NationStates Jolt Archive

Funny thing...I grew up brain-washed by my parents into the Christian religion. A few years ago, some things happened that began opening my eyes. Just recently, I decided that I'm not going to waste my life wondering if there's a god out there and serving him/her.

Life is just that, life. There is no afterlife. It's just what it is. People look for meaning to their existence, and what greater meaning can there be than to have been created by a god?

You really wanna blow your mind, ask yourself: "if God is so powerful, why did he cause us pain and suffering? Couldn't he have just created us in Heaven and saved us the whole crapshoot that we call life?" That would have served his proclaimed purpose in our creation.

And while we're on the subject of Heaven vs Life, why is that Christians are so willing to tell me whenever bad shit happens (and it seems to happen quite a bit to me) that I should just be thankful I'm alive. Let me explain something: If I wasnt alive, and I were to go to Heaven, would I not be better off than I am here, in this life? By extrapolation, why dont all the Christians go commit suicide so they can go to Heaven - since the only unforgiveable sin is to not accept Christ.


Do you really think life is all that bad? Some of us see the lives we have here as a gift. At the very least, the lessons you learn over the course of your life are a joy to have - whether they come from the hard times or not.

What's sad is you're right about Christianity being a cult. Anyone who takes a step back and really looks at it and the way Christians talk would understand this. Christian raised children are seriously brain-washed to not think for themselves. This is how they mulitply. Sounds exactly like a cult. They follow their leaders blindly in hopes of reaching heaven...

Wow, how's being a bigot working out for you?

I was raised in a Christian family, but was not the least bit "brain-washed." In fact, I was encouraged to find my own path....

I don't follow any leaders blindly, and my faith has nothing to do with "hopes of reaching heaven."

*sigh*

And everybody else who has "seen" a different heaven, a differenent God...they're all hallucinating. But your vision is real.

'Course, they say the same thing...a lot of the same things...

Or maybe they've seen the same God, but through different "eyes"?

And there we have the dismount, about the same level of as most of the routine...

Actually, that was his second attempt at a dismount. He completely botched the first when I attempted to inform him that we're simply trying to help him open his eyes.

Wow, how's being a bigot working out for you?

I was raised in a Christian family, but was not the least bit "brain-washed." In fact, I was encouraged to find my own path....

I don't follow any leaders blindly, and my faith has nothing to do with "hopes of reaching heaven."

*sigh*

Wait, so I'm intolerant of those with different opinions than mine? How about: I'm intolerant of people who are ignorant and not willing to think for themselves. Now, if that's a different opinion, so be it. However, what I stated had no evidence of my being a bigot. Thanks, come again.

Well, I have no problem with partial indeterminism, particularly as it would relate to any particular "soul". What do you think of Schwartz and Begley's work on neuroplasticy and free will? It touches on the quantum elements, but I don't have the biology background to get most of it.

I'm actually not familiar with that work - I'll have to look into it.

I don't think we agree on the implications of quantum dynamics, but I'm no expert and you could completely be correct.

Well, I'm hardly an expert in quantum mechanics. The closest things I could claim to be an expert in would be vascular biology and stem cell biology, but even with those I find out new things every day.

I just don't see a true randomness as detracting from the universe, with or without a creator. A painter doesn't know how people will react to her work, but she can still create.

I don't see it as a detraction either. I just think that order points more towards a Creator than true randomness does.

And my studies of the philosophy behind science suggests that it can only work in a deterministic universe - or at least only on the deterministic portions of a nondeterministic universe. The problem with the last idea, however, is that you can't really have "deterministic portions." If true randomness exists, unless it exists in a vacuum that doesn't affect the other processes of the universe, it makes everything truly random.

It's odd to think about - and I'm still trying to really wrap my head around it.


Well, i wasn't being intentionally sophomoric. No matter what influence my parents may have on my daily life, i don't hold them up to be my moral standards, nor do i expect them to send me to hell for my misdeeds or miscalculations. I also don't expect them to send me to heaven and be with me in eternity.

I don't expect God to send me to hell for my misdeeds or miscalcuations. Only if I willfully reject God do I expect to be separated from God forever.

And the rest of it are certainly differences, but not really relevant to what you said before. Following the guidance of God in morality does not in any way equate to a lack of responsibility for my own actions - any more than asking my mother for advice does. The difference is that the advice my mother gives can be wrong. I do not believe that the guidance of God is wrong, although I have no doubt that I can possibly misinterpret it.

Do you really think life is all that bad? Some of us see the lives we have here as a gift. At the very least, the lessons you learn over the course of your life are a joy to have - whether they come from the hard times or not.

Wait, I dont believe in the Christian God because I had a rough life? Cuz, I could've sworn that was not at all what I was getting at...

Wait, so I'm intolerant of those with different opinions than mine? How about: I'm intolerant of people who are ignorant and not willing to think for themselves. Now, if that's a different opinion, so be it. However, what I stated had no evidence of my being a bigot. Thanks, come again.

And you stereotyped a large group of people as all being "ignorant and not willing to think for themselves," simply because they believe something different from you.

In other words, your entire statement was nothing but bigotry.

And you stereotyped a large group of people as all being "ignorant and not willing to think for themselves," simply because they believe something different from you.

In other words, your entire statement was nothing but bigotry.
ROFL, if you say so.

Wait, I dont believe in the Christian God because I had a rough life? Cuz, I could've sworn that was not at all what I was getting at...

You blew a bunch of smoke about how Christians should commit suicide because life is so very bad and painful...

I didn't say anything about you not believing in any God, but your comments suggested that you think life is pretty awful. "the whole crapshoot that we call life" was kind of an indicator.

You blew a bunch of smoke about how Christians should commit suicide because life is so very bad and painful...

I didn't say anything about you not believing in any God, but your comments suggested that you think life is pretty awful. "the whole crapshoot that we call life" was kind of an indicator.

Crapshoot doesnt necessarily imply bad. Simply that it's random luck. Sometimes we're up, sometimes we're down - ulimately, it's just life. As for suggesting Christians commit suicide, perhaps instead of addressing the negative, you could address the reasoning that got there. Was I really suggesting Christians go commit suicide? No. I was attempting to make a point, one which you apparently missed.

And you stereotyped a large group of people as all being "ignorant and not willing to think for themselves," simply because they believe something different from you.

In other words, your entire statement was nothing but bigotry.
I agree. It appears that the ego goes deep. However, what is truly amazing is his contradicting arguments.

Crapshoot doesnt necessarily imply bad. Simply that it's random luck. Sometimes we're up, sometimes we're down - ulimately, it's just life. As for suggesting Christians commit suicide, perhaps instead of addressing the negative, you could address the reasoning that got there. Was I really suggesting Christians go commit suicide? No. I was attempting to make a point, one which you apparently missed.

No, I got the point. If you had read my reply, you would see that. Like I said, many of us see life itself as a gift - as a beautiful thing in its own right.

And you stereotyped a large group of people as all being "ignorant and not willing to think for themselves," simply because they believe something different from you.

In other words, your entire statement was nothing but bigotry.

Hey. They are ignorant and not willing to think for themselves. It has nothing to do with the fact that they have a different belief to us. There are even atheist wankers out there who just say "If God created us, then who created God. Therefore God doesn't exist." They're ignorant as well, and they have the same position as us. So instead of resorting to namecalling, perhaps you should demonstrate how you aren't ignorant.

no, i dont believe in magic.

I don't expect God to send me to hell for my misdeeds or miscalcuations. Only if I willfully reject God do I expect to be separated from God forever. What was baptism and/or being born-again for, again? Is that a philosophy you can't espouse?
Does the "deathbed recant" factor in here?

And the rest of it are certainly differences, but not really relevant to what you said before. Following the guidance of God in morality does not in any way equate to a lack of responsibility for my own actions - any more than asking my mother for advice does. The difference is that the advice my mother gives can be wrong. I do not believe that the guidance of God is wrong, although I have no doubt that I can possibly misinterpret it.Is it "guidance" or fealty?
I guess if it were a case of anything other than "guidance", i suspect you wouldn't have an option about it. Somewhat like you said earlier about willfully rejecting God.

This should be interesting, especially with the way you started your reply.


Okay, you were raised in a religious home, you were "extremely active for a number of years", and then one day, it dawned on you that you were "reading nothing but Christian propoganda"?

What was the defining moment or moments that you decided that Christianity was nothing other than "propoganda"?


So, please explain what you found, and what is the "meaning for life"?


Because the poster did not offer any evidence, does that mean that his statement is somehow false?


You do not know that, nor can you disprove it.


Please explain the "difference".


I do not see where the poster was trying to convert you or anyone else. He was relating his own experience, strength, and hope?


Prehaps you missed the title of this thread? It is titled "Do you have faith in God?" It is not titled "Prove my lack of faith in God to be wrong".

So the way I began my reply instantly negates anything I had to say? While I might not have begun in the best fashion, my arguments are still valid.

I did not say I just woke up one day and just changed my view. It began long ago when I started thinking for myself and questioning what I'd been taught for so long. It's amazing how many fallacies the Christian religion reniges on as soon as Science proves otherwise. Remember? Earth is flat, Earth is center of the Universe, etc. Where do you think these ideas originated? You guessed it - from behind the pulpit. Catholicism was introduced into Europe as a means of controlling the population - read up on your history if you dont believe me.

Prove to me that God has indeed had a positive influence on your life - not just the idea of God, but that God himself has had a positive influence. You cannot. Therefore, it is more reasonable to believe that the idea of God has had the influence in the form of a placebo effect. You believe God exists and helps you in your daily struggle, therefore, mentally you are not as involved in said daily struggle - effortless effort (did you look that up?). This is merely the idea of God, not God himself. If you still cannot understand the difference, I can again try to explain.

I grew up in the church, I know when I'm being evangelized. Attempting to convince me I'm not is an exercise in futility.

No, I got the point. If you had read my reply, you would see that. Like I said, many of us see life itself as a gift - as a beautiful thing in its own right.

I have not one time said it wasnt. And this is coming from a guy who was told today that he should be a stand-up comedian because so much funny bad shit happens to him.

Open your ears/eyes, stop being close-minded and think about what my posts are saying. Sure, nit-picking can kill my argument, but it doesnt kill the point. The point still remains that many christians are nothing more than sheep. To those that arent, who have questioned and wondered and found themselves believing more deeply - power to them. My post was targeted at the ignorant masses that simply believe what their preacher tells them to believe.

Hey. They are ignorant and not willing to think for themselves. It has nothing to do with the fact that they have a different belief to us. There are even atheist wankers out there who just say "If God created us, then who created God. Therefore God doesn't exist." They're ignorant as well, and they have the same position as us. So instead of resorting to namecalling, perhaps you should demonstrate how you aren't ignorant.

Thank you

Thank you

I'm only agreeing with you on this point. I'm not going as far as to say that Christianity was invented to control the masses.

Hey. They are ignorant and not willing to think for themselves.

Really? All Christians are "ignorant and not willing to think for themselves"?

That's quite an opinion you've got there. Care to back it up? Even just a little?

It has nothing to do with the fact that they have a different belief to us.

It quite clearly does, considering that you've basically just stated that any person who believes in God and the teachings of Christ is "ignorant and not willing to think for themselves." Since you have tied your charcaterization of us as such to the fact that we are Christian, you have quite obviously made a value judgement based upon a difference in beliefs.

There are even atheist wankers out there who just say "If God created us, then who created God. Therefore God doesn't exist." They're ignorant as well, and they have the same position as us.

Indeed, militant atheists (which NS is acting quite a bit like) are ignorant, in much the same way as religious fundamentalists. They even tend to be bigotted in much the same way, albeit towards different groups.

So instead of resorting to namecalling, perhaps you should demonstrate how you aren't ignorant.

I'm not namecalling, just pointing something out. If someone came in here and said, "All Republicans are ignorant people who just don't want to think for themselves," would it be "namecalling" for me to point out that such a statement is bigotry?

Meanwhile, you and NS are the ones calling me ignorant. Perhaps you should make some attempt to prove it, instead of simply saying, "All Christians = ignorant."


What was baptism and/or being born-again for, again? Is that a philosophy you can't espouse?
Does the "deathbed recant" factor in here?

Baptism and "born-again" are symbols. I don't see why I can't espouse them, as they mean something to the person undergoing them. I was baptised, and, as a symbol, it means quite a bit to me.


Is it "guidance" or fealty?

Guidance.

I did not say I just woke up one day and just changed my view. It began long ago when I started thinking for myself and questioning what I'd been taught for so long.

And yet you reject the idea that someone else might do the same, and come to the teachings of Christ.

Are you that sure of your own infallibility?

Prove to me that God has indeed had a positive influence on your life - not just the idea of God, but that God himself has had a positive influence. You cannot. Therefore, it is more reasonable to believe that the idea of God has had the influence in the form of a placebo effect.

Why would anyone need to prove it to you? Our faith is our own, not yours. You have come to the conclusion that the idea of God has influenced people through a placebo effect - that is your opinion. Others believe otherwise. But, wait, if they think about it and come to a different conclusion than you, they're just "ignorant and not willing to think for themselves," right?

Dem, quit trying to twist our words.

I dont recall saying that all Christians were mindless sheep. And if someone were to wake up tomorrow suddenly believing in Christ, I would be curious as to what changed his/her opinion - but if he/she were able to actually defend their faith, I'd be most impressed and leave them to their faith.

However, far too many Christians feel it is easier to play word-games, to attack their perceived enemy in hopes of breaking their will, than it is to simply point out why they believe what they believe.

Attacking me will not change my opinion, nor will it point out the fallacies of my arguments. It does, however, reflect poorly on not just yourself but the religion you claim to be a true believer of.

Baptism and "born-again" are symbols. I don't see why I can't espouse them, as they mean something to the person undergoing them. I was baptised, and, as a symbol, it means quite a bit to me.
Well, most people who are "born-again" seem to take it to extremes in the nature that i mentioned. It's good that you discern it as not a crutch for personal responsibility. It's too bad that the majority of believers can't be that mature about it.
Guidance.
Yes, but the difference involves your soul, apparently. You're saying that, although "God" PROVIDES the suffering for you, it really is your choice to suffer by not "following" "his" "advice"?

Open your ears/eyes, stop being close-minded and think about what my posts are saying.

I'm sorry, what evidence do you have that I am close-minded? The fact that I won't take a blanket statement about a group of people and take it as fact?

Sure, nit-picking can kill my argument, but it doesnt kill the point.

It isn't a matter of nit-picking. You characterized an entire group of people, which you have now changed to "many" of that group, as ignorant and unthinking, with nothing but their beliefs to link them to that statement. If you meant "many" all along, that is fine, but you should have stated that from the beginning.

Dem, quit trying to twist our words.

I'm not twisting them. I am simply taking them at face-value. If you meant to add qualifiers, I will accept that, but they certainly weren't there from the begining.

I dont recall saying that all Christians were mindless sheep.

Read the first post I quoted. It certainly suggests as much.

Attacking me will not change my opinion, nor will it point out the fallacies of my arguments. It does, however, reflect poorly on not just yourself but the religion you claim to be a true believer of.

What attack? You attacked *my* religion. All I did was point out the bigotry of your statements.

So the way I began my reply instantly negates anything I had to say? While I might not have begun in the best fashion, my arguments are still valid.
I disagree. See below.

