NationStates Jolt Archive

Religion has always bothered me...at least to the extent that you're supposed to blindly subscribe to an enormous collection of beliefs.
Even past religion, the idea of a deity, the idea of god is somewhat absurd. I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm simply voicing an opinion and a curiosity. Why do you believe in god? I've always considered the existence of a god far too convenient to be real...something that's all-powerful, all-knowing, all-controlling, seems like a fairy-tale for adults.
Not only this, the fact that the idea of a "god" fits perfectly into the early-day agenda of the church...in which the aristocratic church hierarchy tithed the illiterate common man, lest they sin and burn in hell.
Nevertheless, back to my main point, somebody explain their belief in god please.

Oh shit, here we go.

I got popcorn.

I'm afraid you won't find many on this forum who will support your views, LLF. This is a pretty devout group. :(

Oh, I dunno. You might be surprised.

I think.

Maybe...

Just to clarify a bit, I don't want to start some enormously controversial thread or anything, I just asked a simple question. I'm sincerely curious as to why people believe in god....if this is a devout group then all the better

Meh, I have a more liberal view of God that's as skeptic as believing.

In any case, does it matter either way why someone believes in God? I mean, do you judge people based on their views toward God?

Religion has always bothered me...at least to the extent that you're supposed to blindly subscribe to an enormous collection of beliefs.
Even past religion, the idea of a deity, the idea of god is somewhat absurd. I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm simply voicing an opinion and a curiosity. Why do you believe in god? I've always considered the existence of a god far too convenient to be real...something that's all-powerful, all-knowing, all-controlling, seems like a fairy-tale for adults.
Not only this, the fact that the idea of a "god" fits perfectly into the early-day agenda of the church...in which the aristocratic church hierarchy tithed the illiterate common man, lest they sin and burn in hell.
Nevertheless, back to my main point, somebody explain their belief in god please.

I support your views... maybe i'm just cynical and bitter but i can't for the life of me see how people can believe in a "god" as such. However, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this and i don't condone anyone who does believe.

I'm afraid you won't find many on this forum who will support your views, LLF. This is a pretty devout group. :(

I wouldn't say that... but the devout group here (and elsewhere) tends to be very loud, that's all.

Meh, I have a more liberal view of God that's as skeptic as believing.

In any case, does it matter either way why someone believes in God? I mean, do you judge people based on their views toward God?

No, it doesn't matter to me whether someone is devoutly religious or a total atheist...I'm simply curious. I can only view this topic from the perspective that I've always viewed it with, and I would be very interested to hear somebody eloquently explain why they think that there's a god.

I totally agree with the idea that religion is a fairy tale for adults. It all comes down to the most basic fear we all have: dying. In one sense, it is virtually impossible for the conscious mind to conceive of death, simply because the conscious mind cannot conceive of not existing. Think about it; what is it like to not exist? This is such a great unknown, that people feel the need to cope with this literally mind-boggling idea by justifying it to their conscious mind: when you die, you do not cease to exist, but change form. You have an afterlife. Of course, this immediately creates the idea of the soul, some immaterial part of the body that continues to exist after the body dies. Cultures throughout human history have held some form of this belief.

Of course, that also raises the next point, why a deity? Well, the simplest way I see it is that having the concept of the soul and an afterlife then forces you to ask the question again. What is it like? Is it simply a state of existence as pure thought? Is there some physicality to it? Since we have some difficulty perceiving the idea of the non-physical existence, being physical beings and all, we create the idea of heaven. This is a new form of physical existence as part of our afterlife experience. At this point, there is some divergence among the historical religions. Some believe that there is a supreme ruler of the afterlife, others believe in a group of rulers. Some believe that there is no ruler in the afterlife, but rather the dead can eventually be recycled back into new life. All of these views comfort those who are afraid to die.

I'll stop now, although I could go on for a long time as I tend to be long-winded. If you continue to have problems with this religion concept, come visit my Nation, Leeporia, where religion is virtually outlawed in favor of logic, reason and science.

~K~

Oh shit, here we go.

I got popcorn.

sweet or salted?

*offers you an m&m*

I totally agree with the idea that religion is a fairy tale for adults. It all comes down to the most basic fear we all have: dying. In one sense, it is virtually impossible for the conscious mind to conceive of death, simply because the conscious mind cannot conceive of not existing. Think about it; what is it like to not exist? This is such a great unknown, that people feel the need to cope with this literally mind-boggling idea by justifying it to their conscious mind: when you die, you do not cease to exist, but change form. You have an afterlife. Of course, this immediately creates the idea of the soul, some immaterial part of the body that continues to exist after the body dies. Cultures throughout human history have held some form of this belief.

So, how do you explain religions that have no afterlife?

No, it doesn't matter to me whether someone is devoutly religious or a total atheist...I'm simply curious. I can only view this topic from the perspective that I've always viewed it with, and I would be very interested to hear somebody eloquently explain why they think that there's a god.
Why would there be a God? Why wouldn't there be a God? Those two questions should always come hand in hand!

See, the universe has countless possibilities as to how it was created. I believe it was the Big Bang. But what happened before the Big Bang?

Perhaps a scientist in a random lab created a tiny atom-sized (relative to him) universe which we call home and is studying us as we speak? Perhaps poking and prodding us in his own sick little way to see how we react as a society?

Or maybe we're some 10 year old's school science project in which he massively failed and threw away.

Or, you know, maybe not and there isn't anything close to a God!

Heh, Since there's no absolute and scientific answer to whether or not God exists, I stick with keeping the mind open and not absolutly saying that either/or position is correct and absolute. To do so would be against science.

it is teh force dude (smokes frantically) I can feel it, talk to it and run like hell if it starts talking back.

God is cool!

sweet or salted?

*offers you an m&m*

Salted.

*Takes m&m*

Hey, thanks!

Bong rip?
*offers bong*

There have been some excellent points so far. I agree, the idea of a "god" is (as far as I can tell) a general coping mechanism for humans. Everyone has an intrinsic sense of justice....as such, it would be soul-crushing for people if they thought that an Ebeneezer Scrooge wouldn't go to a place like hell after death...as far as religions that have no after-life are concerned...those religions subscribe to reincarnation or a similar concept, in which karma and decency determine how great or miserable your next life is...it is essentially a "heaven"/"hell" concept.

Why would there be a God? Why wouldn't there be a God? Those two questions should always come hand in hand!

Why notis never a good response to why. Its just a burden-shifting tactic.

So, how do you explain religions that have no afterlife?

I can't say I have an exhaustive knowledge of every single religion that has ever existed, but I have studied religion quite extensively. To the best of my knowledge, the idea of an afterlife is a universal trait of any ancient religion. And by ancient I mean anything older than about 150 years. That way it doesn't include things like Scientology and New Age beliefs, which are more an amalgam of early religions and modern philosophies, even some pseudo-science in the case of Scientology.

~K~

Life doesn't seem random. It seems like there's patterns that occur in nature and a purpose to things. If you see things that way, then it would make sense for there to be some sentient (or similar) force behind it.

On the other hand, you could assume that's just the human tendency to see patterns in random coincidence.

I go with the former theory, since in my experience it makes more sense, but that's not everyone's experience so I do understand the latter.

You're right in that religion's been structured for political power; that's not really an argument for or against the idea of a divinity, it just means people like to take power any way they can get it. And a lot of people probably like the idea of religion because it's nice to think some part of them will continue on after death, but personally, I'd think nonexistance after death would be the more comforting thought. Nothing to worry about anymore if you don't exist, after all.

But I completely agree with you that blind belief is a bad idea. If you have any sort of belief it has to be a personal discovery, not just letting other people tell you how to think, otherwise it's meaningless.

Why notis never a good response to why. Its just a burden-shifting tactic.
Well no I meant the question can go either way:

Why would there be a God?
Why WOULDN'T there be a God?


Why wouldn't there be a God?
Why WOULD there be a God?

There have been some excellent points so far. I agree, the idea of a "god" is (as far as I can tell) a general coping mechanism for humans. Everyone has an intrinsic sense of justice....as such, it would be soul-crushing for people if they thought that an Ebeneezer Scrooge wouldn't go to a place like hell after death...as far as religions that have no after-life are concerned...those religions subscribe to reincarnation or a similar concept, in which karma and decency determine how great or miserable your next life is...it is essentially a "heaven"/"hell" concept.Okay well...no. I don't use God as a coping mechanism. I have video games and denial for that.

There have been some excellent points so far. I agree, the idea of a "god" is (as far as I can tell) a general coping mechanism for humans. Everyone has an intrinsic sense of justice....as such, it would be soul-crushing for people if they thought that an Ebeneezer Scrooge wouldn't go to a place like hell after death...as far as religions that have no after-life are concerned...those religions subscribe to reincarnation or a similar concept, in which karma and decency determine how great or miserable your next life is...it is essentially a "heaven"/"hell" concept.

You believe in an intrinsic sense of justice but no deity? This was the absurdity that Sartre pointed out in regards to other French thinkers who were his contemporary.

The fact is, there is no more evidence for an intrinsic system of justice than there is of a deity. Intrinsic systems of justice have not been observed in nature, animal or human. They are a byproduct of later human development and complex society. Yet, people tend to cling onto these idea of intrinsic justice for what Sartre argued would be the same reasons people cling onto a notion of a deity.

I do not believe in god.

I totally agree with the idea that religion is a fairy tale for adults. It all comes down to the most basic fear we all have: dying. In one sense, it is virtually impossible for the conscious mind to conceive of death, simply because the conscious mind cannot conceive of not existing. Think about it; what is it like to not exist? This is such a great unknown, that people feel the need to cope with this literally mind-boggling idea by justifying it to their conscious mind: when you die, you do not cease to exist, but change form. You have an afterlife. Of course, this immediately creates the idea of the soul, some immaterial part of the body that continues to exist after the body dies. Cultures throughout human history have held some form of this belief.

The inability to comprehend lack of existence isn't only about death it's also about questions like "Where did the universe come from". Given the limited (at best) technical and scientific capabilities of historical man, a supreme being with the power to create the universe would seem like a good answer to that question.

I can't say I have an exhaustive knowledge of every single religion that has ever existed, but I have studied religion quite extensively. To the best of my knowledge, the idea of an afterlife is a universal trait of any ancient religion. And by ancient I mean anything older than about 150 years. That way it doesn't include things like Scientology and New Age beliefs, which are more an amalgam of early religions and modern philosophies, even some pseudo-science in the case of Scientology.

~K~

Well, not to sound smug but you're wrong. An afterlife was questioned by the ancient Greeks (such as Socrates). Many believed in it, just as many didn't. In the same respect, in the oldest forms of Judaism there was no afterlife. Many Jews today still do not believe in one. Pre-Jewish religion in Mesopotamia had no afterlife, as well. That is outlined in the epic of Gilgamesh.

