know more than some Christians actually do.

AMEN!!!

(lmao.... I think you'll see the irony of this!)

See - that's how I see it, too... it demands a faith that cannot deal with reason... which also means it cannot STAND in the face of reason.

But reason Is something that man has said everything must be measured up to, otherwise it is false. But man might be wrong, have you considered that? What if God is something that is beyond human reason? I have a scripture for you.

Its alma 32 verse 21….

And now as I said concerning faith-faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.