I did not say I just woke up one day and just changed my view. It began long ago when I started thinking for myself and questioning what I'd been taught for so long. It's amazing how many fallacies the Christian religion reniges on as soon as Science proves otherwise. Remember? Earth is flat, Earth is center of the Universe, etc. Where do you think these ideas originated? You guessed it - from behind the pulpit. Catholicism was introduced into Europe as a means of controlling the population - read up on your history if you dont believe me.
This is your total support of what you called "Christian propaganda"? BTW, does the Bible state that the earth is flat? If not, then the point is irrelevant?

Prove to me that God has indeed had a positive influence on your life - not just the idea of God, but that God himself has had a positive influence. You cannot.
The idea of God is what this topic is about. Faith in God, and yes my life has improved as a direct result of my faith in God. The fact remains that you cannot disprove that God has influenced my life, which makes your earlier statement null and void.

Therefore, it is more reasonable to believe that the idea of God has had the influence in the form of a placebo effect. You believe God exists and helps you in your daily struggle, therefore, mentally you are not as involved in said daily struggle - effortless effort (did you look that up?). This is merely the idea of God, not God himself. If you still cannot understand the difference, I can again try to explain.
You can call it "effortless effort" or whatever you want to call it. It does not prove your point, in any way shape or manner. If you truly believed what you are saying, you would not have used the words.... "it is more reasonable to believe".

I grew up in the church, I know when I'm being evangelized. Attempting to convince me I'm not is an exercise in futility.
It is of no consequence whether I convince you or not whether you believe that the other poster was trying to "evangelize". I just didn't see it that way.

Edit: BTW, I love how you avoided my direct question to you:

What you call belief, I call a desire to find some meaning for life instead of being willing to accept that it's just life.
So, please explain what you found, and what is the "meaning for life"?

This thread has got some hard-hitters in it right now (excluding me)

Really? All Christians are "ignorant and not willing to think for themselves"?

That's quite an opinion you've got there. Care to back it up? Even just a little?

Oh, sorry. I didn't realise he was talking about ALL christians. I interpreted it as "All christians who choose to believe what they are taught as opposed to what science reveals"


It quite clearly does, considering that you've basically just stated that any person who believes in God and the teachings of Christ is "ignorant and not willing to think for themselves." Since you have tied your charcaterization of us as such to the fact that we are Christian, you have quite obviously made a value judgement based upon a difference in beliefs.

Quite the opposite. I made the judgment on a complete lack of beliefs. I accept what is fact. Christians accept what other christians tell them. That makes them ignorant.
Keep in mind I'm referring to specific Christian groups, not those who recognise that they can accept science and still have faith in God. like those ones.



I'm not namecalling, just pointing something out. If someone came in here and said, "All Republicans are ignorant people who just don't want to think for themselves," would it be "namecalling" for me to point out that such a statement is bigotry?

A consequence of misunderstanding. I was talking about specific groups of christians, not generally all christians. I apologise.

Meanwhile, you and NS are the ones calling me ignorant. Perhaps you should make some attempt to prove it.

I wasn't aware he was labelling you in particular as ignorant but let's see if you are anyway. Do you deny Big Bang, Evolution, Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle or the Observer effect? Ignorance is choosing to ignore fact. If you deny any of these, you are ignorant.

This thread has got some hard-hitters in it right now (excluding me)
Swing batter, batter, batter!! :D

Dem, quit trying to twist our words.

I dont recall saying that all Christians were mindless sheep. And if someone were to wake up tomorrow suddenly believing in Christ, I would be curious as to what changed his/her opinion - but if he/she were able to actually defend their faith, I'd be most impressed and leave them to their faith.

However, far too many Christians feel it is easier to play word-games, to attack their perceived enemy in hopes of breaking their will, than it is to simply point out why they believe what they believe.

Attacking me will not change my opinion, nor will it point out the fallacies of my arguments. It does, however, reflect poorly on not just yourself but the religion you claim to be a true believer of.
Methinks you have it all wrong, in regards to who is attacking whom:

You dont get it, do you? We've provided all the evidence you need and yet you continue to blindly follow what you've been taught - right down to "God bless you"

Open your eyes, anyone who follows blindly is truly faithful. I once heard that if you never question your faith and reaffirm your beliefs, then it's not true faith.

All we're doing is trying to point out the fallacies in what you're blindly believing. Instead of giving us any kind of credit, you're simply blowing off what we have to say and then bowing out as gracefully as you can with a shoddy excuse.

And there is more:

What's sad is you're right about Christianity being a cult. Anyone who takes a step back and really looks at it and the way Christians talk would understand this. Christian raised children are seriously brain-washed to not think for themselves. This is how they mulitply. Sounds exactly like a cult. They follow their leaders blindly in hopes of reaching heaven...

Well, most people who are "born-again" seem to take it to extremes in the nature that i mentioned. It's good that you discern it as not a crutch for personal responsibility. It's too bad that the majority of believers can't be that mature about it.

I don't know if I would say that a majority of believers can't be mature about their faith. I do think many are conditioned not to - and that is a problem that seems to be cultivated by much of organized religion.

Yes, but the difference involves your soul, apparently. You're saying that, although "God" PROVIDES the suffering for you, it really is your choice to suffer by not "following" "his" "advice"?

I'm not following. God provides what suffering? Good and bad times are a part of life. They are all part of the journey and part of what makes us who we are. I have never suggested that following God's guidance would shelter anyone from all suffering.


Oh, sorry. I didn't realise he was talking about ALL christians. I interpreted it as "All christians who choose to believe what they are taught as opposed to what science reveals"

Apparently, he wasn't, although there was nothing in the post to suggest otherwise, what with the, "Those raised in a Christian family are all brain-washed," and such.

Quite the opposite. I made the judgment on a complete lack of beliefs. I accept what is fact. Christians accept what other christians tell them. That makes them ignorant.
Keep in mind I'm referring to specific Christian groups, not those who recognise that they can accept science and still have faith in God. like those ones.

If you are only referring to specific Christian groups, perhaps you shouldn't make your statements in the frame of a blanket statement. "Christians accept what other christians tell them," is a blanket statement. Taken on its own, it refers to *all* Christians. Why couldn't you make the original statement as, "Those Christians who see a conflict between science and their faith, rejecting science in favor of what they have been taught, are ignorant"?

A consequence of misunderstanding. I was talking about specific groups of christians, not generally all christians. I apologise.

Apology accepted. I'm sorry if I flew off the handle a bit, but it did seem as if you were referring to all of us.

I wasn't aware he was labelling you in particular as ignorant but let's see if you are anyway. Do you deny Big Bang, Evolution, Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle or the Observer effect? Ignorance is choosing to ignore fact. If you deny any of these, you are ignorant.

None of the above. I'm certain that, as with all scientific theories, we will continue to clarify and modify these ideas, so I don't take any of them as absolutes, but I do not deny the evidence we currently have for them.

Swing batter, batter, batter!! :D
Yes, i certainly mean you. *bows*



Oh wait, are their hydophobic aliens assaulting my family? I'm on it!

I don't know if I would say that a majority of believers can't be mature about their faith. I do think many are conditioned not to - and that is a problem that seems to be cultivated by much of organized religion.



I'm not following. God provides what suffering? Good and bad times are a part of life. They are all part of the journey and part of what makes us who we are. I have never suggested that following God's guidance would shelter anyone from all suffering.



Apparently, he wasn't, although there was nothing in the post to suggest otherwise, what with the, "Those raised in a Christian family are all brain-washed," and such.



If you are only referring to specific Christian groups, perhaps you shouldn't make your statements in the frame of a blanket statement. "Christians accept what other christians tell them," is a blanket statement. Taken on its own, it refers to *all* Christians. Why couldn't you make the original statement as, "Those Christians who see a conflict between science and their faith, rejecting science in favor of what they have been taught, are ignorant"?



Apology accepted. I'm sorry if I flew off the handle a bit, but it did seem as if you were referring to all of us.



None of the above. I'm certain that, as with all scientific theories, we will continue to clarify and modify these ideas, so I don't take any of them as absolutes, but I do not deny the evidence we currently have for them.

Ok then.
:fluffle:

I don't know if I would say that a majority of believers can't be mature about their faith. I do think many are conditioned not to - and that is a problem that seems to be cultivated by much of organized religion.
I agree. Which is why i'm in the peculiar spiritual situation i'm in - pretty much utterly anti-religion while simultaneously pretty much utterly pro-spiritual. I agree that, for power leverage reasons, there is much lost in the condition of the faithful.


I'm not following. God provides what suffering? Good and bad times are a part of life. They are all part of the journey and part of what makes us who we are. I have never suggested that following God's guidance would shelter anyone from all suffering.
That is absolutely true in the living. Why i mentioned it was following from the idea of "afterlife consequence", and specifically what you'd said about not following "guidance", still due the difference between mothers and gods. You'd stated yourself the difference.

Ok then.
:fluffle:

OOOoooh! Fluffles! :fluffle:

Yes, i certainly mean you. *bows*

Oh wait, are their hydophobic aliens assaulting my family? I'm on it!
Yeah, you need to watch out for those water fearing land lubbers from the Terra Ferma galaxy!!

I agree. Which is why i'm in the peculiar spiritual situation i'm in - pretty much utterly anti-religion while simultaneously pretty much utterly pro-spiritual. I agree that, for power leverage reasons, there is much lost in the condition of the faithful.

I really don't draw the line between "religious" and "spiritual". It seems to me that the term "spiritual" has popped up in this context because so many people think that "religious" has to mean organized religion, and want to distance themselves from that.

That is absolutely true in the living. Why i mentioned it was following from the idea of "afterlife consequence", and specifically what you'd said about not following "guidance", still due the difference between mothers and gods. You'd stated yourself the difference.

I don't really think that simply not following God's guidance - all of it at least - has an "afterlife consequence." Like I said, I believe that one must willfully reject God in order to be separated from God for eternity. In truth, I don't claim to know exactly what form such a rejection would take, or when the "last chance" to accept God may be.

Yeah, you need to watch out for those water fearing land lubbers from the Terra Ferma galaxy!!
Better or worse than "The Village"? I gave up after "Signs". Am i at a loss?
It was a good story except for the understanding of how much of our atmosphere is comprised of water vapour. That irked me.

I really don't draw the line between "religious" and "spiritual". It seems to me that the term "spiritual" has popped up in this context because so many people think that "religious" has to mean organized religion, and want to distance themselves from that.

Ah, i do, as well i must, in order to explain my POV (when warranted). Far too many peculiar and relatively improbable events have occurred in my life to be an atheist. And i have certainly felt the presence of what seemed to me (and witnesses) a clearly higher power/powers. So i'm not really an agnostic either. I, however, find no reason to believe in the infantile OT god, from which Christianity AND Islam both owe their subservience. There's no evidence for it, and it is insipid to me on many levels. I'm not saying there isn't evidence for truth in the bible, or the Koran, for which both of them obviously have plenty. I simply do not agree to participation in the ceremonial celebration of the material. I refuse to be involved with and/or to endorse the politics (yes, POLITICS) of religious behaviour. Personal culpability is first and foremost, and no one else has any rights to tell anyone otherwise without critical reasoning being applied to them. The religious mindset and tenets fail in that respect every time in my experience. Even in being a matter of "faith", religion is best described more as a matter of "gullibility", "delusion" and/or "willingness". That, again, is where my personal experience stands largely outside of religious incorporation. And i wouldn't have it any other way, and i'm under the impression that whichever other forces involved in my life also would feel and express the same.


I don't really think that simply not following God's guidance - all of it at least - has an "afterlife consequence." Like I said, I believe that one must willfully reject God in order to be separated from God for eternity. In truth, I don't claim to know exactly what form such a rejection would take, or when the "last chance" to accept God may be.Not purgatory? That is EXACTLY why, IMO, the catholic church demanded to drop it as a possibility. It really was a liability to the contol of the living.

Ah, i do, as well i must, in order to explain my POV (when warranted). Far too many peculiar and relatively improbable events have occurred in my life to be an atheist. And i have certainly felt the presence of what seemed to me (and witnesses) a clearly higher power/powers. So i'm not really an agnostic either.

And I would label belief in that higher power, whatever you label it or or what properties you think it has, as religious.

I, however, find no reason to believe in the infantile OT god, from which Christianity AND Islam both owe their subservience. There's no evidence for it, and it is insipid to me on many levels. I'm not saying there isn't evidence for truth in the bible, or the Koran, for which both of them obviously have plenty. I simply do not agree to participation in the ceremonial celebration of the material.

I could see that. The only thing in this I would point out is that God is not bound by how humans view God. The OT, in large part, is a collection of stories from an ancient people - an ancient people trying to describe their lives and searching for answers the same as we are. They described God in the best manner that they had, and with such properties as they could understand and fit to their lives. As what I would call a less mature version of humanity, I think there were aspects that they got wrong. I think they turned to God out of fear instead of love or even wonder - something I believe Christ came to correct.

I refuse to be involved with and/or to endorse the politics (yes, POLITICS) of religious behaviour.

Organized religion certainly does have quite a bit of politics, and it is what has turned me off to the idea as well. That, and the hypocrisy that always seems to go along with organized religion.

Personal culpability is first and foremost, and no one else has any rights to tell anyone otherwise without critical reasoning being applied to them.

Indeed, I would certainly not disagree here.

The religious mindset and tenets fail in that respect every time in my experience.

Have you seen anything in my mindset or tenets that would suggest I fail the test? Or would you label me as "spiritual, but not religious"?

Not purgatory? That is EXACTLY why, IMO, the catholic church demanded to drop it as a possibility. It really was a liability to the contol of the living.

I don't know. Is there a place between now and eternity? I don't personally believe in the idea of purgatory, but it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility.

My fiance and I discuss sometimes, the possibility of a "last chance" - that those who have lived their lives as best they could, but for whatever reason did not seek out God, might, upon the instant of their death, get a chance to acknowledge God. It's kind of the "pearly gates" kind of idea when we discuss it, but the idea might have merit. His stance is that he has no reason to believe in God right now, but if he were to arrive at the pearly gates and see that he had missed God's presence up until then, he would gladly accept grace if it were still available. (He also says that any God that would not extend such an offer wouldn't be worth worshipping anyways, but that's probably a discussion for another thread).

And I would label belief in that higher power, whatever you label it or or what properties you think it has, as religious.


OED:
religious - devoted to religion.
pious, devout.
of or concerned with religion.
of or belonging to a monastic order.
4. scrupulous, conscientious.
Of those, only #4 is close, only on the end there.
OED:
spiritual - of or concerned with the spirit, as opposed to matter.
religious; divine; inspired.
Well, the greater emic of that definition is what i'm getting at.

Further, a belief in a/some/many higher power(s) doesn't mean worship, nor does it mean ceremonial accomodation. Neither of which are part of my life. I am not in opposition to my spirit, by definition or by concept, which would obviously be an issue if i chose to worship it (myself and/or extension of myself?)

I could see that. The only thing in this I would point out is that God is not bound by how humans view God. The OT, in large part, is a collection of stories from an ancient people - an ancient people trying to describe their lives and searching for answers the same as we are. They described God in the best manner that they had, and with such properties as they could understand and fit to their lives. As what I would call a less mature version of humanity, I think there were aspects that they got wrong. I think they turned to God out of fear instead of love or even wonder - something I believe Christ came to correct.
I agree that that is what Christ is supposed to fulfill, from what i understand of it. As for God, though, i would point out how popular the idea and biblical reference is about "Man being made in god's image". Does that argument end at the idea of looks alone? Further, what purpose could that possibly serve a god to be that way? I think there's much more to that statement than current translations might have one believe. Genesis 1:27, i'm led to believe.
--
Organized religion certainly does have quite a bit of politics, and it is what has turned me off to the idea as well. That, and the hypocrisy that always seems to go along with organized religion.
Part and parcel. Too vast a chasm between public welfare and personal gain -between ethics and morality. Plus, given the tempestuous nature of faith and/or spirituality, the order has to be more political to serve its ends.