It is for those reasons that the argument that theism is a result of fear of death has long sense been debunked. The fact that the earliest religions in civilization had no afterlife or at best questioned an afterlife would run contrary to the claim.

Ok, great.. Need for absolutes = religion, aparently..

But why is religion socially acceptable? - I'm quite sure I'd be the center of ridicule with liberal sprinklings of pity, if I started professing my faith in dragons.

Religion has always bothered me...at least to the extent that you're supposed to blindly subscribe to an enormous collection of beliefs.
Even past religion, the idea of a deity, the idea of god is somewhat absurd. I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm simply voicing an opinion and a curiosity. Why do you believe in god? I've always considered the existence of a god far too convenient to be real...something that's all-powerful, all-knowing, all-controlling, seems like a fairy-tale for adults.
Not only this, the fact that the idea of a "god" fits perfectly into the early-day agenda of the church...in which the aristocratic church hierarchy tithed the illiterate common man, lest they sin and burn in hell.
Nevertheless, back to my main point, somebody explain their belief in god please.


I don't, but I don't attack or mock it either. Let people believe what they want and leave them be.

You believe in an intrinsic sense of justice but no deity? This was the absurdity that Sartre pointed out in regards to other French thinkers who were his contemporary.

The fact is, there is no more evidence for an intrinsic system of justice than there is of a deity. Intrinsic systems of justice have not been observed in nature, animal or human. They are a byproduct of later human development and complex society. Yet, people tend to cling onto these idea of intrinsic justice for what Sartre argued would be the same reasons people cling onto a notion of a deity.

HAHAHAHAHA....
okay, so using existentialism as a counter-argument is MORE legitimate????
I have to disagree with you (though I do have a solid appreciation for sartre, having read nausea) on one of your points. You said "Intrinsic systems of justice have not been observed in nature, animal or human."
If that were true we wouldn't have prison, we wouldn't root for the good guy in a movie, we wouldn't feel guilt.
Freud (to use another historical figure) even stated that criminals are so overwhelmed by a sense of societal-detriment that they will sub-consciously leave incriminating clues.

And just to correct you on something, Sartre disagreed with the belief that people hold any form of universal significance...he never said anything about whether or not people think that bad actions should be punished.

The inability to comprehend lack of existence isn't only about death it's also about questions like "Where did the universe come from". Given the limited (at best) technical and scientific capabilities of historical man, a supreme being with the power to create the universe would seem like a good answer to that question.

I agree, and feel that part also plays a large role in the concept of a body of mythology in general, if not necessarily always a deity in particular. I mean, if you're a stone age man, and your kid asks you where do stars come from, what are you going to tell him? "Duhh... I dunno" doesn't seem like a good response. Nobody wants to say that to their kids. So, I think a lot of mythology started when that father (and I don't mean to imply it wasn't a mother or daughter, just using male pronouns and nouns to keep it simple) came up with some way to explain it to his son, and perhaps relate some story that was educational in the wisdom sort of sense.

"Well, son, a long time ago there were fewer people in the world, and they all huddled around their hearth fires at night to stay warm and keep the lions away. They had to carry torches just to see everywhere they went. But, then, the great <insert deity name here> came down to man, and blessed him with hearthfires in the sky to always light his way, and keep the lions away from the camps of men. That is why we sing to the stars to thank <deity> for his blessing, and to remind our children that the stars light our path even in the darkest of nights, that no lion may ever devour us."

That's obviously a very quickly made-up example, and not anything from any real-world case that I know of. But, you get the idea. Of course, then the son adopts this as a tradition among his people, and passes it on to his people. Eventually, all these traditions get rolled into the concept of a culture. So, religion and mythology become a part of culture. I also would like to point out a slight discrepency in the language here... religion tends to deal with spirituality, or the concept of life, death, and afterlife, while mythology deals with the ideas of how the world and things in it were made. It's a tiny difference to a modern reader, but it's a categorical difference to say the least.

~K~

Pre-Jewish religion in Mesopotamia had no afterlife, as well. That is outlined in the epic of Gilgamesh.

Hate to contradict you since I agree with your point in general, but in the epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh travelled to the underworld and saw his dead companion Enkidu there. Maybe that was a metaphor that I didn't explore when I read it, but there was at least the concept of an afterlife there.

I totally agree with the idea that religion is a fairy tale for adults. It all comes down to the most basic fear we all have: dying. In one sense, it is virtually impossible for the conscious mind to conceive of death, simply because the conscious mind cannot conceive of not existing. Think about it; what is it like to not exist? This is such a great unknown, that people feel the need to cope with this literally mind-boggling idea by justifying it to their conscious mind: when you die, you do not cease to exist, but change form. You have an afterlife. Of course, this immediately creates the idea of the soul, some immaterial part of the body that continues to exist after the body dies. Cultures throughout human history have held some form of this belief.

Of course, that also raises the next point, why a deity? Well, the simplest way I see it is that having the concept of the soul and an afterlife then forces you to ask the question again. What is it like? Is it simply a state of existence as pure thought? Is there some physicality to it? Since we have some difficulty perceiving the idea of the non-physical existence, being physical beings and all, we create the idea of heaven. This is a new form of physical existence as part of our afterlife experience. At this point, there is some divergence among the historical religions. Some believe that there is a supreme ruler of the afterlife, others believe in a group of rulers. Some believe that there is no ruler in the afterlife, but rather the dead can eventually be recycled back into new life. All of these views comfort those who are afraid to die.

I'll stop now, although I could go on for a long time as I tend to be long-winded. If you continue to have problems with this religion concept, come visit my Nation, Leeporia, where religion is virtually outlawed in favor of logic, reason and science.

~K~

You seem to imply that belief in an afterlife is equivalent to a fear of death. This is most definitely not so; the idea of faith, as it were, implies an inherent and emphatic belief that your soul will have an eternal resting place in death (Abrahamic religions), or a cycle of lives (Hinduism, many animistic religions), or merely transcend this reality into ultimate understanding and wisdom (Buddhist philosophy). There are others, of course. But there is no need to fear death, insofar as you have faith in Truth.

Furthermore, you're absolutely correct. The mind cannot conceive of not existing because it doesn't exist. My belief in God rests on the idea that nothing does not exist; but also, and therefore, nothing really exists. We are held in reality, but is it really so? Before we are born, we have no memory; after we die, we can only be sure that we die. What happens next? No one knows, really. Maybe there is nothing (ha, that statement is a paradox; there is nothing makes no sense if you think about it. Saying that nothing is there implies that something is there, by virtue of identifying nothing, further reason for my belief in God as what we label as Nothing and Everything), but my faith--that which I believe--is such that the soul, which cannot be really defined, except as an aspect of faith, will transcend beyond reality into Truth.

Well, not to sound smug but you're wrong. An afterlife was questioned by the ancient Greeks (such as Socrates). Many believed in it, just as many didn't. In the same respect, in the oldest forms of Judaism there was no afterlife. Many Jews today still do not believe in one. Pre-Jewish religion in Mesopotamia had no afterlife, as well. That is outlined in the epic of Gilgamesh.

It is for those reasons that the argument that theism is a result of fear of death has long sense been debunked. The fact that the earliest religions in civilization had no afterlife or at best questioned an afterlife would run contrary to the claim.

I wouldn't exactly put Socrates, a philosopher, in the same camp as religion. I don't believe that his and his fellows' philosophies are the same thing as the overall Hellenistic mythological tradition. In fact, you even say they "questioned" whether there was an afterlife, meaning the concept was there to be questioned.

I can't address the idea of ancient Judaism, as it is one of those few religions where I have very little functional understanding or knowledge, so I will take your word for that part. However, Judaism only dates to about the first millenium BCE, so saying that it is one of the "earliest" religions is something of a misnomer. It may be the oldest currently practiced major religion, but not the same thing as an earliest religion in the superlative sense.

As for ancient Sumer, there most definitely was a concept of an afterlife. I'll have to look up the specifics on this one, but another one of those universals that we anthropologists attach to human culture is that cultures with a burial system as complicated as the Sumerians have an afterlife concept. After all, what else is the dead King going to do with all that gold and those horses, and the food and such that are buried alongside him?

~K~

The idea of some big man in the sky shaking his fist at me really isn't my vision of a higher power. I think that we are all part of a higher power, but it's not the Judeo-Christian higher power. I also believe in re-birth and have a hard time believing in hell. If there is a hell, I don't think it's a eternity-long sentence. I also have a strong belief in karma.

Anyhow, I believe in a higher power and in karma because I feel I have seen these things. I believe in re-birth because as a child I had a feeling I've been on this Earth before and I've done all of this before. It was a weird overwhelming feeling and I knew things a child should have never known. I wept for my classmates because although I knew I wanted to leave my family home, I realized that they did not know they would one day have to leave and even loose some family members. I also remember crying in church as a child because I *knew* that what they were saying was wrong; it just didn't make sense to me. Sorry if this isn't clear... these feelings are hard to explain.

Well... I guess there are a lot of things in this universe that are hard to explain. Maybe that's religious or paranormal or just things science hasn't figured out yet. I guess you should read "believe" as "due to my experience" and "in my best estimation." :)

I don't think it's got much to do with fear of death. If I had to hazzard a guess, I'd say the afterlive stories area combination of the recognition that humanity is the only self-aware & creative species on the planet, and the mystery of that, along with a human need to justify our sense of morality.

It's my impression that universal absolutes are far more important to religious people, then the afterlife itself.

TS, I must be quite seriously behind on a few things, because I've yet to hear of any religion that didn't incorporate some sort of afterlife, or at least the possibility to achieve one.

HAHAHAHAHA....
okay, so using existentialism as a counter-argument is MORE legitimate????

I didn't use existentialism as a counter-argument. Just because it came from Sartre, you're attempting to lump it into existentialism. "HAhHblahalah" doesn't help your argument much, either.

Rather, Sartre pointed out a solid inconsistency in the fact that people choose to believe in one myth, with no empirical basis, (that we have innate morals) while rejecting the previous cultural source of those morals (a belief in a deity).

I have to disagree with you (though I do have a solid appreciation for sartre, having read nausea) on one of your points. You said "Intrinsic systems of justice have not been observed in nature, animal or human."
If that were true we wouldn't have prison, we wouldn't root for the good guy in a movie, we wouldn't feel guilt.

Prison isn't something that occurs in nature. Its a result of an artificial social system. So is the cultural trait to 'root for the good guy.' It was Ruth Benedict, an anthropologist and proponent of cultural relativism, that pointed out that in many cultures (such as those she studied in the Pacific) do not root for the good guy. Rather, they root for the 'bad guy' by our standards. Benedict long ago debunked the idea that there is a universal moral standard by her studies alone.

Guilt is also something that is a learned trait. You wont be able to demonstrate one single instance of guilt in nature.

Freud (to use another historical figure) even stated that criminals are so overwhelmed by a sense of societal-detriment that they will sub-consciously leave incriminating clues.