Have you seen anything in my mindset or tenets that would suggest I fail the test? Or would you label me as "spiritual, but not religious"?That would be a fair question if i agreed with your definition of "religion" and the difference/similarity between/to "spiritual". As is, i don't, as i clarified my POV. As i said, pretty confusing (possibly) in a lot of circumstances.
As not to evade what i think you're getting at, i see you as possessing an advantage in choosing your path on your own, compared to just parental influence, as posted earlier, IIRC.


I don't know. Is there a place between now and eternity? I don't personally believe in the idea of purgatory, but it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility.I have had personal experiences that show certain atemporal manifestation, but i'm not sure of any exact location between them, other than what William S. Burroughs said about it.
"You face death all the time, and for that time you are immortal."

My fiance and I discuss sometimes, the possibility of a "last chance" - that those who have lived their lives as best they could, but for whatever reason did not seek out God, might, upon the instant of their death, get a chance to acknowledge God. It's kind of the "pearly gates" kind of idea when we discuss it, but the idea might have merit. His stance is that he has no reason to believe in God right now, but if he were to arrive at the pearly gates and see that he had missed God's presence up until then, he would gladly accept grace if it were still available. (He also says that any God that would not extend such an offer wouldn't be worth worshipping anyways, but that's probably a discussion for another thread).That is a huge argument for people who want to commit others to their church - the issue of having faith without having seen. Corny was big on that one. I think that it requires more asking and commitment than simply having a book as guidance.
I would agree though that anything that wants an excuse to damn me isn't likely to garner any commitment from me.
For some, perhaps, living provides enough reason to have faith, and reinforces as much.

That would probably be quite an interesting thread, even if it has already been done! :)

Demp, you're no stranger to these threads. You know broard generalisations occur. You also know - or should know - NS commenting on orthodox Christians, just like I & a few others were. And unless you have a very poor memory, you also know from experience that the bigotry you tried to point out, only existed because you took the posts out of context.

So who is attacking who, really? By your previously displayed line of reasoning, can I safely assume you're intentionally trying to spin some atheist's posts, in the hopes of making all atheists look like bastards? - Or are you just overly fascinated with splitting hairs?
- That was rethorical. I know it's about hair splitting, rather than actual malice on your part. Just beware that the effect can sometimes become indistinguishable.

I know from past experiences that your idea of hell is simply a lack of divine presence. Assuming you don't remember me, I'll just state for the record that I've never objected to that conceptualisation - though I want no part of it.
Still, you should have known that post wasn't directed at you, but rather at a person who does believe his deity tortures people like myself, indefinitely.

If you'd followed the debate leading up to the post, you would have noticed it didn't concern ideas of the afterlife directly, but was about the ethics of the poster's deity, versus his own ethics. I never asked him, or you, to define his idea of hell, as he already had - on several occations.

Still, what I was trying to get clarified with that post, can equally well be directed at you. You compared your faith in your deity's influence on you, to that of your parents. Can I assume then, that you do not, per definition, share the ethics of your deity? If so, which do you abide by? Can you - hypothetically, if nothing else -be put in a position by your deity, where you feel troubled, because you've done something that directly contradicts the ethics of your deity or yourself?

Moreover, as you've previously mentioned that your deity isn't fallible, does this mean that you feel you cannot trust your own judgement, or perhaps that your deity isn't always a "good guy"?
If you (would) trust your deity against your better judgement, would that not imply fealty, rather than guidiance?

Finally, if your deity is infallible, and you'd always choose to follow the guidance of your deity over anyone else's, would that not make you every bit as willfully ignorant as, for example, Jerry Faldwell? - The only difference I'd be able to see, is that your deity appears to be nicer than his.

.. There was a bunch of other things I would've commented on, but my notepad broke (hence the lack of quotes). Another day perhaps.

Happy 1st May.

EDIT: Demp, you also argued that the effects of your faith isn't simply a placebo effect.. Yet you, almost in the same breath, refuse to examine how you can be sure of that. Howcome?

Being only mildly exposed to the doctrine of other denominations of Christianity, you may be completely right on that one.

It has been fun with all ya on here tonight, but i need to log off otherwise my paper will never get written. have a great night. i look forward to the 10+ pages on the topic I will find when I login in the morning!

Just curious MadmCurie, but what does MU stand for?

Better or worse than "The Village"? I gave up after "Signs". Am i at a loss?
It was a good story except for the understanding of how much of our atmosphere is comprised of water vapour. That irked me.

"Signs" was the low point. Good, right up until last few minutes... well, the last quarter of the film, I guess, started getting a bit shaky.

"The Village" may lack the impact of Sixth Sense or Unbreakable, but it's a different kind of film... and, arguably, the best of his projects to date.

Just curious MadmCurie, but what does MU stand for?

MU = Marquette University

MU = Marquette University

ah ok. Was curious because I attend another university with the abbreviation MU.

Demp, you're no stranger to these threads. You know broard generalisations occur.

Yes, and nearly always cause misunderstandings. Thus, it would behoove people not to make them.

You also know - or should know - NS commenting on orthodox Christians, just like I & a few others were.

How am I supposed to know something that isn't at all implied by the comments made or the tone of conversation? NS came in and made a post that referred to Christianity as a whole, not "orthodox" or "fundamentalist" Christianty - it said "Christianity." He then proceeded to be incredibly combative and rude towards those who would profess their beliefs.

I didn't reply to that post immediately, I read through a few more pages first. The posts following seemed to make it evident that NS has no respect for Christianity as a whole, not a particular subset.

And unless you have a very poor memory, you also know from experience that the bigotry you tried to point out, only existed because you took the posts out of context.

How would I know that? Am I a mindreader?

So who is attacking who, really? By your previously displayed line of reasoning, can I safely assume you're intentionally trying to spin some atheist's posts, in the hopes of making all atheists look like bastards? - Or are you just overly fascinated with splitting hairs?

I am doing neither. I certainly wouldn't try and make all atheists look like assholes - I have no problem with most atheists. Hell, I'm getting married to one next year. I *do* have a problem with militant atheists - the same problem I have with fundamentalist religious people or various bigots. I do not recall any specific conversations with NS, but based on the posts in the span of pages I was reading at the time, he came off as a rather militant atheist.

I know from past experiences that your idea of hell is simply a lack of divine presence. Assuming you don't remember me, I'll just state for the record that I've never objected to that conceptualisation - though I want no part of it.
Still, you should have known that post wasn't directed at you, but rather at a person who does believe his deity tortures people like myself, indefinitely.

This is an internet forum. Conversations get split off in different directions. If you want to have a private conversation with one poster, then TG them - don't put it up on the forums.

Still, what I was trying to get clarified with that post, can equally well be directed at you. You compared your faith in your deity's influence on you, to that of your parents. Can I assume then, that you do not, per definition, share the ethics of your deity? If so, which do you abide by? Can you - hypothetically, if nothing else -be put in a position by your deity, where you feel troubled, because you've done something that directly contradicts the ethics of your deity or yourself?

My belief is that morality - goodness - comes from my deity. But the guidance I receive isn't really of a form that I could say, "God is saying X." It is more a matter of reflection and prayer which leads me to a conclusion. By definition, this means that I will read whatever guidance I get through my own perceptions, biases, viewpoints, etc. To say that I agree completely with my deity would be rather silly, since I can never say that I know exactly what my deity would want. I can only hope that I am following the guidance correctly.

And if the question was meant to lead to a "What if your God told you to murder 1000 infants, would that then be good and would you do it?" the answer to that is unclear. Such a situation, were it to occur, would require a full-scale revamping of my belief system. I would have to carefully reexamine my faith, what I believed about God, what I believed about the world, etc. In such a situation, I believe I would either come to the conclusion that the instruction was not from God, or that God was a bastard not worth the admiration I had given God. But I also find such a situation very unlikely, since I have never been led to do something that was immoral.

Moreover, as you've previously mentioned that your deity isn't fallible, does this mean that you feel you cannot trust your own judgement, or perhaps that your deity isn't always a "good guy"?
If you (would) trust your deity against your better judgement, would that not imply fealty, rather than guidiance?

You don't understand. The guidance of God is part and parcel of my "better judgement." My own judgement is all I have, as any guidance I receive will, of necessity, be read through my own perceptions, etc. This is why I liken it to advice, as the advice we receive from others is still always read through our own values.

EDIT: Demp, you also argued that the effects of your faith isn't simply a placebo effect.. Yet you, almost in the same breath, refuse to examine how you can be sure of that. Howcome?

I don't refuse to examine how I can be sure of that. I simply pointed out that there is no evidence to show to others. It isn't in the realm of empiricism, as it is all within my own heart and mind. If I could somehow extract that and give it to you, I would, but there is no way to do so.


ah ok. Was curious because I attend another university with the abbreviation MU.

Can I ask which? I also attended a university with that abbreviation.

I will agree that there is a greater being, but i dsiagree as to its nature. I refuse to believe in a paternal figure with set rules and guidlines for which it rewards us for following and punishes us for disobeying.

Yes, and nearly always cause misunderstandings. Thus, it would behoove people not to make them.Agreed, I'd even apologised in advance for having a tendency to do the same, shortly before Neut made that post.
Nevertheless, I think it was perfectly obvious from the context that it wasn't a "kill all Xians" post, but sure.. I agree it could be read as that, if one really want to.
Incidentially, if all this has anything to do with you not being a mindreader, as opposed to just trying to argue semantics, does that mean that I AM a mindreader?

... There must be some way to make money on that...

This is an internet forum. Conversations get split off in different directions. If you want to have a private conversation with one poster, then TG them - don't put it up on the forums.Demp, dear.. I wasn't berating you for commenting on the questions I asked Corney. I was simply trying to make it clear that the question wasn't at all directed at you.
I always welcome any comments by you, and I certainly do expect people to comment freely on whatever they please.

On that note, thanks for answering all my silly little speculations. I'm sure if I ever end up with a religious lover, I'll drive the poor sod barmy within a week. I just can't seem to understand faith :p I don't refuse to examine how I can be sure of that. I simply pointed out that there is no evidence to show to others. It isn't in the realm of empiricism, as it is all within my own heart and mind. If I could somehow extract that and give it to you, I would, but there is no way to do so.From my point of view, that means you can't actually be sure that your deity's influence on you, isn't simply the result of your belief in it's influence.
I'm sure there's things I'm certain of, but can't possibly proove. I'm sure all people are familiar with the situation, in one way or another... But how then, can we claim certainty?

Yes, and nearly always cause misunderstandings. Thus, it would behoove people not to make them.



How am I supposed to know something that isn't at all implied by the comments made or the tone of conversation? NS came in and made a post that referred to Christianity as a whole, not "orthodox" or "fundamentalist" Christianty - it said "Christianity." He then proceeded to be incredibly combative and rude towards those who would profess their beliefs.

I didn't reply to that post immediately, I read through a few more pages first. The posts following seemed to make it evident that NS has no respect for Christianity as a whole, not a particular subset.

Apparently my tone on this board is sadly mistaken. I was not attacking until I felt my words were being twisted. I do want people to defend their positions - and simply returning to the age-old "because I just believe it, so it must be so" doesnt really explain why one believes what they believe.


I am doing neither. I certainly wouldn't try and make all atheists look like assholes - I have no problem with most atheists. Hell, I'm getting married to one next year. I *do* have a problem with militant atheists - the same problem I have with fundamentalist religious people or various bigots. I do not recall any specific conversations with NS, but based on the posts in the span of pages I was reading at the time, he came off as a rather militant atheist.
Again, I apologize that my tone was mistaken. I did not intend to come off as militant. In truth, I'm more agnostic than athiest. It's hard to be militant as an agnostic as I really just dont care. My task in posting here was simply to encourage people to question what they believe - whether they change that belief or not is their decision. If I cause them to question their faith and reaffirm what their convictions, are they not stronger for it?


This is an internet forum. Conversations get split off in different directions. If you want to have a private conversation with one poster, then TG them - don't put it up on the forums.
Ahh, but then no one else could learn from that conversation - regardless of the outcome. When debating anything, it isn't wrong to debate it in front of other people so that they may learn as well - regardless of who's on what side of whatever issue is at hand. This goes both ways. Just because it doesnt work for you right now does not mean it's wrong to have public discussion between two individuals.


My belief is that morality - goodness - comes from my deity. But the guidance I receive isn't really of a form that I could say, "God is saying X." It is more a matter of reflection and prayer which leads me to a conclusion. By definition, this means that I will read whatever guidance I get through my own perceptions, biases, viewpoints, etc. To say that I agree completely with my deity would be rather silly, since I can never say that I know exactly what my deity would want. I can only hope that I am following the guidance correctly.
So, without actually being physically or mentally instructed by God, you make your decisions? So, you really dont know for a fact that it's God driving you to make that decision instead of your sub-conscious? This was the same point I was making when discussing God as a placebo effect.

If we were really dependant on God's guiding hand to make life better, would it not be too extreme to state the converse is also true? That is, to say: "Without God's guiding hand, one's life will be more full of strife." If such is the case. how can you explain so many well-to-do athiests with their lives together?

The point is, some people believe in luck, some people believe in fate, some believe in God, some believe in 'effortless effort.' All of which accomplish the same goal - releasing onesself from being an active participant in major life decisions. It allows one to look at their life in a more logical and objective manner (even if only subconciously) from the 3rd person perspective. As anyone with good friends knows, logical and objective advice from the 3rd person perspective is usually the best advice. Call it what you want, ultimately, it is impossible for you to prove that your God is anything more than how you choose to deal with guidance from your subconcious (now, I'm not saying that's what it has to be, just asking you to entertain for a moment the idea that it could be).


And if the question was meant to lead to a "What if your God told you to murder 1000 infants, would that then be good and would you do it?" the answer to that is unclear. Such a situation, were it to occur, would require a full-scale revamping of my belief system. I would have to carefully reexamine my faith, what I believed about God, what I believed about the world, etc. In such a situation, I believe I would either come to the conclusion that the instruction was not from God, or that God was a bastard not worth the admiration I had given God. But I also find such a situation very unlikely, since I have never been led to do something that was immoral. But your morals are based on what your God has set for you. If your God were to then change your morals to allow the murder of 1000 infants (which would be implied by his command), would you be remiss for not following your God's direction?


As for my comment about people searching for the meaning of life, we can be sure that this is the ultimate question everyone searches for the answer to at some point in their life. Christianity has conveniently provided that answer - to serve a higher being. The Christian faith proclaims that not only are we here to serve said higher being, we were made by that being for that express purpose. And with that belief in hand, people suddenly have a meaning to their life - the ultimate question has been answered. Now, that doesnt necessarily mean that God created mankind or that the purpose of mankind's existence is to serve God, merely that it has brought peace-of-mind to those who believe this to be their purpose in existence.

Besides attacking me and making a thinly veiled attempt to evangelize me, not one person has taken the time to address the points I've raised.

Nevertheless, I think it was perfectly obvious from the context that it wasn't a "kill all Xians" post, but sure.. I agree it could be read as that, if one really want to.

I never said it was a "kill all Xians" post, but it certainly didn't come off as a, "I have a problem with some Christians, but all the others are ok," either.

Incidentially, if all this has anything to do with you not being a mindreader, as opposed to just trying to argue semantics, does that mean that I AM a mindreader?