Freud didn't comment on anything such as an innate system of justice. You're trying to muddy the waters with that. Societal-detriment works against your argument, since it is a product of artificial society, rather than something that occurs in human biology and nature.

And just to correct you on something, Sartre disagreed with the belief that people hold any form of universal significance...he never said anything about whether or not people think that bad actions should be punished.

Sarte explicitly stated that there are no objective morals and that all morals come from individual choice. He rejected the idea of innate morals, stating that they were akin to Plato's "world of form" and an absurdity.

You seem to imply that belief in an afterlife is equivalent to a fear of death. This is most definitely not so; the idea of faith, as it were, implies an inherent and emphatic belief that your soul will have an eternal resting place in death (Abrahamic religions), or a cycle of lives (Hinduism, many animalistic religions), or merely transcend this reality into ultimate understanding and wisdom (Buddhist philosophy). There are others, of course. But there is no need to fear death, insofar as you have faith in Truth.

Furthermore, you're absolutely correct. The mind cannot conceive of not existing because it doesn't exist. My belief in God rests on the idea that nothing does not exist; but also, and therefore, nothing really exists. We are held in reality, but is it really so? Before we are born, we have no memory; after we die, we can only be sure that we die. What happens next? No one knows, really. Maybe there is nothing (ha, that statement is a paradox; there is nothing makes no sense if you think about it. Saying that nothing is there implies that something is there, by virtue of identifying nothing, further reason for my belief in God as what we label as Nothing and Everything), but my faith--that which I believe--is such that the soul, which cannot be really defined, except as an aspect of faith, will transcend beyond reality into Truth.


Wow, that was one of the most confusing examples of circular logic I've seen in a while. Good work! Er, if that was your intent. Otherwise... umm... well, try harder or something. As for the idea that faith implies a resting place for the soul, I'm arguing that the reason these beliefs or this faith *came about in the first place* was because of fear of death. I'm not saying that fear of death is a doctrine of the faith itself.

p.s. by animalistic do you mean animistic?

~K~

The idea of some big man in the sky shaking his fist at me really isn't my vision of a higher power. I think that we are all part of a higher power, but it's not the Judeo-Christian higher power. I also believe in re-birth and have a hard time believing in hell. If there is a hell, I don't think it's a eternity-long sentence. I also have a strong belief in karma.

Anyhow, I believe in a higher power and in karma because I feel I have seen these things. I believe in re-birth because as a child I had a feeling I've been on this Earth before and I've done all of this before. It was a weird overwhelming feeling and I knew things a child should have never known. I wept for my classmates because although I knew I wanted to leave my family home, I realized that they did not know they would one day have to leave and even loose some family members. I also remember crying in church as a child because I *knew* that what they were saying was wrong; it just didn't make sense to me. Sorry if this isn't clear... these feelings are hard to explain.

Well... I guess there are a lot of things in this universe that are hard to explain. Maybe that's religious or paranormal or just things science hasn't figured out yet. I guess you should read "believe" as "due to my experience" and "in my best estimation." :)

We can debate this all day, all year, all eternity (at least until we die--who knows, maybe even beyond :)) but this is a rhetorical subject. You believe in Truth, and whatever path you choose, but none of us will find out until we actually die...which makes it that much more interesting :p

So, religion and mythology become a part of culture. I also would like to point out a slight discrepency in the language here... religion tends to deal with spirituality, or the concept of life, death, and afterlife, while mythology deals with the ideas of how the world and things in it were made. It's a tiny difference to a modern reader, but it's a categorical difference to say the least.

According to my dictionary, religion is the belief in and worship of gods, and mythology is the (usually explanatory) stories/myths/legends etc. dealing with those gods.

I wouldn't exactly put Socrates, a philosopher, in the same camp as religion. I don't believe that his and his fellows' philosophies are the same thing as the overall Hellenistic mythological tradition. In fact, you even say they "questioned" whether there was an afterlife, meaning the concept was there to be questioned.

The concept existed to be questioned, but the fact that people adhered to Greek Hellenism without a belief in the afterlife is enough to refute the universal claim that all religion is due to fear of death. The fact that Socrates questioned it, and although he was a philosopher this is a religious issue, would demonstrate that his theism was not the result of fear, since he didn't have any comfort in the promise of an afterlife.

As for ancient Sumer, there most definitely was a concept of an afterlife. I'll have to look up the specifics on this one, but another one of those universals that we anthropologists attach to human culture is that cultures with a burial system as complicated as the Sumerians have an afterlife concept. After all, what else is the dead King going to do with all that gold and those horses, and the food and such that are buried alongside him?


The entire epic of Gilgamesh is about a king who is attempting to gain immortality due to the fact that when he dies, there will be no more life. It describes the afterlife, if you could call it such, in the same fashion that early Judaism did - lying in the ground in darkness.

Burial rituals such as those in Sumer don't imply an afterlife belief. Rather, they are equally implicative of a belief in a future way to restore the dead to life, or of some sort of future immortality.

We can debate this all day, all year, all eternity (at least until we die--who knows, maybe even beyond :)) but this is a rhetorical subject. You believe in Truth, and whatever path you choose, but none of us will find out until we actually die...which makes it that much more interesting :p

Yes, it indeed does! However, I'm the type of person who would debate with God. If I get to the afterlife and I'm wrong and there is the Judeo-Christian God, we're going to have A LOT to debate. Don't get me wrong, I would respect the guy, I would just have to know *everything* and have a lot fo questions to be answered. ;)

According to my dictionary, religion is the belief in and worship of gods, and mythology is the (usually explanatory) stories/myths/legends etc. dealing with those gods.

That's umm... more or less what I was saying. Except that it's 5AM here and I'm tired and probably didn't say it too well.

Yes, it indeed does! However, I'm the type of person who would debate with God. If I get to the afterlife and I'm wrong and there is the Judeo-Christian God, we're going to have A LOT to debate. Don't get me wrong, I would respect the guy, I would just have to know *everything* and have a lot fo questions to be answered. ;)

Maybe God would debate on Nationstates...THAT would be interesting. Die, find God, and realize that Heaven is an enormous Nationstates forum...:D

Well, not to sound smug but you're wrong. An afterlife was questioned by the ancient Greeks (such as Socrates). Many believed in it, just as many didn't. In the same respect, in the oldest forms of Judaism there was no afterlife. Many Jews today still do not believe in one. Pre-Jewish religion in Mesopotamia had no afterlife, as well. That is outlined in the epic of Gilgamesh.

Is there a difference between resurrection and afterlife? What I mean is that perhaps the ancient Hebrews believed in existence after death but that such an existence was more like a permanent sleep, rather than punishment or pleasure, or rather than non-existence. It is well known that the ancient Hebrews did not have a developed concept of afterlife, but is that the same as believing that there was no afterlife existence? Wondering what your thoughts were on that one......




It is for those reasons that the argument that theism is a result of fear of death has long sense been debunked. The fact that the earliest religions in civilization had no afterlife or at best questioned an afterlife would run contrary to the claim.

If the fear of death was the reason people were theists, why are many theists still afraid of death? And why do some non-theists have little or no fear of death? And what about those who believed in God (or their version of God), despite the distinct discomfort and disadvantages it brought upon them? (Jewish history, to name one religion, is a long one.) So I agree with you there, and not only because some religions had no (or no developed concepts of) afterlife. There are probably many other reasons besides.

The concept existed to be questioned, but the fact that people adhered to Greek Hellenism without a belief in the afterlife is enough to refute the universal claim that all religion is due to fear of death. The fact that Socrates questioned it, and although he was a philosopher this is a religious issue, would demonstrate that his theism was not the result of fear, since he didn't have any comfort in the promise of an afterlife.



The entire epic of Gilgamesh is about a king who is attempting to gain immortality due to the fact that when he dies, there will be no more life. It describes the afterlife, if you could call it such, in the same fashion that early Judaism did - lying in the ground in darkness.

Burial rituals such as those in Sumer don't imply an afterlife belief. Rather, they are equally implicative of a belief in a future way to restore the dead to life, or of some sort of future immortality.

Again, I'm not (trying) to say that all religion is based in fear of death. That is to say, I'm not saying that people only believe in religion because they fear dying. I'm saying the genesis of those beliefs, why those beliefs came to exist in the first place, is because of a fear of death.

As for burial rituals, you seem to be pretty educated when it comes to philosophy, but I suggest reading up on some anthropology as well. For anthropologists, burial rituals strongly signify/indicate (note the qualifiers) belief in an afterlife. There is an implication there. In fact, one of the arguments we use for the earliest genesis of religious beliefs is whether or not a particular culture at a particular time buried its dead, especially with grave goods. It's a highly contentious and oft-debated idea that Neanderthals actually buried their dead with some forms of grave goods, thus implying they had a concept of religion and afterlife.

Wow, that was one of the most confusing examples of circular logic I've seen in a while. Good work! Er, if that was your intent. Otherwise... umm... well, try harder or something. As for the idea that faith implies a resting place for the soul, I'm arguing that the reason these beliefs or this faith *came about in the first place* was because of fear of death. I'm not saying that fear of death is a doctrine of the faith itself.

p.s. by animalistic do you mean animistic?

~K~

Perhaps, but I would disagree with you, naturally. Or maybe not--if early man was afraid of death, perhaps God chose that time to show him the idea of an afterlife. Personally, God is Truth, holy Trinity, eternal salvation, etc., and this--this idea of faith, of belief--is more tangible than anything [else], as well as "nothing." ;)

Maybe God would debate on Nationstates...THAT would be interesting. Die, find God, and realize that Heaven is an enormous Nationstates forum...:D

That would be great! Come to think of it, maybe Heaven is a place where everyone debates and what happens to us depends upon who is winning! First, one side opens with their argument and that takes years. Then, there is a counter-argument (which can explain why our society goes from "right" to "left" so quickly at times) Next, a moderate states his/her point-of-view. This repeats so EVERYONE in Heaven gets a turn and what happens on the Earth shifts as everyone gets a turn. It's as if the Earth is in the path of the debate and we're being used to "prove a point" and the more powerful the argument, the more it impacts us. Yes, every one of us is going to Heaven and Nationstates is just practice for the real thing to come when we die!

That would be great! Come to think of it, maybe Heaven is a place where everyone debates and what happens to us depends upon who is winning! First, one side opens with their argument and that takes years. Then, there is a counter-argument (which can explain why our society goes from "right" to "left" so quickly at times) Next, a moderate states his/her point-of-view. This repeats so EVERYONE in Heaven gets a turn and what happens on the Earth shifts as everyone gets a turn. It's as if the Earth is in the path of the debate and we're being used to "prove a point" and the more powerful the argument, the more it impacts us. Yes, every one of us is going to Heaven and Nationstates is just practice for the real thing to come when we die!