... There must be some way to make money on that...

Maybe you've had more discourse with NS than I. Maybe you didn't pay attention to the inflammatory tone he was taking with anyone who posted about their faith.

Demp, dear.. I wasn't berating you for commenting on the questions I asked Corney. I was simply trying to make it clear that the question wasn't at all directed at you.

Gotcha.

On that note, thanks for answering all my silly little speculations. I'm sure if I ever end up with a religious lover, I'll drive the poor sod barmy within a week. I just can't seem to understand faith :p

Hehe. You might be surprised. Before my fiance and I started dating, he had a rather low opinion of religion and those who are religious. Luckily for us, I'm not an in-your-face evangelist, so we didn't get into any heavy religious discussions until we had been dating a while. As it turns out, these days, some of the best conversations on religion I ever have are with my atheist fiance.

From my point of view, that means you can't actually be sure that your deity's influence on you, isn't simply the result of your belief in it's influence.
I'm sure there's things I'm certain of, but can't possibly proove. I'm sure all people are familiar with the situation, in one way or another... But how then, can we claim certainty?

We can't, really - not 100% certainty, anyways. We can only examine what we have, come to a conclusion, and then change that conclusion if further information comes along that should change it.

Good question. And a timeless one at that. If I knew for sure, without a doubt, than it would be knowledge. But all I have is faith. I don't know that there is a God, but I believe. Why? I'd rather live my life believing in God and die to find out there isn't, than to live my life not believing in Him, and finding out there is. (I think C.S. Lewis said that originally.) My faith in God is the ONLY thing that gets me through. Without him, life doesn't make a lick of sense.

Again, I apologize that my tone was mistaken.

And I apologize for reading it in a mistaken manner (if that makes sense).

My task in posting here was simply to encourage people to question what they believe - whether they change that belief or not is their decision. If I cause them to question their faith and reaffirm what their convictions, are they not stronger for it?

Getting someone to question their faith is certainly a good thing. Faith without questioning is not faith at all.

But saying that a group of people are ignorant or unwilling to think probably isn't going to go far in getting them to question their beliefs. More than likely, it will just make them dismiss whatever it is you have to say.

Ahh, but then no one else could learn from that conversation - regardless of the outcome. When debating anything, it isn't wrong to debate it in front of other people so that they may learn as well - regardless of who's on what side of whatever issue is at hand. This goes both ways. Just because it doesnt work for you right now does not mean it's wrong to have public discussion between two individuals.

On a public forum, however, one cannot expect a discussion between two individuals to go, uninterrupted by the viewpoints of others, if you will. That is the point I was making.

So, without actually being physically or mentally instructed by God, you make your decisions? So, you really dont know for a fact that it's God driving you to make that decision instead of your sub-conscious? This was the same point I was making when discussing God as a placebo effect.

"For a fact"? No, of course not, no more than I know "for a fact" that my fiance loves me. There are many things that we cannot know "for a fact" or with 100% certainty.

If we were really dependant on God's guiding hand to make life better, would it not be too extreme to state the converse is also true? That is, to say: "Without God's guiding hand, one's life will be more full of strife." If such is the case. how can you explain so many well-to-do athiests with their lives together?

I never said we were dependent upon God's guiding hand. That would mean that anyone who did not accept said guidance would, of necessity, live a horrible life. It is more that I choose to seek God's guidance. Others do not, and I accept that.

The point is, some people believe in luck, some people believe in fate, some believe in God, some believe in 'effortless effort.' All of which accomplish the same goal - releasing onesself from being an active participant in major life decisions.

....except for the fact that taking guidance/advice/etc. does not remove you as a participant in your own decisions. Only those who believe that God actively controls their actions could say that they have been removed.

Call it what you want, ultimately, it is impossible for you to prove that your God is anything more than how you choose to deal with guidance from your subconcious (now, I'm not saying that's what it has to be, just asking you to entertain for a moment the idea that it could be).

I'm not trying to prove it, however. I don't need confirmation from others, nor belief from others.

But your morals are based on what your God has set for you. If your God were to then change your morals to allow the murder of 1000 infants (which would be implied by his command), would you be remiss for not following your God's direction?

I believe my morals are based in what God has set because I believe that all goodness flows from God. If God were to suddenly start leading me to actions that I currently consider evil, I would have to reexamine both my characterization of those actions and my characterization of God. If the direction was to murder 1000 infants, I think that my characterization of God would hcange, rather than my characterization of the action.

As for my comment about people searching for the meaning of life, we can be sure that this is the ultimate question everyone searches for the answer to at some point in their life. Christianity has conveniently provided that answer - to serve a higher being.

Not so much to "serve" in the way that most think of it, as to love. And, in that love, we strive to make ourselves better people.

The Christian faith proclaims that not only are we here to serve said higher being, we were made by that being for that express purpose. And with that belief in hand, people suddenly have a meaning to their life - the ultimate question has been answered.

Some believe that, but I don't think it falls out of Christ's teachings. Christ taught that the purpose of life is love, and spoke of love in all its various forms. I believe that Christ's coming and death were meant to serve as a method to turn believers to God in love, rather than in fear. Unfortunately, it seems that enough people were stuck in the carrot-stick mentality that entire doctrines have been built around it, ignoring much of what Christ had to say.

Now, that doesnt necessarily mean that God created mankind or that the purpose of mankind's existence is to serve God, merely that it has brought peace-of-mind to those who believe this to be their purpose in existence.

No belief "necessarily" means that it is correct. And I would not dispute the possibility that my beliefs are a "peace-of-mind" type thing. That is not, however, the conclusion I have come to. I had peace-of-mind when I was content not to examine faith, but to let it fall by the wayside when I was challenged by the fact that no one else can give me my religion. But, over time, I have turned back to faith, and on my own terms.

Besides attacking me and making a thinly veiled attempt to evangelize me, not one person has taken the time to address the points I've raised.

I haven't seen any attacks on you that weren't predicated on your own comments that seemed like attacks. And I do not know that a person stating the basis of their faith is necessarily evangelizing. Are you sure they were trying to convince you?

Can I ask which? I also attended a university with that abbreviation.

Millersville University in Pennsylvania

Millersville University in Pennsylvania

Ah, not my alma mater then. =)

I attended Mercer University in Georgia.

I'd rather live my life believing in God and die to find out there isn't, than to live my life not believing in Him, and finding out there is. (I think C.S. Lewis said that originally.)Regardless of who said it, I can't say I understand it. Would it be terrible to die & suddenly be faced with a deity & an afterlife, unexpectedly?My faith in God is the ONLY thing that gets me through. Without him, life doesn't make a lick of sense.See this is where this notion of a placebo effect stems from. I know, and I wager Neut knows, that it is perfectly possible to be a happy, responsible individual, without the slightest belief in anything supernatural.

It is perfectly natural then, for people like us to wonder whether you're suddenly able to cope with existing because you believe you have a purpose, or because the belief is correct.
Since someone like myself, struggle with trying to emphasise with your belief, but have no problems dealing with the world in accordance to our own consciously created purpose, it appears overwhelmingly likely that your belief in your purpose, rather than the accuracy of your belief, is what drives you.

Regardless of who said it, I can't say I understand it. Would it be terrible to die & suddenly be faced with a deity & an afterlife, unexpectedly?

It would, if you believed as Lewis seemed to, that Hell was a literal place of torture and that any atheist would go there.

Of course, then you get into the problem of it being a bit of a Pascal's Wager...

Of course there is a God. There is also a Goddess. All of the world revolves around the duality of nature, do therefore it suggests that divinity is also dual!

Let's look at this from another perspective: Why do sooooo many people consider death a time of mourning? It's just another step, and for that matter, is rarely seen as the "last" step because nearly every religion out there has life after death, reincarnation, or something other than oblivion.
Yet, when people die, we mourn. Why? If it's because we miss them, because they've gone to a better place, are we mourning for them - or for us?
I don't mourn when someone dies, unless they die extremely out of turn - i.e. infant deaths, deliberate murder, etc. The very fact that so many people feel they lost a good friend when this lady died shows that she made a grand impact on many folk, and I see that as something to cherish, not to mourn.

I have faith in God. What other reason is there for my wonderful family, super school and the great nationwhere I live?

I have faith in God. What other reason is there for my wonderful family, super school and the great nationwhere I live?
Why does it matter where it comes from? Is it impossible to just simply enjoy what life has given you for no reason other than that it's there?

This is the peace-of-mind that the Christian religion gives to the followers who are looking for a purpose for their existence. You have no proof that there is a God, no proof that God has influenced your life (placebo effect), no proof that God created the world and has given purpose to your life (placebo effect = peace-of-mind / meaning of life).

And I apologize for reading it in a mistaken manner (if that makes sense).
snip... Are you sure they were trying to convince you?

I commend you. Unlike so many sheep I know and have seen (and was), you are actually able to defend why you believe the way you do without simply stating that you just do.

When I began thinking for myself, stopped just following and really critically looked at the Christian religion, I found too many beliefs that were unfounded and based on circumstantial evidence for me to believe in the Christian God.

As for being evangelized, yeah, I'm pretty sure he/she was trying to convince me that I should accept Christ - "because it's the best, man!" Remember, I grew up Baptist, heavily involved in the church. I know how it's done, lol. Sadly, this is one of the reasons I feel the Christian Church (organized religion now, dont mistake this for all Christians) is in a large part the same as a cult.

cult n. AHD, 4th Ed.

1. 1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
2. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
1. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
2. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

<Snip>
no proof that God created the world and has given purpose to your life.Most astonishing of all (to me anyway) is that few, if any, religious people (not just Christians) have even a vague idea of what sort of purpose their deity has for them, or why it created everything.

This is what boggles my poor little mind the most, when I see various orthodox people object to the mere thought of a non-religious world view.
I mean.. Even if I did believe god X had created everything, I wouldn't be any closer to understanding why or how. So what's the difference, really?

Most astonishing of all (to me anyway) is that few, if any, religious people (not just Christians) have even a vague idea of what sort of purpose their deity has for them, or why it created everything.

This is what boggles my poor little mind the most, when I see various orthodox people object to the mere thought of a non-religious world view.
I mean.. Even if I did believe god X had created everything, I wouldn't be any closer to understanding why or how. So what's the difference, really?

I agree, and what's really frustrating about it all is so few Christians are willing to take a chance and deeply question their faith by attempting to see it from our point of view. Whether that's because they feel their faith is on too shaky a ground to be able to question it (which mean it's not real faith) or because they're so confident in their faith they see no reason to question it. Either way, these people are only fooling themselves into thinking their faith is real. True faith can be questioned time and again and survive. Those who dont question their faith are simply following blindly behind whomever is the leader of their particular sect.

Of course there is a God. There is also a Goddess. All of the world revolves around the duality of nature, do therefore it suggests that divinity is also dual!

What duality of nature?

True faith can be questioned time and again and survive. Those who dont question their faith are simply following blindly behind whomever is the leader of their particular sect.While I agree that one can't honestly have faith in something, if one isn't able to question it, I don't share your confidence in religion's ability to bear questioning.

Obviously a lot of people feel their religious beliefs can stand scrutiny. There's a few examples in this thread of that, and I know plenty of religious people out in the real world (though I don't engage in this type of debate with them).

But why then, am I not religious? - I'm not asking why I'm not an orthodox christian or Muslim, but why do I come to a different conclusion than, say Dempublicants?
I don't, because faith in a deity - or even just belief in the existence of any sort of deity, without faith - doesn't appear plausible. I know of all manner of historic, sociological & psychological mechanisms that can explain "feelings" of divine presence & the origins of religion. I know of nothing that contradicts those mechanisms. And I know these mechanisms work in relation to other phenomena.

The concept of religion, the supernatural & the divine, can only remain credible if I accept the phantasmagoria of my imagination & ignore all I know of cosmos.

So can religion - faith - really stand questioning? If it can, why don't I at least have nightmares about things under my bed?

"Signs" was the low point. Good, right up until last few minutes... well, the last quarter of the film, I guess, started getting a bit shaky.

"The Village" may lack the impact of Sixth Sense or Unbreakable, but it's a different kind of film... and, arguably, the best of his projects to date.
Well, i'll give it a shot. Now, unfortunately, i have the influence of "Scary Movie 4" to undo. :)

Of course there is a God. There is also a Goddess. All of the world revolves around the duality of nature, do therefore it suggests that divinity is also dual!
Why did it take 2556 posts to go before this one? :mad:

While I agree that one can't honestly have faith in something, if one isn't able to question it, I don't share your confidence in religion's ability to bear questioning.

Obviously a lot of people feel their religious beliefs can stand scrutiny. There's a few examples in this thread of that, and I know plenty of religious people out in the real world (though I don't engage in this type of debate with them).

But why then, am I not religious? - I'm not asking why I'm not an orthodox christian or Muslim, but why do I come to a different conclusion than, say Dempublicants?
I don't, because faith in a deity - or even just belief in the existence of any sort of deity, without faith - doesn't appear plausible. I know of all manner of historic, sociological & psychological mechanisms that can explain "feelings" of divine presence & the origins of religion. I know of nothing that contradicts those mechanisms. And I know these mechanisms work in relation to other phenomena.

The concept of religion, the supernatural & the divine, can only remain credible if I accept the phantasmagoria of my imagination & ignore all I know of cosmos.

So can religion - faith - really stand questioning? If it can, why don't I at least have nightmares about things under my bed?

I completely agree with you. This is exactly why I'm agnostic. When I say that my eyes were opened, started thinking for myself, etc., what I'm referring to is the point in time that I came to the conclusion that religion really is no more than "opiate for the masses." An opportunity for people to be controlled and power to be gained, but having no real foundation in anything.

I find it amusing when I'm told that God exists, and that faith is belief in God without proof. It's a self-fulfilling argument with absolutely no evidence to rely on other than people's own personal feelings on the issue - which have already been shown to just as easily be sub-conscious thoughts expressing themselves.


Typical argument:

How do we know that God exists? Faith. What is faith? Unproven belief in something (in this case, God). Well, why is it unproven? Because God wants his followers to have faith, to believe without concrete evidence. Why is Faith so important to the Christian religion? Because that's how we know God exists.

This proves nothing other than billions of people have difficulty thinking for themselves, and simply parrot back what they've been taught. I dont even find it surprising when I see the Church renig on their previous teachings about the world and science and the followers blindly follow where a few years ago they were completely behind whatever teaching was reniged on. I know this happens, I've seen it with my own eyes.

snip


re your sig: Oi! is a cell phone service provider in Brazil (with the !)

Besides attacking me and making a thinly veiled attempt to evangelize me, not one person has taken the time to address the points I've raised.
I certainly didn't attack you, nor did I try to "evangelize" you; however, I did address the points you made and you either avoided answering my questions, or danced around them. To state that you were not challenged is false.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10873652&postcount=2494

The following post you did not even reply to:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10874406&postcount=2525

re your sig: Oi! is a cell phone service provider in Brazil (with the !)Seriously?! That's fucking hillarious!! :p

EDIT: Neut have actually answered your question. Read back a bit mate ;)

I certainly didn't attack you, nor did I try to "evangelize" you; however, I did address the points you made and you either avoided answering my questions, or danced around them. To state that you were not challenged is false.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10873652&postcount=2494

The following post you did not even reply to:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10874406&postcount=2525

You know very well that I dont debate with you as it's a waste of my time because you dont care to listen to the points I make. If I did respond to one of your posts, it was because I did not realize that it was your post initially.

Seriously?! That's fucking hillarious!! :p

EDIT: Neut have actually answered your question. Read back a bit mate ;)
What question?