This made me laugh. In a good sort of chuckling way, not in the laughing at you sort of way.

~K~

I wouldn't say that... but the devout group here (and elsewhere) tends to be very loud, that's all.


The loudest idiot, is always the one who is heard.


Suffice it to say, that religion or atheism are standards of absolutes.
There IS, or there IS NOT.
No proof can be had on either side, save for tremendous lack of evidence, wich one side will use as an answer, and the other will disregard.

The "why" isnt usually clear, or entirely relevant.

It doesnt matter.

It IS, or it IS NOT.

Is there a difference between resurrection and afterlife? What I mean is that perhaps the ancient Hebrews believed in existence after death but that such an existence was more like a permanent sleep, rather than punishment or pleasure, or rather than non-existence. It is well known that the ancient Hebrews did not have a developed concept of afterlife, but is that the same as believing that there was no afterlife existence? Wondering what your thoughts were on that one......

I'm not sure exactly when the belief in a resurrection became common in Judaism and something applicable to everyone. Today it is part of the 13 tenents of Jewish faith, so its a pretty important belief. I had to consult the Jewish Encyclopedia to see what early beliefs on resurrection were, and it would seem like they existed but were not applicable to anyone except a select few:

"Like all ancient peoples, the early Hebrews believed that the dead go down into the underworld and live there a colorless existence (comp. Isa. xiv. 15-19; Ezek. xxxii. 21-30). Only an occasional person, and he an especially fortunate one, like Enoch or Elijah, could escape from Sheol, and these were taken to heaven to the abode of Yhwh, where they became angels (comp. Slavonic Enoch, xxii.). In the Book of Job first the longing for a resurrection is expressed (xiv. 13-15), and then, if the Masoretic text may be trusted, a passing conviction that such a resurrection will occur (xix. 25, 26). The older Hebrew conception of life regarded the nation so entirely as a unit that no individual mortality or immortality was considered. Jeremiah (xxxi. 29) and Ezekiel (xviii.) had contended that the individual was the moral unit, and Job's hopes are based on this idea."

Sheol is of course the grave, and you description of it as a sleep is fairly accurate. Except it isn't a conscious sleep, but rather described as a dreamless sleep or a blackness. I think the concept of non-existence was too abstract and this was their best way of describing it. Non-existence sure seems to be the intent, if not explicitly stated.

Perhaps, but I would disagree with you, naturally. Or maybe not--if early man was afraid of death, perhaps God chose that time to show him the idea of an afterlife. Personally, God is Truth, holy Trinity, eternal salvation, etc., and this--this idea of faith, of belief--is more tangible than anything [else], as well as "nothing." ;)

One thing I forgot to mention earlier, and this goes a bit more into the idea of circular logic and language difficulties, but the problem with your argument of "there is nothing" being a paradox is only true because of the assumptions of the English language. In English (and some of its relatives I'm sure) the word "is" implies more than just a state of being, but also a state of existence. In Mandarin Chinese, as a counterpoint, the equivalent word ("shi" in pinyin) is more like an equals sign in the middle of a sentence than our concept of "is". That is to say, in English you were say "There is nothing" and that implies that there is something, because of our linguistics. The same phrase in Mandarin Chinese would be "Bushi" or more probably (given the context) "Meiyou". "Bushi" would mean "there isn't" (or more accurately "not equal to") while "meiyou" would mean "there is not" (or more accurately "this thing [being discussed] lacks existence").

~K~

Ok guys, I just want to say this little that I know about God so that people won't start thinking that even believers don't know why they believe. I myself am a Christian, and at the same time, needing solid proof of something. I'm not a pastor or anything, so if I say something stupid or wrong, bear with me, ok?
When I first started going to church, the whole idea of God was just, to me, some piece of bull made up by a bunch of fools afraid of death. Once you're dead, you're dead. Only this and nothing more. I just went there because I had a couple of friends there, and the songs were kinda catchy. I didn't understand why these people worshipped this...THING that they couldn't see, couldn't hear, couldn't have any tangible proof for. I mean they LOVED this FIGMENT of an IMAGINATION! This FAIRY TALE! Is it possible to love nothing? I highly doubt it. I was always doubting about God before, and I decided to try it out. Give this idea a chance to come in. I sat through sermons and fellowships telling myself "God isn't real" over and over again, but I became slowly convinced, and was overcome with this feeling of pure love and security. I'm not going to say that God is real "because I have a fire in my soul that tells me this" but the effect of understanding of God's love is so incredible, and I cannot begin to explain.

I cannot speak for other religions, but for Christianity, the bible has an incredible logical foothold on proof of God. I mean, 40 different authors, kings, fishermen, tax collectors, hobos, of all different...what's the word...statuses?, on 3 different continents in 3 different languages, over a period of 2000 years, all bore the exact same message. The words "The word of God" and "Thus Sayth the Lord" comes up an innumberable amount of times in the bible. Coincidence? I think not! For those of you that say that the bible is some manipulated, edited, and false load of text, otherwise known as Da Vincians, know this: every bible, aside from that used by Jehova's Witnesses (those actually ARE edited to fit their theology), are exact copies, aside from the edits for NKJV (New King James Version) and NIV (New International Version) forms, are based off of 6,000 copies found near...aww jeez I forgot what the river title was. I have the notes back at my house, which is currently some across-a-freaking-ocean distance away from me, and I can answer the name of the river on the 14th. Either way, the bibles date back to ___AD (notes...home...) and are extremely accurate. If anyone still thinks that the bible isn't pure, they can ask me for the excruciating process by which the bible was copied before the printing press.

The fact that the bible is also the most accurate history book (this was proven due to archaeology.) doesn't hurt.

Like I said, I'm a crappy person to explain this stuff. You guys should ask a decent pastor from a church. If you guys are willing to spend money on plane tickets, you guys can go to Fremont, Cali, and find Home of Christ 3 at 4248 Solar Way. There are two pastors and a Fellowship director that are incredible at logically explaining this stuff.

Hate to contradict you since I agree with your point in general, but in the epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh travelled to the underworld and saw his dead companion Enkidu there. Maybe that was a metaphor that I didn't explore when I read it, but there was at least the concept of an afterlife there.

Ah, thats right. I think it was actually Enkidu that went to the underworld, and then he ended up getting stuck there and Gilgamesh had to pray to a deity to get him out. The advice given to Enkidu by Gilgamesh for how to act in the underworld seems mostly like metaphor, and was probably a reference on how to live a good life and avoid dying. A general belief was that if you lived a good life, you lived longer. The advice was things like don't hit your wife, don't hit your child, don't dress up gaudy and throw stones, etc.

But when Endiku returned from the grave, he described not an afterlife or a world, but what sounded ultimately like death. That it was the solitary place of man, in the dust, infested by worms. That people were thrown away like old cookwear and tools, etc. To me, it reads more like a poetic description of being buried rather than a spiritual afterlife. If we do interpret it as an afterlife, it sounds so awful that I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to believe in it to ease fears of death.

I've come to realize, reading this thread, that there's something I don't understand about the atheist point of view.

Religion, as I see it, is largely an attempt to find answers to the 'why's in life. Science figures out the 'how'. Science has shown us that the universe is fairly orderly, operating according to rules. So, why? If we ignore religion, eliminate the concept of any higher power and limit the universe to matter and energy, how has such an orderly universe managed to come into existance? Randomly? I find that hard to believe, but assuming it was so, science has shown through chaos theory that even that which seems random has a pattern. So again, ignoring religion, why does the universe operate according to rules?

I've come to realize, reading this thread, that there's something I don't understand about the atheist point of view.

Religion, as I see it, is largely an attempt to find answers to the 'why's in life. Science figures out the 'how'. Science has shown us that the universe is fairly orderly, operating according to rules. So, why? If we ignore religion, eliminate the concept of any higher power and limit the universe to matter and energy, how has such an orderly universe managed to come into existance? Randomly? I find that hard to believe, but assuming it was so, science has shown through chaos theory that even that which seems random has a pattern. So again, ignoring religion, why does the universe operate according to rules?Why would it need a deity to operate like it do?

One thing I forgot to mention earlier, and this goes a bit more into the idea of circular logic and language difficulties, but the problem with your argument of "there is nothing" being a paradox is only true because of the assumptions of the English language. In English (and some of its relatives I'm sure) the word "is" implies more than just a state of being, but also a state of existence. In Mandarin Chinese, as a counterpoint, the equivalent word ("shi" in pinyin) is more like an equals sign in the middle of a sentence than our concept of "is". That is to say, in English you were say "There is nothing" and that implies that there is something, because of our linguistics. The same phrase in Mandarin Chinese would be "Bushi" or more probably (given the context) "Meiyou". "Bushi" would mean "there isn't" (or more accurately "not equal to") while "meiyou" would mean "there is not" (or more accurately "this thing [being discussed] lacks existence").

~K~

But lacking existence doesn't exist, either, because we've identified it. The only possibility of inexistence is that which has not been identified. Additionally, for something to lack existence is a state of what formerly existed--or prior to an existence, and thus is an existence in and of itself. There is no absolute "0"--as soon as we identify it, it possesses existence.

Why would it need a deity to operate like it do?

I'm not picturing a deity as in some old guy with a beard up in heaven waving a magic wand here. But I don't understand the concept of rules springing into existance on their own if all we have is matter and energy.

Also, all we've done here is shift the burden of proof around.

I didn't understand why these people worshipped this...THING that they couldn't see, couldn't hear, couldn't have any tangible proof for. I mean they LOVED this FIGMENT of an IMAGINATION! This FAIRY TALE! Is it possible to love nothing? I highly doubt it.

Well, if it isn't possible to love nothing, do you agree that every other god that people have ever loved is real too? Hindus love their deities just as much as Christians love theirs, but Christianity does not accept that those deities are real. At best, it calls them demons.

I cannot speak for other religions, but for Christianity, the bible has an incredible logical foothold on proof of God. I mean, 40 different authors, kings, fishermen, tax collectors, hobos, of all different...what's the word...statuses?, on 3 different continents in 3 different languages, over a period of 2000 years, all bore the exact same message.

If it bears the "same message" is questionable. The same Bible has resulted in two different religions - Judaism and Christianity - who believe it says radically different things. And in Christianity there are over 40,000 sects with different interpretations. Many Christians don't even agree if Jesus is God or not. Its hardly accurate to assert that it bears the exact same message.

The words "The word of God" and "Thus Sayth the Lord" comes up an innumberable amount of times in the bible. Coincidence? I think not!

No, its not a coincidence. Its a literary style. "Harry Potter" comes up in Harry Potter books a lot, because the author wrote a book about Harry Potter. The same phrases and terms are often used by authors. Nothing supernatural there.

For those of you that say that the bible is some manipulated, edited, and false load of text, otherwise known as Da Vincians, know this: every bible, aside from that used by Jehova's Witnesses (those actually ARE edited to fit their theology), are exact copies, aside from the edits for NKJV (New King James Version) and NIV (New International Version) forms, are based off of 6,000 copies found near...aww jeez I forgot what the river title was.