What question?The meaning of life thing. Granted, you didn't address it at CanuckHeaven but you answered all the same.

The meaning of life thing. Granted, you didn't address it at CanuckHeaven but you answered all the same.
LoL...As far as I know, I've read all your posts... I'm sure I noticed it, and might've even quoted it on the previous page.

Anyway, I'm off to work.

You know very well that I dont debate with you as it's a waste of my time because you dont care to listen to the points I make. If I did respond to one of your posts, it was because I did not realize that it was your post initially.
I read all of your "points" and then I asked you to clarify your points by asking you some questions. I assume by your non response that you cannot or refuse to clarify your points by answering the questions?

I read all of your "points" and then I asked you to clarify your points by asking you some questions. I assume by your non response that you cannot or refuse to clarify your points by answering the questions?
I already told you, Canuck. I dont debate with you.

I already told you, Canuck. I dont debate with you.

Just answer his questions and no one will get hurt :D

Yes, I do.

I believe in Him firmly with all my strength. I thank Him for everything that happens to me, good or bad, great or terrible. I know He is there, and I trust Him greatly.

Yea yea, sounds like a religious fanatic statement, but this is how I do things. Not saying I don't sin, cause I do look at playboy every now and then...but I'm not a fanatic, just faithful. Very Faithful, and I hate religion.

Christianity is what I believe in, if anyones interested. Reason why is because I follow the teachings of Jesus, and he does say that religion itself is bad. Faith is better. :)

ANYWHO....yay!....for IRC...for........I'm bored.. *walks off*

I already told you, Canuck. I dont debate with you.
Well, I can certainly understand your reluctance to do so. So in future please don't mind me, when I chip in with other questions asking you to clarify your points.

The meaning of life thing. Granted, you didn't address it at CanuckHeaven but you answered all the same.
Actually NS did answer the question about the "meaning of life" over a span of several posts and he contradicted himself quite well:

Edit: BTW, I love how you avoided my direct question (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10874406&postcount=2525)to you:

What you call belief, I call a desire to find some meaning for life instead of being willing to accept that it's just life.
So, please explain what you found, and what is the "meaning for life"?

Life is just that, life. There is no afterlife. It's just what it is. People look for meaning to their existence, and what greater meaning can there be than to have been created by a god?

I borrowed the following from a thread entitled "The Meaning of Life":
I must agree with Naliitr - Life is meaningless, it just is. Enjoy it while you can, and when it's over, that's all there is (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10855406&postcount=20).

And yet, he thinks it is wrong for someone else to search for a more significant meaning of life, other than being "meaningless", through belief in God:

So, in other words, your faith in God is based on an attempt to find meaning for your life. Gotcha.

Actually NS did answer the question about the "meaning of life" over a span of several posts and he contradicted himself quite well:

Edit: BTW, I love how you avoided my direct question (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10874406&postcount=2525)to you:


So, please explain what you found, and what is the "meaning for life"?


I borrowed the following from a thread entitled "The Meaning of Life":


And yet, he thinks it is wrong for someone else to search for a more significant meaning of life, other than being "meaningless", through belief in God:
See, this is why I dont debate you. You're saying I've contradicted myself, and yet, I haven't. Quit trying to goad me into a debate with you, it wont happen.

See, this is why I dont debate you. You're saying I've contradicted myself, and yet, I haven't. Quit trying to goad me into a debate with you, it wont happen.
I was replying to Similization's post. It really doesn't matter if you respond to my posts or not. You can put me on ignore for all that I care, but I will take the liberty to respond to anyones post here in NS, including yours, especially when you make statements such as, "life is meaningless (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10855406&postcount=20)".

I believe there is something out there.

I believe there is something out there.
Evidently you do; this topic seems to have been brought back to life long after it had passed on.

Why won't this thread die? :(

Why won't this thread die? :(

God won't let it.

God loves this thread.

Why won't this thread die? :(

Somebody casted raise dead.

God won't let it.

God loves this thread.
*bitchslaps God*

Somebody casted raise dead.
:headbang:

*bitchslaps God*

I wouldn't do that.

I wouldn't do that.

Neither would I... but for very different reasons...

I wouldn't do that.
*roundhouse kicks God*

Hows that? :p

*roundhouse kicks God*

Hows that? :p

I wouldn't go around doing things to God. He has a way of getting even with you.

I believe in God.

God didn't LET your friend die. About 6,000 years ago, the only man and woman alive, and the first ones, sinned by disobeying God and falling into temptation through Satan. Thus, death came into the word because of sin, and it isn't God's fault.

IT'S HUMANKIND'S FAULT!

All men and women have sinned.

THAT'S why your friend died.(sry bout your friend)

I wouldn't go around doing things to God. He has a way of getting even with you.
Drive-by?

I wouldn't go around doing things to God. He has a way of getting even with you.

So does Voldemort. Seriously, I read about it in this book once...

*roundhouse kicks God*

Hows that? :p


Hey ruffy...let us spam this thread, as to kill it off. Then It will be added to my spam forum empire :D

I believe in God.

God didn't LET your friend die. About 6,000 years ago, the only man and woman alive, and the first ones, sinned by disobeying God and falling into temptation through Satan. Thus, death came into the word because of sin, and it isn't God's fault.

IT'S HUMANKIND'S FAULT!

All men and women have sinned.

THAT'S why your friend died.(sry bout your friend)

Wow. BIG text!

Hell, I'm convinced.... :)

So does Voldemort. Seriously, I read about it in this book once...
Lol..

I wouldn't go around doing things to God. He has a way of getting even with you.
This God being the merciful, kind and forgiving God that told us all to turn the other cheek and do as he does?

Hey ruffy...let us spam this thread, as to kill it off. Then It will be added to my spam forum empire :D
Yes!

Yes!


Woohoo!!!:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :D :D :D

This God being the merciful, kind and forgiving God that told us all to turn the other cheek and do as he does?

For the record, turning the other cheek was a way of "getting even" and resisting - simply a nonviolent one.

: :mad: :mad: Woohoo!!!:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :D :D :D

For the record, turning the other cheek was a way of "getting even" and resisting - simply a nonviolent one.
I'm aware of that, but this is precisely an example of being slapped and I would assume that God would hold to his own standards.

I'm aware of that, but this is precisely an example of being slapped and I would assume that God would hold to his own standards.

Do you hold to a law that would prevent you from slapping with the other hand?

:headbang:
Old things never die. Nothing wrong about a new member looking into NS past and picking an old thread that stands out, to speak out his/her own opinion.

If you're going to bang your head everytime this happens, you're going to end up with a fractured skull. :D

Welcome Amurian...

Do you hold to a law that would prevent you from slapping with the other hand?
I would if I told other people to do so.

If there is a God, then he's not a very nice one.

I feel there is some sort of godly thing. They don't 'help out' much because life is a test of who you are and what you do.;) Be good and you get a reward.

Good guy Bad guy
:cool: (:confused: to :) ) :cool: :sniper:
helps confused people kills people not in self-defense


NOW THE HEADBANGERS
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

-Ker-smilie-
*Drowns in smilies*

I forgot something. If you don't want people to die, find the cure for their problem. And don't tell me something is UNCURABLE. Everything could be cured if we just looked...

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

I forgot something. If you don't want people to die, find the cure for their problem. And don't tell me something is UNCURABLE. Everything could be cured if we just looked...

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

1) Please stop with the headbanging icon.

and

2) I agree that things can be cured but that will take time unfortunately.

I forgot something. If you don't want people to die, find the cure for their problem. And don't tell me something is UNCURABLE. Everything could be cured if we just looked...

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Particularly headaches... :D

Old things never die. Nothing wrong about a new member looking into NS past and picking an old thread that stands out, to speak out his/her own opinion.

If you're going to bang your head everytime this happens, you're going to end up with a fractured skull. :D

Welcome Amurian...
Yes sir :(

I would if I told other people to do so.

"Turn the other cheek" only applies literally in a society in which you know that the person hitting you will not hit with the left hand. Otherwise, it becomes, "Let them slap you around all they like."

I forgot something. If you don't want people to die, find the cure for their problem. And don't tell me something is UNCURABLE. Everything could be cured if we just looked...

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
1) Please stop with the headbanging icon.


Please stop quoting the person who wont stop with the headbanging icon.

Please stop quoting the person who wont stop with the headbanging icon.
Pwnd :D

Well,I beleive in God,but in an agnostic manner,up until now.Not because I beleive in a particular prophet or theology,it's just that I can't accept our lives are pointless and meaningless.

I mean,the idea that our existence is a fluke of nature and that our purpose in this short,pointless period of time we call a lifetime is just to eat,sleep and screw each other(literally and figuratively),just to continue our species by making more of each other to continue the self-sustaning monotonous cycle...it just depresses me to my core.

It's one of the few serious idea about life I have come across and been so convinced and saddened at the same time.:(

I believe in God.

God didn't LET your friend die. About 6,000 years ago, the only man and woman alive, and the first ones, sinned by disobeying God and falling into temptation through Satan. Thus, death came into the word because of sin, and it isn't God's fault.

IT'S HUMANKIND'S FAULT!

All men and women have sinned.

THAT'S why your friend died.(sry bout your friend)

Comfort people much?

Well,I beleive in God,but in an agnostic manner,up until now.Not because I beleive in a particular prophet or theology,it's just that I can't accept our lives are pointless and meaningless.

I mean,the idea that our existence is a fluke of nature and that our purpose in this short,pointless period of time we call a lifetime is just to eat,sleep and screw each other(literally and figuratively),just to continue our species by making more of each other to continue the self-sustaning monotonous cycle...it just depresses me to my core.

It's one of the few serious idea about life I have come across and been so convinced and saddened at the same time.:(
Why do you call sleeping, eating and screwing pointless? What would give them a point?

Why do you call sleeping, eating and screwing pointless? What would give them a point?

Well, that gets back to my theory of the "placebo" effect. People give their life meaning by believing they were created by a higher being. I mean, what could give more purpose for your existence than to have been created by God?

I prefer not to look for a higher purpose to my existence. I just am and I'm going to enjoy it as much as I can while I can. To waste my life looking for a greater purpose for my existence is a waste of a lifetime, in my opinion.

Why do you call sleeping, eating and screwing pointless? What would give them a point?

Such... an... obvious... pun... Must... resist... temptation...

I had a revelation a while ago about why humans suffer if there is an omnipotent all benevolent god . Do I have faith? Not necessarily, but it helped explain some things to me.

still agnostic until noted otherwise.

I had a revelation a while ago about why humans suffer if there is an omnipotent all benevolent god . Do I have faith? Not necessarily, but it helped explain some things to me.

still agnostic until noted otherwise.

Just curious, but does it have anything to do with it all being in peoples' heads?

Just curious, but does it have anything to do with it all being in peoples' heads?

No, I thought that once, but what happened was rather complicated.

Well, that gets back to my theory of the "placebo" effect. People give their life meaning by believing they were created by a higher being. I mean, what could give more purpose for your existence than to have been created by God?

I prefer not to look for a higher purpose to my existence. I just am and I'm going to enjoy it as much as I can while I can. To waste my life looking for a greater purpose for my existence is a waste of a lifetime, in my opinion.
Turn the question around for you: How does having a God give more meaning to life (a point)?

Well.. I started thinking why would God let her die? She was a good person. She shouldn't have been taken, it wasn't her time.


I understand this is an emotional issue for you, but looking at this logically, your logic is somewhat screwed. Imagine just for a moment if events such as this were in fact based on how 'virtuous' people were. The following would happen
- Hardly anyone would ever win the lottery
- Hospitals would only have evil people in them
- Every coin flip would favour the more virtous person
ETC
Virtue presupposes some metaphysically 'real' ethical structure of the universe, and only the kind that can be associated with the absolutes of a God who can 'build' natural consequences (e.g. landslides) into ethical actions. All other systems have a 'human contractual' character--hardly something physical laws of plate tectonics should be expected to honor! Picking an ethic and agreeing on it, or 'actualizing it' (whatever that means!) by sincerity, will, etc. hardly is going to affect global weather patterns that produce hurricanes or tornadoes (unless, of course, one can get the wing-flapping, chaos-leveraging butterfly to flap its wings in the necessary way to steer the hurricane into uninhabited areas of sea...).

So, IF 'virtue' requires a God anyway (to even make sense of the concept at all), then you cannot use the same thing to argue against Him

I would have to say yes. God is always there to help us out. Without him what would we do?

Jesus said, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, through he were dead, yet shall he live. John 11:25

I would have to say yes. God is always there to help us out. Without him what would we do?


Much the same?

So, IF 'virtue' requires a God anyway (to even make sense of the concept at all), then you cannot use the same thing to argue against Him

It might be a valid argument if 'virtue' DID require a 'god'... but it doesn't.

Even if you assume there IS empirical 'good' and 'evil'... it doesn't automatically follow that either aspect MUST be personified.

It might be a valid argument if 'virtue' DID require a 'god'... but it doesn't.

Even if you assume there IS empirical 'good' and 'evil'... it doesn't automatically follow that either aspect MUST be personified.

But the assumption of deseverdness or virtue assumes an objective morality, otherwise the whole notion falls down. Hence it is a flawed proposition

But the assumption of deseverdness or virtue assumes an objective morality, otherwise the whole notion falls down. Hence it is a flawed proposition

There can't be virtue within the context of subjective morality?

Or is there an objective morality, and it conveniently happens to be the one you believe in...

But the assumption of deseverdness or virtue assumes an objective morality, otherwise the whole notion falls down. Hence it is a flawed proposition

Why? "Objective morality" does not equate to necessity for a god...

I know there is a God. Not because I've been brainwashed into believing that (maybe I have, as I've believed in God all my life) but because I see evidence on a daily basis. No randomly generated system of carbon-based lifeforms and the actions they take could have a purpose.

If there was no God, there would be no meaning in life. Somebody had to set this up. If everything came out of nothing, then it would still be nothing unless it was created by something.

Why? "Objective morality" does not equate to necessity for a god...
no but the original assumption is that "god killed my friend even though she was a good person"

he is working with the assumption that there IS a god and showing that life would be very odd if god set up plate techtonics, which caused a tsunami in the indian ocean, and then violated his whole setup by having that tsunami avoid every "good" person and kill every "bad" one (with the assumption being that GOD decides who is good and bad on a basis that would make sense to us)

the original poster seemed to feel that god should violate the rules of biology in order to keep good people from dying. there would be no need for medicine if thats the why the world worked. why try hard to save the lives of bad people when you can know for sure that thats why they are sick to begin with?

i felt that adriactica made good points with his post.

no but the original assumption is that "god killed my friend even though she was a good person"

he is working with the assumption that there IS a god and showing that life would be very odd if god set up plate techtonics, which caused a tsunami in the indian ocean, and then violated his whole setup by having that tsunami avoid every "good" person and kill every "bad" one (with the assumption being that GOD decides who is good and bad on a basis that would make sense to us)

the original poster seemed to feel that god should violate the rules of biology in order to keep good people from dying. there would be no need for medicine if thats the why the world worked. why try hard to save the lives of bad people when you can know for sure that thats why they are sick to begin with?

i felt that adriactica made good points with his post.

Why try to save the lives of 'bad people'?

How about the old: "It is not for ME to judge"?

I know there is a God. Not because I've been brainwashed into believing that (maybe I have, as I've believed in God all my life) but because I see evidence on a daily basis. No randomly generated system of carbon-based lifeforms and the actions they take could have a purpose.
Interesting nation name, given your post.
You don't need anyone else's "brainwashing" to assert meaning to issues with your own misunderstandings. You can do that all by yourself. The difference is how educated you are on what issues you're dealing with.
You really don't have all the odds of the scheme of the universe to decide what the likelihood is of any significant universal-scale event occurring. Really. That's a bit arrogant of an assumption, were it to be the case.

If there was no God, there would be no meaning in life.

Ah there we go, with the emotive appeal to insecurity. Perhaps there is no meaning other than for you to figure things out with faculty, to have judgment and ability to act upon real information (instead of confabulation and erratic imagination) and not emotional rationale. Strangely remniscient of a basic principal of survival.
You, generally speaking.

Exactly what "real information" are you talking about? All these theories of origin are discarded and disproven on a weekly basis. Every discovery scientists make in the field is overruled by another one made the next day.

Scientific theories of origin assume that the cause is something tangible that we can understand. If we could understand it, how could it have created us? Understanding is the highest form of human thought, therefore if we could fully understand everything then we would therefore be the highest beings. How can the highest beings be created? It has to have already been created by something else.

Why am I being attacked for stating my beliefs, anyway? I thought I was free to make my own choices...

Why try to save the lives of 'bad people'?

How about the old: "It is not for ME to judge"?
i think you are trying very hard not to understand adriaticas point

he is talking about how the system would have to work if god DID spare the lives of "good" people and let "bad" people die. no one is advocating letting bad people die.

if god spared good people and let bad people die, then medicine would be verifiably acting against the will of god. digging people out of avalanches would be a freaking SIN.

the world DOESNT work that way. bad things happen to good people and bad people and it is NOT our job to decide who is who. that is obviously the way god wants it. he isnt "killing your friend even though she is a very good person" he is letting the system he set up operate in the way he set it up.

Absolutely yes.

Exactly what "real information" are you talking about? All these theories of origin are discarded and disproven on a weekly basis. Every discovery scientists make in the field is overruled by another one made the next day.Really? Every day? Go ahead and post some, and give a timeline. That's a good way to back up your argument.
By the way, do you drive a car? Do you use a computer? Do you understand english? How do you think those things happened? Because discoveries are overruled every consecutive day? Is that why?


Scientific theories of origin assume that the cause is something tangible that we can understand. If we could understand it, how could it have created us? This basically disqualifies you from being an authority on the subject, if you present yourself your own conundrum, under the assumption that others fall under that paradoxical thinking.
Besides, many religions are quite fond of requiring their god to have enough human characteristics to make them relatable to us - you know, "created us in god's image" and that hogsh*t.

Understanding is the highest form of human thought, therefore if we could fully understand everything then we would therefore be the highest beings. There is another example of misunderstanding. You can understand how it works to parasail in every respect and still not be able to do it, not having the faculty.
How can the highest beings be created? It has to have already been created by something else.What exactly are you basing the reality of a supposed "higher being" on?
Perhaps there isn't any such thing.
Perhaps we're stuck with dealing with what we've got, and improving on it.


Why am I being attacked for stating my beliefs, anyway? I thought I was free to make my own choices...I don't actually know what you "believe", i'm just pointing out how irrational they are in certain senses of argument.
No need to go "martyr" about it.

Really? Every day? Go ahead and post some, and give a timeline. That's a good way to back up your argument.
By the way, do you drive a car? Do you use a computer? Do you understand english? How do you think those things happened? Because discoveries are overruled every consecutive day? Is that why?
Perhaps this wasn't very clear, but I meant scientific theories of origin. True science, that which can be definitively proven, does tend to stick around. Theories of origin do seem to come and go quickly. We think we've found it, and then we realize that we haven't. It's the use of hyperbole.

This basically disqualifies you from being an authority on the subject, if you present yourself your own conundrum, under the assumption that others fall under that paradoxical thinking.
On such a broad scale, the paradox would have to apply to everyone. It's not a theory of the origin of that wart on my left big toe, it's a theory of origin of life as we know it. Why would it apply only to me? We were all created by a certain thing, or we all weren't.

Besides, many religions are quite fond of requiring their god to have enough human characteristics to make them relatable to us - you know, "created us in god's image" and that hogsh*t.
Relatable to us, yes. Fully understood by us, no.

There is another example of misunderstanding. You can understand how it works to parasail in every respect and still not be able to do it, not having the faculty.
Touche.

What exactly are you basing the reality of a supposed "higher being" on?
Perhaps there isn't any such thing.
Perhaps we're stuck with dealing with what we've got, and improving on it.
Perhaps. I'm only stating my belief, and the reason why I believe that.

How can the highest beings be created? It has to have already been created by something else.
I suppose that if there is a God, he would be the highest being/entity/whatever and, following this reasoning, would himself have been created by another and so on...

Perhaps this wasn't very clear, but I meant scientific theories of origin. True science, that which can be definitively proven, does tend to stick around. Theories of origin do seem to come and go quickly. We think we've found it, and then we realize that we haven't. It's the use of hyperbole.Fair enough, i personally don't subscribe to any "belief system" that isn't qualified by evidence - the kind that isn't just a historical spin but also quite clearly evident in my own daily life. As theories of origin go, that's an ongoing battle, but it is a failure in some respect to drop the pursuit of meaning of past for an individual if they just decide that one answer suits them best on an emotional level and disregarding the rest. I suspect it depends on how much that ones' past is important to them for their meaning.


On such a broad scale, the paradox would have to apply to everyone. It's not a theory of the origin of that wart on my left big toe, it's a theory of origin of life as we know it. Why would it apply only to me? We were all created by a certain thing, or we all weren't.I suspect if you were alive in a different time than now, you'd have a different angle altogether on this. Consider pantheism and its merits in this line of thinking.
As far as "life as we know it" - consider extremophiles.


Relatable to us, yes. Fully understood by us, no.Aye, there's the rub.
It doesn't behoove anyone, however, to just assume that musings are easily summated as understood by someone else and not by one's self. It's a betrayal, especially when the issue is truly about musings.



Perhaps. I'm only stating my belief, and the reason why I believe that.Well, i suspect you really can't be much at fault for that.

First of all, most people on this board who claim that there is a God have no evidence, other than that in the Bible; there is no way to tell for sure if the Bible, or any other religious book, is right or wrong, simply because there is no legitimate evidence. Secondly, either you're wrong, or all other religions are wrong, or you're both wrong. That's why I find it hilarious to see people posting with "definite" evidence that their God exists.

More likely than not, there is no superior being, as there is no real evidence; I am not denying the existence of a god either, as it is possible that there is a god, although we cannot know for sure at the moment.

The Bible also says many things that are false, such as that the Earth is "a few thousand years old," which is obviously FALSE, according to carbon dating and other scientific techniques.

Stop claiming that "prayer will save you" or that non-believers should "see the light"; why don't you take a glance at the light of reason, science, and open-mindedness?

Yes, I have faith in God. Why?

There is no why to it, I do, it is absurd and I accept that. All faith is absurd, this is the nature of faith in itself. One must have faith to pass the potential offense at the absurd, but one must pass offense to have faith.

And this is significant to why life and death seem so absurd. We ask why she or he had to go early, why they died in a painful way. Why did the Jews die, but Hitler took so long to kill? Where's the justice, we ask?

That is key to faith, faith is belief in the face of the absurd, it is to say: "I am free, and I will affirm that there is more than this meaningless, bleak existence." It is to pass beyond evidence and into the illogical, it is to dedicate your life to something that you can never prove or establish exists.

What is greater than to give up your life for no reason other than your love for a God that created you, not because that God has threatened you, or because that God has blessed you, but because you love that God in the face of all the absurd woes and injustices of the world?

Yes, but what is the point of faith? To make you feel good, or something? First of all, most religions are illogical and out of date, and have been hindrances to science and advancement for the good of the world. (See the Catholic Church for quite a few examples.) Religion also causes a good deal of harm; see the riots between Hindus and Muslims over Kashmir, the dispute between the Palestinians and the Israelis, Islamist terror groups, and others for examples of modern-day religious problems. It is time for humanity to let go of the supernatural; agnosticism is the only way to go.

Yes, I have faith in God. Why?

There is no why to it, I do, it is absurd and I accept that. All faith is absurd, this is the nature of faith in itself. One must have faith to pass the potential offense at the absurd, but one must pass offense to have faith.

And this is significant to why life and death seem so absurd. We ask why she or he had to go early, why they died in a painful way. Why did the Jews die, but Hitler took so long to kill? Where's the justice, we ask?

That is key to faith, faith is belief in the face of the absurd, it is to say: "I am free, and I will affirm that there is more than this meaningless, bleak existence." It is to pass beyond evidence and into the illogical, it is to dedicate your life to something that you can never prove or establish exists.

What is greater than to give up your life for no reason other than your love for a God that created you, not because that God has threatened you, or because that God has blessed you, but because you love that God in the face of all the absurd woes and injustices of the world?
You must've dug the Pharoahs. *shakes head*


A man should remind himself that an object of faith is not scientifically demonstrable, lest presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, he should produce inconclusive reasons and offer occasion for unbelievers to scoff at a faith based on such ground.

You must've dug the Pharoahs. *shakes head*

Kierkegaard, if you must know.

(No idea what you are referencing here, honestly. I'm not old enough to have dug pharaohs anywhere so I assume you mean "enjoyed" or something similiar)

First of all, most religions are illogical and out of date, and have been hindrances to science and advancement for the good of the world. (See the Catholic Church for quite a few examples.)

You have much historical ignorance.
Enjoy it.

Oh, really, I have historical ignorance? How so? Is it not true that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, and others; the list goes on. You are the one lacking historical evidence.

Kierkegaard, if you must know.Well, i don't, but thanks anyway.
:)

Oh, really, I have historical ignorance? How so? Is it not true that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, and others; the list goes on. You are the one lacking historical evidence.Yet organised religion, especially Christianity, have also been the guardians of knowledge & the educators of mankind, for hundreds of years...

It's a bit more complex that simply "Religion loves ignorance".Well, i don't, but thanks anyway.You don't know Kirkegaard?! I'm shocked. Have a look at wikipedia, you won't regret it.

Weird hiccuping internet. double post.

Weird hiccupy internet triple post.

First of all, most people on this board who claim that there is a God have no evidence, other than that in the bible; there is no way to tell for sure if the bible, or any other religious book, is right or wrong, simply because there is no legitimate evidence. Secondly, either you're wrong, or all other religions are wrong, or you're both wrong. That's why I find it hilarious to see people posting with "definite" evidence that their God exists.

More likely than not, there is no superior being, as there is no real evidence; I am not denying the existence of a god either, as it is possible that there is a god, although we cannot know for sure at the moment.

The Bible also says many things that are false, such as that the Earth is "a few thousand years old," which is obviously FALSE, according to carbon dating and other scientific techniques.

Stop claiming that "prayer will save you" or that non-believers should "see the light"; why don't you take a glance at the light of reason, science, and open-mindedness?

I honestly was surprised to see an Agnostic make such a fierce attack on believers but I'm not so sure anymore that you're sure that you are not sure whether God exists or not. :D If you don't deny the possibility of God, why attack people that believe in Him? You just generalised believers as people who are anti-reason, anti-science and narrow-minded. You see, I am very happy being Agnostic and following Jesus teachings (not only from the bible) and I'm not so narrow-minded to think that every religious person is what you just said. If you don't think that either, maybe you shouldn't use generalisations. Otherwise, who's being unreasonable?

Also, I really believe that you shouldn't be reading the bible literally just because some people do, not in the 21st century. Even the Catholic priest that married most of my friends knows that...

It's a bit more complex that simply "Religion loves ignorance".You don't know Kirkegaard?! I'm shocked. Have a look at wikipedia, you won't regret it.
He is one of the few philosophers who has thus so far eluded me.

*snip*
I think I am going to like you. :)

I think I am going to like you. :)
Could I ever not return a smile? :)

You don't know Kirkegaard?! I'm shocked. Have a look at wikipedia, you won't regret it.
No, no, i said "Well, i don't, but thanks anyway. :) "
Meaning i don't really need to know ...
I've got Either/Or.
It's not my swing. There's a few good arguments, but not enough to memorize him, IMNSHO.
;)

Gah! Blast my lack of concentration. I just deleted one of my responses when I though it was a double post ><

He is one of the few philosophers who has thus so far eluded me.

Fear and Trembling should be easy to get a hold of, if you have more time, you might want to try Practice in Christianity (which I've also seen called Training in Christianity). You'll know it by mentioning 'offense' a lot.

Yes, Muslims did make significant contributions to science, but look at Muslim countries today; they are far from being advanced, in economic terms, as well as cultural, and the reason for their lack of success is rooted in the Islamic principles that they have continued to hold to as their laws. See Saudi Arabia, for example, where women are denied basic rights such as being able to drive, and the monarchy is only really kept in power by the hardline, censoring, and oppressive Wahhabi sect. It is no wonder that there is so much instability in that country. While Islam did help significantly in the past, it is certainly holding down most of the Middle East right now.

How is the Catholic Church a guardian of education? They keep their documents locked up in secret vaults, inaccessible to the public, restricting people from the knowledge hidden by the Church. Scientists have been hindered by the Church, afraid to publish works for fear of being persecuted, and people were inable to read works like Galileo's because the powerful Church banned the works.

Gah! Blast my lack of concentration. I just deleted one of my responses when I though it was a double post ><

Fear and Trembling should be easy to get a hold of, if you have more time, you might want to try Practice in Christianity (which I've also seen called Training in Christianity). You'll know it by mentioning 'offense' a lot.
Awesome, thanks for the titles.

How is the Catholic Church a guardian of education? They keep their documents locked up in secret vaults, inaccessible to the public, restricting people from the knowledge hidden by the Church. Scientists have been hindered by the Church, afraid to publish works for fear of being persecuted, and people were inable to read works like Galileo's because the powerful Church banned the works.
These are your serious arguments against God? Pre-school hatred of their "witholding" of knowledge? :rolleyes:

I never attacked Jesus or Jesus' teachings, and I believe that many of the morals written down in the Bible have been important throughout history. I was not saying that all Christians or Jews interpret the Bible literally, but rather attacking those who believed it to be factual if interpreted literally. Once again, my main points are that the Bible cannot be interpreted factually; religion has been a hindrance to science and reason throughout history; and that faith is not necessary at this point in civilization.

Europa Maxima, you didn't read my other posts, obviously. That was a response to someone who said that the Church has been a guardian of knowledge. Look before you write.

Europa Maxima, you didn't read my other posts, obviously. That was a response to someone who said that the Church has been a guardian of knowledge. Look before you write.
Again then, you would be wrong. The pre-modern Churches did much to guard and promote knowledge. The Catholic Church did not go against knowledge, so long as it did not contradict its orthodoxy. People exaggerate the extent of its actions.

and that faith is not necessary at this point in civilization.

Who said anything about necessity?

religion has been a hindrance to science and reason throughout history;

And secular states have never been so?

I think the problem is with people in power, not religion.

"God" not really. That is just a title. A being/form/whatever, yes. It's the only thing that makes sense...we (IMO) couldn't have just been.

I do question "God's" intelligence sometimes, i mean..,politicians? ;) :P

:sniper: :sniper:

I am not saying that the Catholic Church stood in the way of knowledge all the time. But it is an undeniable fact that many people, including Copernicus, Darwin, and Galileo, were threatened and persecuted by the Church, and most people lived in fear of the Church's power, preventing them from reading the "heretical" works of scientists who went against the Church's beliefs. It's not as if the Catholic Church spent all of its time persecuting people, but they were undoubtedly a hindrance to reason and science. Even the Pope John Paul II admitted that the Church had been wrong in attacking Galileo and others. So you are the one who is wrong.

but they were undoubtedly a hindrance to reason and science.