For most books in the Bible, we don't have any original copies. When people talk about huge numbers of copies, they don't refer to any original texts, of which we have none. These are just copies of copies, and yes, we have plenty of those.

And every Bible is not an exact copy. Two major deviations are the LXX and Masocretic texts, which vary a great deal. Depending on the Bible you use, it will be translated from one of those. The Latin Vulgate, another translation, is what many English texts are based off as well. In short, every Bible is not an "exact copy", and most are edited just as much as the JW Bible.

I have the notes back at my house, which is currently some across-a-freaking-ocean distance away from me, and I can answer the name of the river on the 14th. Either way, the bibles date back to ___AD (notes...home...) and are extremely accurate. If anyone still thinks that the bible isn't pure, they can ask me for the excruciating process by which the bible was copied before the printing press.

The distortion of Biblical texts wasn't a result of the hand-copying process used by monks, it happened long before this, when standards were not so rigorous. This is why the earliest texts, like the Gospels for instance, do not match one another. We have entire chapters in Mark, for example, that were added later.

The fact that the bible is also the most accurate history book (this was proven due to archaeology.) doesn't hurt.

Oh? When was this proven? Got any peer-reviewed works that make such a claim? The assertion that it is the "most accurate history" is one made by Christian apologists alone. While it is accurate on many things, many things are inaccurate as well, while many things simply are religion rather than history and can't be proven or disproven using any empirical base.

I'm not picturing a deity as in some old guy with a beard up in heaven waving a magic wand here. But I don't understand the concept of rules springing into existance on their own if all we have is matter and energy.


Neither of wich can be destroyed, only altered, right?

Whats so hard to believe that the very matter and energy you speak of, undergoing billions and billions years of change?

If im supposed to believe that God has always existed, whats so hard for you to accept the universe has undergone some radical changes since it began?

I'm not picturing a deity as in some old guy with a beard up in heaven waving a magic wand here. But I don't understand the concept of rules springing into existance on their own if all we have is matter and energy.

Also, all we've done here is shift the burden of proof around.But the burden of proof was always on you. You're the one making a claim. I'm just asking on what basis you make that claim.

Go play with a fridge magnet. Why would there have to be a devine power to make that happen? On the face of it, it looks like it works perfectly fine without divine interference.

Try setting fire to something. Look at it burn. Does it seem terribly divine?

.....
But I don't understand the concept of rules springing into existance on their own if all we have is matter and energy.

.....
Can matter and energy exist without rules? Just asking.

If im supposed to believe that God has always existed, whats so hard for you to accept the universe has undergone some radical changes since it began?

I agree. Evolution exists. What's your point?

Ok guys, I just want to say this little that I know about God so that people won't start thinking that even believers don't know why they believe. I myself am a Christian, and at the same time, needing solid proof of something. I'm not a pastor or anything, so if I say something stupid or wrong, bear with me, ok?
When I first started going to church, the whole idea of God was just, to me, some piece of bull made up by a bunch of fools afraid of death. Once you're dead, you're dead. Only this and nothing more. I just went there because I had a couple of friends there, and the songs were kinda catchy. I didn't understand why these people worshipped this...THING that they couldn't see, couldn't hear, couldn't have any tangible proof for. I mean they LOVED this FIGMENT of an IMAGINATION! This FAIRY TALE! Is it possible to love nothing? I highly doubt it. I was always doubting about God before, and I decided to try it out. Give this idea a chance to come in. I sat through sermons and fellowships telling myself "God isn't real" over and over again, but I became slowly convinced, and was overcome with this feeling of pure love and security. I'm not going to say that God is real "because I have a fire in my soul that tells me this" but the effect of understanding of God's love is so incredible, and I cannot begin to explain.

I cannot speak for other religions, but for Christianity, the bible has an incredible logical foothold on proof of God. I mean, 40 different authors, kings, fishermen, tax collectors, hobos, of all different...what's the word...statuses?, on 3 different continents in 3 different languages, over a period of 2000 years, all bore the exact same message. The words "The word of God" and "Thus Sayth the Lord" comes up an innumberable amount of times in the bible. Coincidence? I think not! For those of you that say that the bible is some manipulated, edited, and false load of text, otherwise known as Da Vincians, know this: every bible, aside from that used by Jehova's Witnesses (those actually ARE edited to fit their theology), are exact copies, aside from the edits for NKJV (New King James Version) and NIV (New International Version) forms, are based off of 6,000 copies found near...aww jeez I forgot what the river title was. I have the notes back at my house, which is currently some across-a-freaking-ocean distance away from me, and I can answer the name of the river on the 14th. Either way, the bibles date back to ___AD (notes...home...) and are extremely accurate. If anyone still thinks that the bible isn't pure, they can ask me for the excruciating process by which the bible was copied before the printing press.

The fact that the bible is also the most accurate history book (this was proven due to archaeology.) doesn't hurt.

Like I said, I'm a crappy person to explain this stuff. You guys should ask a decent pastor from a church. If you guys are willing to spend money on plane tickets, you guys can go to Fremont, Cali, and find Home of Christ 3 at 4248 Solar Way. There are two pastors and a Fellowship director that are incredible at logically explaining this stuff.

I cannot speak for other religions, but for Christianity, the bible has an incredible logical foothold on proof of God. I mean, 40 different authors, kings, fishermen, tax collectors, hobos, of all different...what's the word...statuses?, on 3 different continents in 3 different languages, over a period of 2000 years, all bore the exact same message. The words "The word of God" and "Thus Sayth the Lord" comes up an innumberable amount of times in the bible. Coincidence? I think not! For those of you that say that the bible is some manipulated, edited, and false load of text, otherwise known as Da Vincians, know this: every bible, aside from that used by Jehova's Witnesses (those actually ARE edited to fit their theology), are exact copies, aside from the edits for NKJV (New King James Version) and NIV (New International Version) forms, are based off of 6,000 copies found near...aww jeez I forgot what the river title was. I have the notes back at my house, which is currently some across-a-freaking-ocean distance away from me, and I can answer the name of the river on the 14th. Either way, the bibles date back to ___AD (notes...home...) and are extremely accurate. If anyone still thinks that the bible isn't pure, they can ask me for the excruciating process by which the bible was copied before the printing press.

The fact that the bible is also the most accurate history book (this was proven due to archaeology.) doesn't hurt.

I'm sorry before I even start, and I know this is going to come off harsh no matter how I say it. I was totally with you for that whole first paragraph. What you were saying was perfectly okay with me, your opinion and your beliefs, that I would have left you to. Then you pulled that crap in the second paragraph, and it really got to me.

Let me start by saying that I am not a "DaVincian" of any sort. I do not believe in the divinity of Mary Magdalene or in the concept of the "Divine Feminine". For starters, to believe that Mary Magdalene was divine, I would first have to believe that Jesus were divine, which I don't. I would also have to accept the existence of "divine" anything, which I don't.

Next, I highly recommend you take the same open-mindedness with which you originally approached the church and watch the BBC documentary "Who Wrote the Bible?". It will start you on the path to truly understanding a book that you're basically lauding as infallible. You say that the Bible somehow logically proves the existence of God? I'd like to see your actual logical steps on that one. Next, you say 40 different authors over 2000 years bear the same message? Let me assure you, as someone who has studied the Bible (rather than studying only what the Bible itself says), there were far more than 40 authors, and it was written in roughly 1100 years, not 2000. It started in Judea about the early 7th Century BCE and ended with the Council of Nicea in the 3rd Century BCE. I know these are just nitpicky details, but they are relevant because you are basically spewing the dogmatic view of the church, and not actually using any factual basis to back up your arguments.

Now, moving to something a bit more concrete, you say that all those authors carried on the same message? Hmm... Do I really need to attack that point? Would you even listen to what I said if you did, or would you resort to dogma again and refuse to believe that there are contradictions in the Bible? As for the idea that certain words or phrases come up frequently, that's just the result of a "translation bottleneck".

The idea you propose that "every Bible" except those which do not agree with your very dogmatic viewpoint are EXACT COPIES is simply ridiculous. That's like saying every copy of Harry Potter book 5 is exactly like every other copy of Harry Potter book 5. It's a moot point. If you were referring in some way to the idea that all *ancient* manuscripts that went into the make-up of the Bible were exactly the same, guess again. The Christian Church has suppressed many things over the years to keep the illusion that their version of events is the correct one. However, their destruction of contrary ideas has not been complete. Thankfully, several contradictory texts have made it down to us from those apparently virtuous individuals who would never dream of "spinning" their "gospel" to their own political or ideological viewpoint. How, for example, do you explain the Gnostic texts, or the Gospel of Judas, or even the Gospel of Mary Magdalene herself? And please don't answer "Satan" for any part of that. Just please don't do it.

Lastly, the idea that the Bible is the "most accurate history book", and the absolutely absurd notion that archaeology somehow proves this notion is appalling. As an anthropologist, I grow highly annoyed at the church for constantly making the claim that archaeology is "always proving the Bible"... simply because it is quite often disproving much of the "historical" information in the Bible. Take, for example, the Assyrian invasion of Judea, and the siege of Jerusalem. The Assyrian and Judean versions of this story differ rather dramatically. The Judeans say that the Assyrians sacked one of their cities, and were on their way to sack their capitol, Jerusalem, when they were suddenly stricken dead in the middle of the night, presumably by God. The Assyrian version of this same story goes like this... they attacked Judea, their very weak southern neighbor. They sacked one city, and were marching on Jerusalem. The King of Judea rode out to meet them, and offered a very large tribute to the Assyrians to leave Jerusalem alone. Now, which story is more believable? Certainly not the one in your "most accurate history book", that's for certain! For one thing, if the entire Assyrian Army had been simply murdered by God in the middle of the night, you'd think one of Assyria's many enemies would've taken advantage of this fact and invaded them, wouldn't you? Well, instead, Assyria goes on to several other conquests after this. Kinda hard to believe out of a nation that just lost its entire military, isn't it?

At this point, I've talked too much about this, and it makes me angry so I'm going to stop.

~K~

Well, if it isn't possible to love nothing, do you agree that every other god that people have ever loved is real too? Hindus love their deities just as much as Christians love theirs, but Christianity does not accept that those deities are real. At best, it calls them demons.

<snip>
Just for balance, and in passing, that's a very old-fashioned view of Christianity. You'll find an awful lot of liberal Christians who give Hindu deities a lot more than that, viewing them as alternative conceptions of the divine, albeit less good (in so far as they are more partial) than the Holy Trinity.

And please don't answer "Satan" for any part of that. Just please don't do it.