In some cases.

Even the Pope John Paul II admitted that the Church had been wrong in attacking Galileo and others. So you are the one who is wrong.

Did I ever say what they did was right? Please, follow some sort of logical flow, it makes things easier.

I am not saying that the Catholic Church stood in the way of knowledge all the time. But it is an undeniable fact that many people, including Copernicus, Darwin, and Galileo, were threatened and persecuted by the Church, and most people lived in fear of the Church's power, preventing them from reading the "heretical" works of scientists who went against the Church's beliefs. It's not as if the Catholic Church spent all of its time persecuting people, but they were undoubtedly a hindrance to reason and science. Even the Pope John Paul II admitted that the Church had been wrong in attacking Galileo and others. So you are the one who is wrong.
Hardly. You just affirmed what I said. Thus, the amount of blame put on the Catholic Church is clearly disproportionate to the amount it deserves. Furthermore, it has apologised for its transgressions, so I think bringing them up is little more than ochre appeals to emotions.

To Rispetto Sovrano:

I agree that religion has good intentions, and that the people who abuse and exploit it are the ones who have turned it into more of a bad thing than a good one. Secular states have also been problems, or especially atheist ones(such as the murderous U.S.S.R. and China), but religion is something that should really change. Take Christianity stripped-down, minus the inaccurate Gospels, all the talk about God and the supernatural, and you are left with Jesus' teachings that are an outline for a moral life, such as love thy neighbor as you would love thyself, etc.. Isn't that better?

To Rispetto Sovrano:

I agree that religion has good intentions, and that the people who abuse and exploit it are the ones who have turned it into more of a bad thing than a good one. Secular states have also been problems, or especially atheist ones(such as the murderous U.S.S.R. and China), but religion is something that should really change. Take Christianity stripped-down, minus the inaccurate Gospels, all the talk about God and the supernatural, and you are left with Jesus' teachings that are an outline for a moral life, such as love thy neighbor as you would love thyself, etc.. Isn't that better?
That is essentially what I follow. I love Catholicism's rituals and visual aspects too though.

I have to go, but what I was saying, Europa Maxima, is that the Church was not exactly supportive of scientific thought in the past, not attacking it now, in terms of their views on science. I do honestly believe that the world [B]could[B] be a far better place if the supernatural and religion didn't exist today.

(...), and you are left with Jesus' teachings that are an outline for a moral life, such as love thy neighbor as you would love thyself, etc.. Isn't that better?
As long as you are prepared for your neighbour being a lovely Chinese Catholic family... :D

I have to go, but what I was saying, Europa Maxima, is that the Church was not exactly supportive of scientific thought in the past, not attacking it now, in terms of their views on science. I do honestly believe that the world [B]could[B] be a far better place if the supernatural and religion didn't exist today.
That is nonsense. Religion was used by man to forward certain agendae. It was not the reason that we regressed; man was. Do not blame the tool over its user. Were religion to go, humans could find something new to excuse their actions with. Do not look at it so simplistically. Either way, the scientific progress during the times that the Catholic Church was at its height was not significant enough to effect any major changes on humanity either way, even if the Church had not prosecuted those scientists. Furthermore, political ideology in the form of the USSR, China and Nazi Germany has wreaked far more havoc than any religion has ever been able to.

Take Christianity stripped-down, minus the inaccurate Gospels, all the talk about God and the supernatural, and you are left with Jesus' teachings that are an outline for a moral life, such as love thy neighbor as you would love thyself, etc.. Isn't that better?

Why would it be better? Do you have a reason? Why are the Gospels 'highly innacurate'. If you toss out the Gospels you don't even have Jesus' teachings, now do you? How do you decide which sections are accurate, or are you merely choosing which are agreeable?

What you are left with is not Christianity, you're left with a madman claiming to be the Son of God, who you go to for moral advice. Moral advice without any sort of logical backing, unlike say Kant, Rawls or Bentham.

Why would it be better? Do you have a reason? Why are the Gospels 'highly innacurate'. If you toss out the Gospels you don't even have Jesus' teachings, now do you? How do you decide which sections are accurate, or are you merely choosing which are agreeable?

What you are left with is not Christianity, you're left with a madman claiming to be the Son of God, who you go to for moral advice. Moral advice without any sort of logical backing, unlike say Kant, Rawls or Bentham.
I think he meant Paul's teachings.

I think he meant Paul's teachings.

Aye, could be. I still wait to see why Christianity is better off without Paul.

Editting out 'all the talk about God and the supernatural' is bizarre, and pointless. I'm not sure why you would need to do that, or why it would make it better.

What you are left with is not Christianity, you're left with a madman claiming to be the Son of God, who you go to for moral advice. Moral advice without any sort of logical backing, unlike say Kant, Rawls or Bentham.
Hey-Heeeyyyy......Hold your horses... Did you imply that Jesus message doesn't have any logical backing, if God doesn't exist? Because that would be rubbish as well, you know? I beg to differ. There is plenty of good sound (not only) moral advice, whether you believe or not.

Aye, could be. I still wait to see why Christianity is better off without Paul.

Editting out 'all the talk about God and the supernatural' is bizarre, and pointless. I'm not sure why you would need to do that, or why it would make it better.
Paul had very adverse opinions on homosexuals and women that Jesus and the other Apostles never expressed. The New Testament would be a lot less harsh without his "teachings".

While Islam did help significantly in the past, it is certainly holding down most of the Middle East right now.I would claim that the semi-organised institution of Islam & the various totalitarian leaderships are to blame, not the religion in & of itself. I can't prove that claim, but it would be relatively easy to show historical precedent.
This also leads me to believe that just about any authoritarian or hierarchal ideology or religion, could assume the role Islam plays in the ME regimes today.

Given this, I'm sure you can understand why I'll now ask you whether you believe Islam is to blame, or its followers?How is the Catholic Church a guardian of education?I did not say "is", I said "was". Yet in the face of growing ID trends, one could say that the Catholic Church's official endorsement of evolution, is effectively promoting knowledge & education.

You made the blanket statement that Christianity has been strangling the persuit of knowledge & education throughout history. That is absurd. If anything, organised Christianity have been both the educators & the guardians of knowledge for far longer than it has been at odds with these things.

Paul had very adverse opinions on homosexuals and women that Jesus and the other Apostles never expressed.
...could've been an issue of being repressed.

Hey-Heeeyyyy......Hold your horses... Did you imply that Jesus message doesn't have any logical backing, if God doesn't exist? Because that would be rubbish as well, you know? I beg to differ.

Are you saying Jesus taught without referring to God, the commandments, theology or the Covenant? A huge amount of things said by Jesus were argued on theological grounds.

Paul had very adverse opinions on homosexuals and women that Jesus and the other Apostles never expressed.

You might say 'Removing Paul makes it more agreeable' but saying it makes it 'better' is a completely different statement.

Also, at least on the issue of women, there is a lot of theological discussion that brings in other context Biblically that shows the opinions may not be as 'adverse' as people assume.

You might say 'Removing Paul makes it more agreeable' but saying it makes it 'better' is a completely different statement.
Do Paul's teachings indeed conform with those of Jesus though?

Also, at least on the issue of women, there is a lot of theological discussion that brings in other context Biblically that shows the opinions may not be as 'adverse' as people assume.
What exactly?

Are you saying Jesus taught without referring to God, the commandments, theology or the Covenant? A huge amount of things said by Jesus were argued on theological grounds...
I said nothing, I've asked a straight question:
Would the values of Jesus value less for you, if someone could prove to you right now that God does not exist?
Because to me they would be worth exactly the same.

Would the values of Jesus value less for you, if someone could prove to you right now that God does not exist?

Yes.

Do Paul's teachings indeed conform with those of Jesus though?

Do they contradict them?

What exactly?

That requires you to give examples of these 'adverse' opinions on women. In order to take a verse in context, you have to actually have the verse. I'm not about to go fetch them, then put them down. That's straw man.

I said nothing, I've asked a straight question:
Would the values of Jesus value less for you, if someone could prove to you right now that God does not exist?
Because to me they would be worth exactly the same.You're my kind of Christian. I'm an atheist, but I too see the value of most the things this Jesus character is supposed to have preached.

My views on religion and Christianity are those of Similization, except that I'm agnostic, not atheist.

My views on religion and Christianity are those of Similization, except that I'm agnostic, not atheist.

Weeelll technically...

I dunno, do I really wanna get into this again?

Do they contradict them?
Putting words in other people's mouths is not a form of contradiction, so no. They do, however, potentially create elements in the faith that Jesus may have never desired. The other Apostles disapproved of a lot of what Paul opined.

That requires you to give examples of these 'adverse' opinions on women. In order to take a verse in context, you have to actually have the verse. I'm not about to go fetch them, then put them down. That's straw man.
I was just enquiring if you had anything particular in mind. You needn't get defensive.

I said nothing, I've asked a straight question:
Would the values of Jesus value less for you, if someone could prove to you right now that God does not exist?
Because to me they would be worth exactly the same.
If only more of our kind thought like you.

I was just enquiring if you had anything particular in mind. You needn't get defensive.

I apologize if I came off as getting defensive. Such was not my intention.

They do, however, potentially create elements in the faith that Jesus may have never desired.

Yes. However removing them for that reason is to put words in Jesus' mouth yourself.

The other Apostles disapproved of a lot of what Paul opined.

I've never run into this, mayhaps you could clarify?

Yes. However removing them for that reason is to put words in Jesus' mouth yourself.
I just hold them with much suspicion.

I've never run into this, mayhaps you could clarify?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul "Paul as a usurper of Apostles" shows some opinions as to how he did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul "Paul as a usurper of Apostles" shows some opinions as to how he did.

I promise I'll get back to you on this one. Right now I'm drowsy from benadryl, and the stuff from The Pauline Conspiracy (I think that's the name of the linked site) just isn't making it past my retinas.

Weeelll technically...

I dunno, do I really wanna get into this again?
ROFL Don't you worry Tyrgrztystan, Dinaverg is just picking on you...

*slaps Dinaverg*
*she turns the other cheek*
*slaps Dinaverg*
*she turns the other cheek*
*slaps Dinaverg*
*she turns the other cheek*

Hey, this is fun....

I promise I'll get back to you on this one. Right now I'm drowsy from benadryl, and the stuff from The Pauline Conspiracy (I think that's the name of the linked site) just isn't making it past my retinas.
Take your time. I'll admit, my knowledge on Paul isn't very thorough, but I do know that conflict existed between him and others on a number of issues.

ROFL Don't you worry Tyrgrztystan, Dinaverg is just picking on you...

*slaps Dinaverg*
*she turns the other cheek*
*slaps Dinaverg*
*she turns the other cheek*
*slaps Dinaverg*
*she turns the other cheek*

Hey, this is fun....

1) She? Since when?
2) And why would I turn the other cheek?
3) Do you even know what I'm talking about?

Do Paul's teachings indeed conform with those of Jesus though?

Yes they do for it is through Jesus Christ that we are saved and through whom our sins are forgiven.

1) She? Since when?
ROFL A case of mistaken (sexual) identity... Sorry
2) And why would I turn the other cheek?
So I could hit the other side?
3) Do you even know what I'm talking about?
No. :D

Yes they do for it is through Jesus Christ that we are saved and through whom our sins are forgiven.

What does that have to do with consistency between Jesus and Paul?

If (conceivably, not definitely), Paul and/or others reworked Christ's teachings to better fit their purposes, why would restating one set of beliefs demonstrate anything in response to that premise?

Its as if someone questioned the veracity of a particular book written about someone years after their death, and you say "but of course the book is accurate. It says so on page 178."

What does that have to do with consistency between Jesus and Paul?

If (conceivably, not definitely), Paul and/or others reworked Christ's teachings to better fit their purposes, why would restating one set of beliefs demonstrate anything in response to that premise?

Its as if someone questioned the veracity of a particular book written about someone years after their death, and you say "but of course the book is accurate. It says so on page 178."

*sighs*

The Book of Romans is a letter written by Paul. It is based on Jesus's teachings and how we can become closer to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Yes they do for it is through Jesus Christ that we are saved and through whom our sins are forgiven.
Nah, nah. Keep the grudge. "God" obviously has a few of them, as do the "angels".
As good as it gets in "god"'s image.
Make weapons of your imperfections. Learn to be strong and resilient, and god will truly "help those who help themselves".
Stand and grow, or cower, beg, and wilt.

If that's your kind of thing. ;)

yes, I believe there is this thing called "god", because how did things, everything in this universe, come into existance? ... exactly! it had to come from somewhere. and so "god" was where it came from.

however, though I believe in a god, I don't believe in any particular religious interpretation of god. I think god is god, it watches over us and toys with our minds, offering us hope, and sometimes fucking us up. thats the way the cosmos works.

*sighs*

The Book of Romans is a letter written by Paul. It is based on Jesus's teachings and how we can become closer to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

You're just doing the same thing, presenting the position itself as axiomatic.
Now you're just saying "The book is true because the premise of the book is that the book is true".

Its no more valid than saying "The teachings of D.T. Suzuki are a discussion of Zen Bhuddism, which is the way to achieve enlightenment" in response to someone exploring the differences (whatever they may be) between contemporary Buddhist practice and the ancient version.

yes, I believe there is this thing called "god", because how did things, everything in this universe, come into existance? ... exactly! it had to come from somewhere. and so "god" was where it came from.

If this thing called "God" can be assigned the property of ontological primacy, why can nothing else?


however, though I believe in a god, I don't believe in any particular religious interpretation of god. I think god is god, it watches over us and toys with our minds, offering us hope, and sometimes fucking us up. thats the way the cosmos works.

Well, your views are consistent in their saliency.

You're just doing the same thing, presenting the position itself as axiomatic.
Now you're just saying "The book is true because the premise of the book is that the book is true".

Its no more valid than saying "The teachings of D.T. Suzuki are a discussion of Zen Bhuddism, which is the way to achieve enlightenment" in response to someone exploring the differences (whatever they may be) between contemporary Buddhist practice and the ancient version.

The letters of paul are based on the teachings of Jesus for it is through Jesus Christ our Lord that we will have eternal life. When we sin, our punishment is death but through Jesus, our sins are forgiven and we will have ever lasting life. John 3:16 even states this and Romans 6:23 states that the wages of Sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

The letters of paul are based on the teachings of Jesus for it is through Jesus Christ our Lord that we will have eternal life. When we sin, our punishment is death but through Jesus, our sins are forgiven and we will have ever lasting life. John 3:16 even states this and Romans 6:23 states that the wages of Sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.Three cheers for circular logic :p

The letters of paul are based on the teachings of Jesus for it is through Jesus Christ our Lord that we will have eternal life. When we sin, our punishment is death but through Jesus, our sins are forgiven and we will have ever lasting life. John 3:16 even states this and Romans 6:23 states that the wages of Sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

Its like pulling the chord on the back of a doll.

You keep citing the work itself in regards to its own veracity.

Do you know that the near autonomic recitation of dogma to evade response to a critique is often regarded as symptomatic of a very well known condition?

Its like pulling the chord on the back of a doll.

You keep citing the work itself in regards to its own veracity.

Do you know that the near autonomic recitation of dogma to evade response to a critique is often regarded as symptomatic of a very well known condition?
Corneliu = "Tautology"

Three cheers for circular logic :p

Heh, if Cantor looked for God in the lemniscate, I guess Corneliu thinks the circle will cover the same ground more quickly...