...Satan?! (http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/church_lady_satan.jpg)

There's a whole bunch of religions spread throughout the world, differing completely from one another yet everybody claim "their" religion to be the only true one. Of course it's bullshit

But the burden of proof was always on you. You're the one making a claim. I'm just asking on what basis you make that claim.

But I wasn't making a claim, I was asking a question. Admittedly with my own beliefs mentioned, but that was for contrast, not as a claim. I was asking, how do you explain this without a divinity? And you responded by asking the countering question. In both cases, we're just shifting the burden of proof.

Go play with a fridge magnet. Why would there have to be a devine power to make that happen? On the face of it, it looks like it works perfectly fine without divine interference.

Try setting fire to something. Look at it burn. Does it seem terribly divine?

Yes, it does. Magnetism, combustion, cause and effect and so on are all part of the patterns in the universe that indicate some underlying structure. So, again ignoring divinity - why?

Can matter and energy exist without rules? Just asking.The short answer is: "possibly". A slightly longer one, is: "We have no way of determining that, and probably won't ever be able to".

If you push your faith aside for a second, and look at one of the more popular theories about the origin of the universe, then you'll find the following little problem:

We know there was a rapid, omni-directional expansion of our universe, and that the expansion was the beginning of our universe. Unfortunately, we can't move beyond that beginning, because our universe didn't exist before then, so we have no way to look back & we can't speculate about anything before our universe, because everything we've ever experienced, including things like time & distance, are by-products of the universe as it is.

So we know nothing, and we probably can't know anything.

It's quite possible energy existed outside the universe. The opposite is quite possible as well.

I agree. Evolution exists. What's your point?


Well..if we assume that the matter and energy have undergone vast changes, is it really such a step to accept that the Big Bang, or some closely related theory can have no merit?

Presumeably, that very matter we spoke of was already there, perhaps in a different form.
A change occured....everything else, followed suit.

Stephen Hawkings suggested that if the universe is truly self-contained, that it would have no need for a creator, since it always...was.

Whats the difference between accepting an outlandish idea of abstract entity shaping the cosmos like a painter, and an outlandish thoery that a big ball of matter and energy exploded, and started a chemical reaction throughout the universe that kicked off life as we know it?

If anything, thats not structure, thats complete chaos.

But I wasn't making a claim, I was asking a question. Admittedly with my own beliefs mentioned, but that was for contrast, not as a claim. I was asking, how do you explain this without a divinity? And you responded by asking the countering question. In both cases, we're just shifting the burden of proof.I'll try to make it clearer.

When you turn on the blender, you probably think you know how it works. But isn't it very convenient? Don't you think there might be a bunch of insanely fast pixies milling about in there, making sure it all works OK?

I don't understand why you'd want to add a deity to the universe. It all seems to work perfectly fine without one. Your addition of a deity explains nothing that the absense of a deity doesn't explain, nor does it have any other consequence I can concieve. It's very much like pixies making sure the blender works. It's superfluous & rather pointless, in my opinion.

The short answer is: "possibly". A slightly longer one, is: "We have no way of determining that, and probably won't ever be able to".

If you push your faith aside for a second, and look at one of the more popular theories about the origin of the universe, then you'll find the following little problem:

We know there was a rapid, omni-directional expansion of our universe, and that the expansion was the beginning of our universe. Unfortunately, we can't move beyond that beginning, because our universe didn't exist before then, so we have no way to look back & we can't speculate about anything before our universe, because everything we've ever experienced, including things like time & distance, are by-products of the universe as it is.

So we know nothing, and we probably can't know anything.

It's quite possible energy existed outside the universe. The opposite is quite possible as well.
Well, pushing my faith aside for a lifetime .........

Matter and energy are manifested according to physical laws. I can cope with the idea of those laws being different, so that the manifestation of matter and energy and thei inter-relationship take different forms; but I'm having difficulty coping with the idea of them existing at all without consistent and sustainable rules.

Stephen Hawkings suggested that if the universe is truly self-contained, that it would have no need for a creator, since it always...was.

Whats the difference between accepting an outlandish idea of abstract entity shaping the cosmos like a painter, and an outlandish thoery that a big ball of matter and energy exploded, and started a chemical reaction throughout the universe that kicked off life as we know it?

If anything, thats not structure, thats complete chaos.

Ah, but considering chaos theory, what is chaos but another form of structure? ;)

I'm not sure I'm following the first part of your post. You're arguing, what, against the big bang?

In any case, assuming that the universe is self-contained, and that it was always there, even more so that only makes sense to me when I assume some force beyond matter and energy. So ignoring the idea of that force. The universe has always existed. Okay. Why?

Well, pushing my faith aside for a lifetime .........

Matter and energy are manifested according to physical laws. I can cope with the idea of those laws being different, so that the manifestation of matter and energy and thei inter-relationship take different forms; but I'm having difficulty coping with the idea of them existing at all without consistent and sustainable rules.Why?

There's no basis for assuming there must have been rules. All the mechanisms we know of, are properties of this universe as it is now & has been since a very short time after time began.

There's nothing rational about your desire for rules.

I'll try to make it clearer.

When you turn on the blender, you probably think you know how it works. But isn't it very convenient? Don't you think there might be a bunch of insanely fast pixies milling about in there, making sure it all works OK?

I don't understand why you'd want to add a deity to the universe. It all seems to work perfectly fine without one. Your addition of a deity explains nothing that the absense of a deity doesn't explain, nor does it have any other consequence I can concieve. It's very much like pixies making sure the blender works. It's superfluous & rather pointless, in my opinion.

You're right, that wouldn't make sense. And I do get that point of view.

But the way I'm seeing it, it's more like - turn on the blender. I think I know how it works. Isn't it very convenient? Perhaps someone designed it to work this way and arranged to have it manufactured and sold. I'm pretty sure it didn't just appear out of nowhere on my counter.

It doesn't change how things work, it doesn't add any consequences, it just answers the why of it. I don't think structured universes are any more likely to appear out of nowhere than blenders are.

Religion has always bothered me...at least to the extent that you're supposed to blindly subscribe to an enormous collection of beliefs.
Even past religion, the idea of a deity, the idea of god is somewhat absurd. I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm simply voicing an opinion and a curiosity. Why do you believe in god? I've always considered the existence of a god far too convenient to be real...something that's all-powerful, all-knowing, all-controlling, seems like a fairy-tale for adults.
Not only this, the fact that the idea of a "god" fits perfectly into the early-day agenda of the church...in which the aristocratic church hierarchy tithed the illiterate common man, lest they sin and burn in hell.
Nevertheless, back to my main point, somebody explain their belief in god please.

god was not invented by early-day church. what's that really supposed to mean anyways? you mean christian church? the biblical god had been invented before that already.
most people do not know WHAT or WHO they believe in in the first place and even more people have no idea WHY they believe. the majority just does it out of mental laziness.

Ah, but considering chaos theory, what is chaos but another form of structure? ;)

Im not a fan of chaos theory, its generally a blanket-term for "we dont fucking know".

Sometimes, random chance is just that.


I'm not sure I'm following the first part of your post. You're arguing, what, against the big bang?

Not at all.
In fact, im suggesting that belief in one is similar to the other.
One just has a bit more basis to it.


In any case, assuming that the universe is self-contained, and that it was always there, even more so that only makes sense to me when I assume some force beyond matter and energy. So ignoring the idea of that force. The universe has always existed. Okay. Why?

Becuase then, it has no creator, having no point in wich it was created.

If it has always been, and was never created, and we also know that it has been in a constant state of change, then the "random chance" that the right chemical equations for life to exist, just happened....become more, and more likely.

Why do you believe in god?

Because of the evidence and my own experiance.

I don't think structured universes are any more likely to appear out of nowhere than blenders are.Let's forget about the blenders, since these aren't only things that we've created, but also have a rather obvious purpose & so forth.. Nothing like our universe really.

So.. Well ordered universe out of nowhere?

As I see it, it's just as probable that it just happened. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Indeed, the consensus right now, is that the universe will simply become larger & larger, and more and more cold. Indefinitly. Seems rather pointless, but I digress.

The real question is: if there's a universe creator, creating functional universes, who or what created a well-ordered, somewhat capable universe creator? And who created.. Etc. Ad nauseam.

Like I said, deities don't explain anything at all. They add nothing, but increase the unknowables in spades. It's no more reasonable to add a deity to the mix, than it is to blame a house fly for creating life, the universe & everything. It explains nothing, but raises a whole bunch of questions that can't possibly be answered.

Because of the evidence and my own experiance.


Both of wich you have merely convinced yourself exist.

Becuase then, it has no creator, having no point in wich it was created.

Well, I can see where that idea comes from, at least. It doesn't hold much water as an argument when someone's assuming the existance of a force beyond matter and energy, since you're talking about limitations of time here that are associated with matter and energy. But I suppose that's beside the point since I'm trying to assume that such a force doesn't exist for the purposes of this question.

If it has always been, and was never created, and we also know that it has been in a constant state of change, then the "random chance" that the right chemical equations for life to exist, just happened....become more, and more likely.

Here we're coming to a disgreement, not over the existance of divinity, but over the validity of chaos theory, which is a different thread altogether. But all right, I can see that at least. Assuming no force beyond matter and energy, and pretending chaos theory is completely invalid, and assuming an infinite amount of time for random chance to create life, sure, life evolving without a creator makes sense. I'm guessing the rules of gravity and the like would have similar reasoning? Something that developed randomly over infinite time, infinite combinations?

I can see that. I would still see divinity in that situation, actually, but I do at least understand why other people wouldn't.

Religion has always bothered me...at least to the extent that you're supposed to blindly subscribe to an enormous collection of beliefs.
Even past religion, the idea of a deity, the idea of god is somewhat absurd. I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm simply voicing an opinion and a curiosity. Why do you believe in god? I've always considered the existence of a god far too convenient to be real...something that's all-powerful, all-knowing, all-controlling, seems like a fairy-tale for adults.
Not only this, the fact that the idea of a "god" fits perfectly into the early-day agenda of the church...in which the aristocratic church hierarchy tithed the illiterate common man, lest they sin and burn in hell.
Nevertheless, back to my main point, somebody explain their belief in god please.


Here is why I believe in God.

It makes the most sense. The more that I study the Bible; the more it makes sense.

The way that you are looking at things is from the wrong angle. God was not invented for us to try and fit Him into our lives - to explain Him because of us, but our lives were created for His reasons. God is self-existent; meaning that He does not require us to explain Him.

The fact is that He has given us the ability to choose whether or not to obey His laws and even the ability to choose whether or not to believe in Him at all. None of this changes the fact that He does exist and that He has given rules to be obeyed. When we disobey those laws it is called sin. We have all sinned. The only way that we can go to Heaven is by believing that Jesus Christ died to take our punishment for that sin.

infinite diversity in infinite combination? long live Surak!

Here is why I believe in God.

It makes the most sense. The more that I study the Bible; the more it makes sense.

The way that you are looking at things is from the wrong angle. God was not invented for us to try and fit Him into our lives - to explain Him because of us, but our lives were created for His reasons. God is self-existent; meaning that He does not require us to explain Him.

The fact is that He has given us the ability to choose whether or not to obey His laws and even the ability to choose whether or not to believe in Him at all. None of this changes the fact that He does exist and that He has given rules to be obeyed. When we disobey those laws it is called sin. We have all sinned. The only way that we can go to Heaven is by believing that Jesus Christ died to take our punishment for that sin.

Wait, but then why did God even go to the trouble of putting Jesus on Earth and stuff to take away our sins and not just go "Oi, human types! I am forgive you! Now be nice." :confused:

I'm not sure exactly when the belief in a resurrection became common in Judaism and something applicable to everyone. Today it is part of the 13 tenents of Jewish faith, so its a pretty important belief. I had to consult the Jewish Encyclopedia to see what early beliefs on resurrection were, and it would seem like they existed but were not applicable to anyone except a select few:

"Like all ancient peoples, the early Hebrews believed that the dead go down into the underworld and live there a colorless existence (comp. Isa. xiv. 15-19; Ezek. xxxii. 21-30). Only an occasional person, and he an especially fortunate one, like Enoch or Elijah, could escape from Sheol, and these were taken to heaven to the abode of Yhwh, where they became angels (comp. Slavonic Enoch, xxii.). In the Book of Job first the longing for a resurrection is expressed (xiv. 13-15), and then, if the Masoretic text may be trusted, a passing conviction that such a resurrection will occur (xix. 25, 26). The older Hebrew conception of life regarded the nation so entirely as a unit that no individual mortality or immortality was considered. Jeremiah (xxxi. 29) and Ezekiel (xviii.) had contended that the individual was the moral unit, and Job's hopes are based on this idea."

Sheol is of course the grave, and you description of it as a sleep is fairly accurate. Except it isn't a conscious sleep, but rather described as a dreamless sleep or a blackness. I think the concept of non-existence was too abstract and this was their best way of describing it. Non-existence sure seems to be the intent, if not explicitly stated.

How do you interpret this passage from Genesis 5?


21When Enoch was 65 years old, his son Methuselah was born. 22After the birth of Methuselah, Enoch lived another 300 years in close fellowship with God, and he had other sons and daughters. 23Enoch lived 365 years in all. 24He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then suddenly, he disappeared because God took him.

If God just took Enoch, what happened to him then?

Another passage is the one about Elijah going to heaven in a chariot of fire drawn by fiery horses.

2 Kings 2

1As they were walking along and talking, suddenly a chariot of fire appeared, drawn by horses of fire. It drove between them, separating them, and Elijah was carried by a whirlwind into heaven. 12Elisha saw it and cried out, "My father! My father! The chariots and charioteers of Israel!" And as they disappeared from sight, Elisha tore his robe in two.

My question is, what do you think happened to Elijah when the chariot arrived in heaven? (Or at least what do you think that the ancient Hebrews thought about this?)

Well, I can see where that idea comes from, at least. It doesn't hold much water as an argument when someone's assuming the existance of a force beyond matter and energy, since you're talking about limitations of time here that are associated with matter and energy. But I suppose that's beside the point since I'm trying to assume that such a force doesn't exist for the purposes of this question.

Exactly, so you now we see that since ultimately, our two opposing views are working with pure speculation, as you are not postive of Gods existance, and Im not Stephen Fucking Hawkins.
Thus, all either of us have, are vastly dim assumptions.



Here we're coming to a disgreement, not over the existance of divinity, but over the validity of chaos theory, which is a different thread altogether. But all right, I can see that at least. Assuming no force beyond matter and energy, and pretending chaos theory is completely invalid, and assuming an infinite amount of time for random chance to create life, sure, life evolving without a creator makes sense. I'm guessing the rules of gravity and the like would have similar reasoning? Something that developed randomly over infinite time, infinite combinations?

I can see that. I would still see divinity in that situation, actually, but I do at least understand why other people wouldn't.

Well I think things like Gravity, magnetism etc..would simply happen given that matter will always affect other matter.
Smaller bodies of matter will always be affected by larger ones etc..
But anyway, perhaps my final point, is that what we have is a dim understanding of how the universe began by scientific explanations, with tiny bits to back it up, and a loss of any real evidence to support any other methods.

Does that make science the more correct assumption?

I believe so, but please refer earlier, when I admitted to not being Stephen Hawkins.
Wich makes my belief, based on about as much as yours.

Wait, but then why did God even go to the trouble of putting Jesus on Earth and stuff to take away our sins and not just go "Oi, human types! I am forgive you! Now be nice." :confused:Because guilt-tripping is just so much more fun ;)

The real question is: if there's a universe creator, creating functional universes, who or what created a well-ordered, somewhat capable universe creator? And who created.. Etc. Ad nauseam.

Quite true. Assuming some kind of creator answers immediate questions relating to the universe as we know it, but opens up a larger universe of questions, most of which we're not equipped to answer, not yet anyway. Which is what the best theories do, IMO. (As in, the earth's round. This theory, now fact, answered some immediate questions and led to a whole bunch of new questions that required new scientific understanding to even start to answer. The questions don't indicate that the earth's not really round, nor do they indicate that it is... they're just questions, to go along with any change in understanding.)

Does that make science the more correct assumption?

It would, if they were contradictory assumptions. Since I find faith and science complimentary, I'd call them equally correct. ;)

How do you interpret this passage from Genesis 5?


21When Enoch was 65 years old, his son Methuselah was born. 22After the birth of Methuselah, Enoch lived another 300 years in close fellowship with God, and he had other sons and daughters. 23Enoch lived 365 years in all. 24He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then suddenly, he disappeared because God took him.

If God just took Enoch, what happened to him then?

Another passage is the one about Elijah going to heaven in a chariot of fire drawn by fiery horses.

2 Kings 2

1As they were walking along and talking, suddenly a chariot of fire appeared, drawn by horses of fire. It drove between them, separating them, and Elijah was carried by a whirlwind into heaven. 12Elisha saw it and cried out, "My father! My father! The chariots and charioteers of Israel!" And as they disappeared from sight, Elisha tore his robe in two.

My question is, what do you think happened to Elijah when the chariot arrived in heaven? (Or at least what do you think that the ancient Hebrews thought about this?)

That was actually mentioned in the excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopeida I posted. Its more clear with Elijah than with Enoch, but the general belief was that they went to heaven to become messengers of some type.

This is different than the idea of heaven as a place where everyone goes. Rather, it would still be strictly a place where God and spiritual beings live. Elijah and Enoch would be made into angels of some sort, rather than being the souls of people who get to hang out in paradise. And of course they are the exception in this scenario. The general belief is that the average person still ends up in sheol.

Quite true. Assuming some kind of creator answers immediate questions relating to the universe as we know it,I beg to differ. What does the inclusion of a creator explain, exactly?but opens up a larger universe of questions, most of which we're not equipped to answer, not yet anyway. Which is what the best theories do, IMO. (As in, the earth's round. This theory, now fact, answered some immediate questions and led to a whole bunch of new questions that required new scientific understanding to even start to answer. The questions don't indicate that the earth's not really round, nor do they indicate that it is... they're just questions, to go along with any change in understanding.)Not really. It simply creates a paradox (Who made the maker's maker's maker's...) and raises a whole lot of questions that cannot be answered, only imagined.

The "what caused the universe" is a perfectly good question, but the "Godidit" is a terrible answer, because it only compounds the question. Replace the word "Creator" with "Dung Beetle" and the value of the explanation remains utterly unchanged.

How did the dung beetle create the universe? Why did it do it? Where is it? Where did it come from? And so on...

The question that brought on the dung beetle explanation, remains unanswered. Because the "What caused the universe?" has simply been replaced with "How & why did the dung beetle create the universe?"

It's just pure nonsense.

Like I said, deities don't explain anything at all. They add nothing, but increase the unknowables in spades. It's no more reasonable to add a deity to the mix, than it is to blame a house fly for creating life, the universe & everything. It explains nothing, but raises a whole bunch of questions that can't possibly be answered.

I would have thought that having a deity in your explanation answers lots of questions. Of course, having an explanation does not mean proof of a deity, but having a deity can at least answer the question 'why?', for example. That you might think such a question is irrelevant could be a product of your world view. But even then, you cannot deny that having a deity answers questions, and provides explanations.

There is a decrease in the number of unknowables if a deity is known to be good. That means that the answer to the 'why' is because of something good. It also means that goodness is the greatest underlying rule of the universe, despite the bad things that happen. The question of why bad things happen can also be addressed.

The ultimate question of 'what is your deity like?' can also be addressed, and serves as a focus point for many religions, because the answer to such a question is important for explaining one's world, or one's perception of reality.

That was actually mentioned in the excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopeida I posted. Its more clear with Elijah than with Enoch, but the general belief was that they went to heaven to become messengers of some type.

This is different than the idea of heaven as a place where everyone goes. Rather, it would still be strictly a place where God and spiritual beings live. Elijah and Enoch would be made into angels of some sort, rather than being the souls of people who get to hang out in paradise. And of course they are the exception in this scenario. The general belief is that the average person still ends up in sheol.

Fair enough. Thanks for your answers.

Edit: I'm still not that comfortable with the whole 'messengers of some type' concept. How do we know that wasn't a later addition? Is there an indication of this from the Torah/Scriptures?

Why?

There's no basis for assuming there must have been rules. All the mechanisms we know of, are properties of this universe as it is now & has been since a very short time after time began.

There's nothing rational about your desire for rules.
I'm not sure I'm getting across the thinking behind my original question. (Hence it was a question, rather than a statement.) However, I'll give it one more shot.

First, this: "All the mechanisms we know of, are properties of this universe as it is now & has been since a very short time after time began.", I agree with. Certainly, alternatve properties of a universe are concievable. Most might not allow a sustainable universe, but that's not what I'm getting at.

It seems to me that, for energy to be energy and matter to be matter to they must have defining characteristics. Energy comes in the form of wave (packets), with properties determined by wavelength, amplitude and so forth and effects detirmined by physical laws and consequent relationships with its environment. Similarly, matter is composed of fundimental particles, whose form is determined by physical laws. And of course the two are interelated, in fact, in some sense, equivalent, according to these same laws and attendant physical constants.

Now, without such rules (whatever they are and however they are fomulated), what would one have? A singularity? A perfectly even distribution, or just a random collection, of whatever it might be that underlies both energy and matter? God even? Certainly, it seems to me that energy and matter would not be distinct or distinguishable without some set of rules to determine their characteristics and properties.

Hence my question.

Many beleive in god because apparently, if you search for him, god with fill up your heart and show you "the path". He will reveal how "clear" it is and what the truth is...