Corneliu = "Tautology"

Oh, I dunno...a tautology typically doesn't rely on arguments that have to assume the original statement to be true a priori in order to support it...

Oh, I dunno...a tautology typically doesn't rely on arguments that have to assume the original statement to be true a priori in order to support it...
Perhaps not. I was giving benefit where there weren't any merited, it would appear.
My bad.
He does have a maneuver named after him, though.

Perhaps not. I was giving benefit where there weren't any merited, it would appear.
My bad.
He does have a maneuver named after him, though.

Well, can't fault you for wanting to be nice. You've always been more affable than a blackjack dealer that just took your rubdown money...

Well, can't fault you for wanting to be nice. You've always been more affable than a blackjack dealer that just took your rubdown money...
Yes, occasionally there's the "reach-around" curteousy. :eek:

Although my school attempted to indoctorinate me (if Muslims and Jews can sit out assembly, what about atheists?), I have been an un-believer since, as an eight year old, I prayed to god not to have a dish I hate and very rarely have, and get it on that same night. So if God exists, he's not al he's made out to be.

The ever going question yet again. To be blatant, no, i do not believe in god. I don't believe in hell, and nor do I a higher power or even aliens watching us like an ant farm. But I do believe in ghosts (if you so call them that), a soul (a unique identity) and reincarnation simply because all matter is energy and energy can not be destroyed. I feel that fear of the unknown has forced our subconscious to create something that can make us feel save, justified, and have a point for living. Death itself is inevitable, whether you have a say in the matter or not. You didn't have the choice to be born so it is only fitting that most of us have no control of our end regardless of how virtuous or malicious we have lived our lives.

I forgot how stupid this thread was to begin with.

The most pathetic people who "lose faith" are the ones who freak out over how bad things happen to good people. Those kinds of people are even more worthless and idiotic than the ones who actually believe the crap with which their cult indoctrinates them.

I mean... come on. You lose faith because you're a contemplative intellectual, not because you're some whiny shit who can't take a bit of sadness.

I forgot how stupid this thread was to begin with.

The most pathetic people who "lose faith" are the ones who bitch about how bad things happen to good people. Those kind of people are even more worthless and idiotic than the ones who actually believe the crap with which their cult indoctrinates them.

See I don't see them as worthless idiots, everyone has feelings and a right to believe in what they wish

See I don't see them as worthless idiots, everyone has feelings and a right to believe in what they wish
A right?

I forgot how stupid this thread was to begin with.

The most pathetic people who "lose faith" are the ones who freak out over how bad things happen to good people. Those kinds of people are even more worthless and idiotic than the ones who actually believe the crap with which their cult indoctrinates them.

I mean... come on. You lose faith because you're a contemplative intellectual, not because you're some whiny shit who can't take a bit of sadness.

Um... wha? To me, if bad things happen to good people, that's incompatible with an all-good and all-powerful god.

See I don't see them as worthless idiots, everyone has feelings and a right to believe in what they wish

Egalitarian stupidity. Lovely.

There's a line between being open minded and open to letting people being stupid and delusional. In the realm of philosophy, be it political or religious, it's a big red line.

More importantly, there is no "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" crap in these fields (even if you are the idiot with the crackpot ideas), because any genuine believer is adamant enough about their beliefs to think everyone else is wrong.

Simply put, cut the self-righteous crap. Only idea-less fools and liars promote the idea of "everyone is right and can believe what they want."

Um... wha? To me, if bad things happen to good people, that's incompatible with an all-good and all-powerful god.

"Logic, come in logic." ... No response.

First off, omnipotence and purity don't necessitate happy days for you. Second off, happy days for you equals shitty days for someone else, so it's impossible to make everyone happy. Third off, the belief in an omnipotent and pure god is relatively new, started by the more recent cult religions. Ancient religions didn't even bother promoting it, because they were intelligent enough to see the fallacies in it.

Egalitarian stupidity. Lovely.

There's a line between being open minded and open to letting people being stupid and delusional. In the realm of philosophy, be it political or religious, it's a big red line.

More importantly, there is no "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" crap in these fields (even if you are the idiot with the crackpot ideas), because any genuine believer is adamant enough about their beliefs to think everyone else is wrong.

Simply put, cut the self-righteous crap. Only idea-less fools and liars promote the idea of "everyone is right and can believe what they want."
Guess I'm a fool then.

Guess I'm a fool then.

No, you're probably just not that interested in the issue. Either agnostic or non-practicing Christian who's too mentally lethargic to question his practices.

Either way, I'm in a bad mood and I'm sorry for being so rude.

"Logic, come in logic." ... No response.

First off, omnipotence and purity don't necessitate happy days for you. Second off, happy days for you equals shitty days for someone else, so it's impossible to make everyone happy. Third off, the belief in an omnipotent and pure god is relatively new, started by the more recent cult religions. Ancient religions didn't even bother promoting it, because they were intelligent enough to see the fallacies in it.

So if I'm happy, someone else must be unhappy? If an earthquake kills ten thousand people, does that make some people unhappy and therefore the earthquake should have been allowed to go ahead? If a god is omnipotent, then nothing is impossible anyway. Yes, "more recent" if you define 2000 years as recent. Anyway, I don't really see the point in worshipping or respecting a deity which isn't all-good, because judging by the state of the world he's an asshat and finds it amusing to watch the little humans die and suffer.

No, you're probably just not that interested in the issue. Either agnostic or non-practicing Christian who's too mentally lethargic to question his practices.

Either way, I'm in a bad mood and I'm sorry for being so rude.

Actually I am intrested in this topic, or I wouldn't be here, and secondly I don't exactly know where I stand in being classified, and thirdly don't worry about it, it's nice for a change to have such a good debate

it's nice for a change to have such a good debate
I ermed at this at first, but then noted your post count.
So would you say this thread has provided a good debate? Did you peruse the whole thing?

lol yea this is my first time on this site forum, I wasn't saying that, but I've descussed religion so many times, with a variety of different people and believes, in real life mostly and on other sites and forums

lol yea this is my first time on this site forum, I wasn't saying that, but I've descussed religion so many times, with a variety of different people and believes, in real life mostly and on other sites and forums
Well, that's (somewhat) the beauty of this forum and its relative anonymity - a lot of hellfire & brimstone get tossed around like so much halitosis.
There's some pretty decent folks here too, and with luck/serendipity/guidance, you'll encounter them, and it'll make it worthwhile.

Well, that's (somewhat) the beauty of this forum and its relative anonymity - a lot of hellfire & brimstone get tossed around like so much halitosis.
There's some pretty decent folks here too, and with luck/serendipity/guidance, you'll encounter them, and it'll make it worthwhile.
That's good to hear, but hellfire and brimstone doesn't scare me, kind of fuels me up instead. I like to hear other peoples ponts of view, it's just so refreshing

That's good to hear, but hellfire and brimstone doesn't scare me, kind of fuels me up instead. I like to hear other peoples ponts of view, it's just so refreshing
Well, some will be worth it, some'll waste your time.
Some truly mean well, and some are a bit more insidious.

I think Dempublicents1, Jocabia, Grave_n_idle, Willamena, Bottle, Tropical Sands, Muravyets, CanuckHeaven, Saint Curie, Similization, and a few others will give some pretty good material.

Watch out for Bruarong though.

Well... I voted 'no,' because I don't believe in the concept of a Christian God... but I do believe that there is a higher Universal consciousness that links everyone together. At the sae time though, I'm not dismissing other beief systems. I think that each one has some form of truth in them... but are just using their religions to try and eradicate others.

No God, Christian, Jewish, Islamic, whatever, would truly want people to harm each other (if we're presuming there is a God like that, per se) if he/she/it was a force of good, so how can practitioners of a specific religion say they're following it if they hurt others?

I think this is going on a tangent... but I think I'm still asleep, so maybe you should just ignore me :D

Well, some will be worth it, some'll waste your time.
Some truly mean well, and some are a bit more insidious.

I think Dempublicants, Jocabia, Grave_n_idle, Willamena, Bottle, Tropical Sands, Muravyets, CanuckHeaven, Saint Curie, Similization, and a few others will give some pretty good material.

Watch out for Bruarong though.
*smiles* Thank you, I appreciate it. I was reading quite a few of those peoples posts, b4 I made any comments. It's been a pleasure chatting with you

Well, some will be worth it, some'll waste your time.
Some truly mean well, and some are a bit more insidious.

I think Dempublicants, Jocabia, Grave_n_idle, Willamena, Bottle, Tropical Sands, Muravyets, CanuckHeaven, Saint Curie, Similization, and a few others will give some pretty good material.

Watch out for Bruarong though.

Oh, c'mon...I'm frequently not on board with Bruarong either, but there are certainly worse here to watch out for...

What about Sons of Tarsonis, Corneliu, CanuckHeaven, or Theorb?

Oh, c'mon...I'm frequently not on board with Bruarong either, but there are certainly worse here to watch out for...

What about Sons of Tarsonis, Corneliu, CanuckHeaven, or Theorb?
Sons is a fundie? I never got past his/her repub angle, IIRC. S/he was lightly entertaining though - i looked forward to a tangle with 'em.

Corny - well, he's the kleenex of NS bizarre arguments, even got his synonomy with a certain maneuver.

Theorb - I don't remember them. At all *shrugs*

CanuckHeaven - i don't badmouth him, because he's one of the only people to stand up for civil rights during the beginning of the extraordinary rendition issue, especially regarding Maher Arar and a few others a year or two back. Of course, i've never argued religion with him either, but he's always been pretty decent to me.
So has Corny, in his way. I've come to understand him a little better.

Bruarong is particularly difficult because of how much time s/he endeavours towards bs'ing their way through a thread. Also, by acting as though they have experience with certain scientific matters. Even Corny doesn't do so much claim any more.

I'm suspicious of any diety which demands worship. What are the motives behind it? An omniscient, all-loving god would not demand worship. It would leave the decision of whether or not to worship to us. The concept that you must believe in god, and worship it before gaining a reward leads me to believe that if there is a god it is not an Abrahamic one.

I'm inclined to believe that there is no god.

*smiles* Thank you, I appreciate it. I was reading quite a few of those peoples posts, b4 I made any comments. It's been a pleasure chatting with you
Same here. :)
I'm one of the more volatile posters about this particular topic, but oh well.

CanuckHeaven - i don't badmouth him, because he's one of the only people to stand up for civil rights during the beginning of the extraordinary rendition issue, especially regarding Maher Arar and a few others a year or two back. Of course, i've never argued religion with him either, but he's always been pretty decent to me.


Flip through the Pascal's Wager thread, even just the recent pages...

And we all have to be decent to you Straughn, 'cause you're just so...decent.

Except for that incident with the LA Laker cheerleaders, and if they don't want that done with Cool Whip, they should say so on the lid or something...

Bruarong is particularly difficult because of how much time s/he endeavours towards bs'ing their way through a thread. Also, by acting as though they have experience with certain scientific matters. Even Corny doesn't do so much claim any more.Yea, he's a regular terror. Constructs essey-length fallacies, puts a bit of spin on them when they're debunked, and repeat the first ones when the spin's shot down. A regular one-keyboard-nightmare that guy.

The rest aren't half as bad, 'cos it doesn't take half a day to reply to them, and they generally wait at least a few hours before they repeat previously debunked claims.

Incidentially, thanks for the compliment Straughn. But in a proper ass-kissing post, Neut definitly deserves an honorary mention.

he's an asshat and finds it amusing to watch the little humans die and suffer.

Such whining. Get real. Do you think any god would give two shits about a peon like you or me? We're one in 6.3 billion. We're specks on a dirtball hurtling around an insignificant sun in eternal darkness. And whether you're willing to believe the excuses modern monotheists make up for their gods or the ancient excuses of fate, the bottom line is that bad things happen and aren't controlled by you, me, or any invicible deities you might believe in.
As such, your disbelief in deities should be based on the realization of the complete lunacy of belief in them, not out of some emo angst about losing a loved one.

Such whining <Snip>It may be the heavy pain medication I'm enjoying right now, but your last few posts have made me laugh out loud.not out of some emo angst about losing a loved oneI have a feeling that Hamilay's simply trying to argue from the perspective of a religious person. I often do that in debates like these, because simply dismissing a caring deity as patently absurd, makes most opponents gag & run off screaming.

Yea, he's a regular terror. Constructs essey-length fallacies, puts a bit of spin on them when they're debunked, and repeat the first ones when the spin's shot down. A regular one-keyboard-nightmare that guy. Hahahahaha! That's going in my sig bank (there's a lot of 'em). And true. *nods*

The rest aren't half as bad, 'cos it doesn't take half a day to reply to them, and they generally wait at least a few hours before they repeat previously debunked claims.True. That dude/tte is pretty good at inciting the pile-on.

Incidentially, thanks for the compliment Straughn. But in a proper ass-kissing post, Neut definitly deserves an honorary mention.
Sputniks? Ah yes, good point. I haven't seen enough mention from them. But i was noting a few earlier posts, and was impressed.

Flip through the Pascal's Wager thread, even just the recent pages...I saw a little of it, but i lost track of it quite a while ago (varying forum/IRL issues). Admittedly, i often have problems with certain forms of delusion (there's SOOO many to choose from), i still find myself in a peculiar situation when it comes to a person's incentive to share.
Realistically - a person can rationalize their involvement with society that works, while at the same time knowing that it is a threat to their sovereignty, but you kind of take a certain amount of acceptable losses.
Similarly, i'm not racist at all (AFAIK), and people who take the perspective of racism publicly tend to really piss me off, but i can see that another persons' ACTUAL experience gives them a certain qualification for their perspective that i simply may not possess.

And we all have to be decent to you Straughn, 'cause you're just so...decent.
You lie. You ... lie. You LIE. LIE!

Except for that incident with the LA Laker cheerleaders, and if they don't want that done with Cool Whip, they should say so on the lid or something...What are you doing, listening to Sarkhaan again?
And it was butterscotch topping. :D

Its like pulling the chord on the back of a doll.

You keep citing the work itself in regards to its own veracity.

Do you know that the near autonomic recitation of dogma to evade response to a critique is often regarded as symptomatic of a very well known condition?

He who has ears to hear the word of the Lord, let him hear the word of the Lord. If you do not want to believe then its on your own soul.The letter to the Romans is how to find salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ and what the consequences are for those who do not find it.

Although my school attempted to indoctorinate me (if Muslims and Jews can sit out assembly, what about atheists?), I have been an un-believer since, as an eight year old, I prayed to god not to have a dish I hate and very rarely have, and get it on that same night. So if God exists, he's not al he's made out to be.

Ya know? The greatest gift of all is unanswered prayer.

Um... wha? To me, if bad things happen to good people, that's incompatible with an all-good and all-powerful god.

And here is why people lose faith. Its this sentence right here.

Well, that's (somewhat) the beauty of this forum and its relative anonymity - a lot of hellfire & brimstone get tossed around like so much halitosis.
There's some pretty decent folks here too, and with luck/serendipity/guidance, you'll encounter them, and it'll make it worthwhile.

I agree with you Straughn. You are one of those decent folks even though we do disagree 99% of the time :D

Oh, c'mon...I'm frequently not on board with Bruarong either, but there are certainly worse here to watch out for...

What about Sons of Tarsonis, Corneliu, CanuckHeaven, or Theorb?

Libal! Libal!

THough I disagree with CH most of the time, he is decent. I'm a decent person to on alot of subjects that get tossed about here as well. Just don't go around insulting me and we will get along just fine.