Well I learnt a lot of proof and evidence in the exictence of the Cristian Relgion/ God in a course I went through recently but what I really remember is the miralce; there are a lot of miracles which happen around the world (of which we don't even hear of sometimes) in the name of God or Cristianity and these are even proven by athesit scientists as being scientifically absolutelly impossible to actullay happen without another, to a certain point external force, which is actullay God. I base my beleif strongly on this.

Now, without such rules (whatever they are and however they are fomulated), what would one have? A singularity? A perfectly even distribution, or just a random collection, of whatever it might be that underlies both energy and matter? God even? Certainly, it seems to me that energy and matter would not be distinct or distinguishable without some set of rules to determine their characteristics and properties.

Hence my question.But why does it certainly seem to you?

To the very best of my knowledge, you have absolutely no reason to make any kind of assumptions, at all.

Your "What would one have?" question is perfectly reasonable, but the rest is not just idle speculation, it's baseless idle speculation - and fairly pointless as long as you don't have a way of verifying your ideas.

Fair enough. Thanks for your answers.

Edit: I'm still not that comfortable with the whole 'messengers of some type' concept. How do we know that wasn't a later addition? Is there an indication of this from the Torah/Scriptures?

Well, it was basically a later addition. From the Torah alone we know virtually nothing about Enoch. That God 'took him' could simply mean that he died, too. But it was interpreted differently, so much so that he became a very famous figure, and whole apocryphal works like 1,2, & 3 Enoch were based off that story.

Elijah is a bit more clear, because it specifically refers to Elijah being taken into heaven via a whirlwind, chariot, etc. It is also a later text, and coincides with new traditions beginning in Judaism. Elijah is a far more important person in Judaism than Enoch, as he is a forerunner to the Messiah. This is echoed in the New Testament, as well, when John the Baptist is asserted to be Elijah.

That is based off of Malachi 3:24, where it states, "Lo, I will send my prophet Elijah to you before the coming of the awesome, fearful day of the Lord." So we see Elijah acting as a messenger specifically for the coming of the Messiah here.

Well I learnt a lot of proof and evidence in the exictence of the Cristian Relgion/ God in a course I went through recently but what I really remember is the miralce; there are a lot of miracles which happen around the world (of which we don't even hear of sometimes) in the name of God or Cristianity and these are even proven by athesit scientists as being scientifically absolutelly impossible to actullay happen without another, to a certain point external force, which is actullay God. I base my beleif strongly on this.

What kind of course did you take? These are common claims Christian apologists love to make, and love to teach the innocent masses. If you go to courses to hear Christian dogma and excuses, though, that is what you'll get.

Aside from that, I'd love to hear some proof and evidence of the accuracy of Christianity. Or particularly a mircale that has been "proven" in some fashion.

Many beleive in god because apparently, if you search for him, god with fill up your heart and show you "the path". He will reveal how "clear" it is and what the truth is...

Kinda like, once you start believing then you'll believe. :D

Both of wich you have merely convinced yourself exist.

Not at all. I look at the Bible and the evidence from the philosophical dilogues (proofs not proof) and my own experiances and the experiances of those I know.

Kindly refrain from oversimplifying me

Not at all. I look at the Bible and the evidence from the philosophical dilogues (proofs not proof) and my own experiances and the experiances of those I know.

So, are experiences of other deities proofs of those deities too?

So, are experiences of other deities proofs of those deities too?

Experiances alone are some proof, but not all. Which is why you have to look at the historical evidence also, which is where I believe the Christian faith superceedes all othes.

....
To the very best of my knowledge, you have absolutely no reason to make any kind of assumptions, at all.

...
Apart from the usual pragmatic ones, of course. But you're right in a theoretical sense.

However, to the best of our current knowledge, the relationship between energy and matter, thus their distinction, and their very nature is determined by physical laws and constants. Whereas, the statement that prompted my question assumed that matter and energy pre-dated such rules. Hence my question.

Experiances alone are some proof, but not all. Which is why you have to look at the historical evidence also, which is where I believe the Christian faith superceedes all othes.

The Koran records history as accurately as the Bible does, if not moreso. It doesn't demonstrate that it is divine or accurate in any theological claims, though.

You keep trumpeting the history card with the Bible, but its been a very long time since any reputable historians have put their reputation on the line for the type of historical accuracy that Christian apologists claim today. The only persons claiming that the Bible is superior in accuracy to other texts, or that this gives weight to Biblical religions, are Christian apologists whose work is not accepted in modern academia.

The Koran records history as accurately as the Bible does, if not moreso. It doesn't demonstrate that it is divine or accurate in any theological claims, though.

You keep trumpeting the history card with the Bible, but its been a very long time since any reputable historians have put their reputation on the line for the type of historical accuracy that Christian apologists claim today. The only persons claiming that the Bible is superior in accuracy to other texts, or that this gives weight to Biblical religions, are Christian apologists whose work is not accepted in modern academia.


Yep and is there actualy any historical proof of the life of Jesus, I mean is he mentioned anywhere else but the Bible, or perhaps the book or mormon, any contempary written records apart from scripture?

The Koran records history as accurately as the Bible does, if not moreso. It doesn't demonstrate that it is divine or accurate in any theological claims, though.


The Quran is indeed a history, but it is not one with the kind of bredth and scope of the Bible. The Quran was written by one man, in a cave, on his own (for the vast majority of the time) and there he claimed to have visons of God and he wrote down what God told him. Forgive me but if someone were to do that today, he would be put into a mental assylum

Then we have the Bible. A book that is not one book but over 50. It is written by many many diffrent authors from many many diffrent historical periods spanning over a millinea. It is written in various styles and not just one format of text is found within it. We have legal documents, poetry, census records, chronicals, bibliographys and eye witness accounts. It predicts events up and down its path, several centuries in advance of one another. The entire Bible and all the events and all the diffrent authors and everything, it fits together perfectly.


You keep trumpeting the history card with the Bible, but its been a very long time since any reputable historians have put their reputation on the line for the type of historical accuracy that Christian apologists claim today. The only persons claiming that the Bible is superior in accuracy to other texts, or that this gives weight to Biblical religions, are Christian apologists whose work is not accepted in modern academia.

I suggest then you read this

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0571032591/026-6077885-4451633?v=glance&n=266239

It is a book called "Who moved the stone" and it is written by somone who originally set out to disprove the resurection by using the historical evidence. He failed and became a Christian as a result.

However, to the best of our current knowledge, the relationship between energy and matter, thus their distinction, and their very nature is determined by physical laws and constants. Whereas, the statement that prompted my question assumed that matter and energy pre-dated such rules. Hence my question.
Hehe, we don't actually know what, if anything, existed prior to the rapid expansion of our universe. In a very real sense, the question may well be completely meaningless, as time might not have been there. At least, time as we know it, is a property of our universe as it presently is.

You can, of course, try to imagine what something without time is like, but without knocking yourself unconscious, I don't think you can come close to grasping it - and even then, it's pure speculation.

You're making all sorts of assumptions you don't have any basis for making. Like motion, distance, time & so on. The only thing we know about those things, is that they're a direct result of the rapid expansion of our universe. We don't know anything similar existed prior to that. We don't know there was a 'prior' at all.

If you want my honest opinion, I think you're 'universiphizing' (for lack of better word) the unknown & then anthropomorphizing that phantasmagoria to justify the notion of a deity. I have no idea why you'd go through all that trouble. It's no better or worse an argument for the existence of a deity than, say.. A toaster.

Yep and is there actualy any historical proof of the life of Jesus, I mean is he mentioned anywhere else but the Bible, or perhaps the book or mormon, any contempary written records apart from scripture?

There are no contemporary records of Jesus. The earliest references, like Josephus, who still wasn't a contemporary, do not occur in the earliest texts and are at least questioned as possible latter additions to the text.

There is about as much historical evidence for Jesus as there is for other man-gods, such as Dionysus or Mithras. When Jesus is evaluated in a historical sense, the dichotomy of Jesus of faith and historical Jesus is presented. The former is never the latter. And the former refers to Jesus as portrayed in the gospels. The latter refers to whatever historical source there was for the former. This could have been one guy named Jesus, multiple people the character was based on, or even the previous myths the Jesus myth arose from. In any case, no modern historians of repute view the Jesus of faith to be the same as the historical Jesus.

Yep and is there actualy any historical proof of the life of Jesus, I mean is he mentioned anywhere else but the Bible, or perhaps the book or mormon, any contempary written records apart from scripture?

Certianly there is

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

Basically on this thread, all the atheists are saying "religous people are only religous because they are weak minded and fear death, also they are stupid and can't even comprehend it." That shit pisses me off, in my experience hard-core atheists are usually just as stupid, dogmatic and self-righteous as religous people.

Get over yourselves

There are no contemporary records of Jesus.

Arn't there?

http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm

Kinda like, once you start believing then you'll believe. :D

Actually, that makes sense. The same applies to anything involving belief, e.g. a scientific theory. Belief in a theory can actually help develop that theory. It also brings with it some pitfalls. But would anybody recommend a person for SETI that held a belief that alien intelligence could not be found?

Sometimes, believing is a requirement for seeing.

Hehe, we don't actually know what, if anything, existed prior to the rapid expansion of our universe. In a very real sense, the question may well be completely meaningless, as time might not have been there. At least, time as we know it, is a property of our universe as it presently is.

You can, of course, try to imagine what something without time is like, but without knocking yourself unconscious, I don't think you can come close to grasping it - and even then, it's pure speculation.

You're making all sorts of assumptions you don't have any basis for making. Like motion, distance, time & so on. The only thing we know about those things, is that they're a direct result of the rapid expansion of our universe. We don't know anything similar existed prior to that. We don't know there was a 'prior' at all.
OK, I think we've battered this one to a point of agreement: that we don't know anything for sure.
If you want my honest opinion, I think you're 'universiphizing' (for lack of better word) the unknown & then anthropomorphizing that phantasmagoria to justify the notion of a deity. I have no idea why you'd go through all that trouble. It's no better or worse an argument for the existence of a deity than, say.. A toaster.
For the record: for all intents and purposes I am an atheist. I was not arguing for the existence of a god in this thread, only positing that rules/physical laws must arise before or simultaneously with energy and matter. (I might have argued for god elsewhere, but only as an explicit intellectual exercise.)

The Quran is indeed a history, but it is not one with the kind of bredth and scope of the Bible. The Quran was written by one man, in a cave, on his own (for the vast majority of the time) and there he claimed to have visons of God and he wrote down what God told him. Forgive me but if someone were to do that today, he would be put into a mental assylum

Oh? I bet I could point out more historical inaccuraces in the Bible than in the Koran. And that is coming from an honest Jew who is thorougly familiar with both. And one man having visions in the cave is no more remarkable than Elijah having visions of God in the wilderness, or Moses on Mt. Horeb. You're exposing your double standard, it would seem.

Then we have the Bible. A book that is not one book but over 50. It is written by many many diffrent authors from many many diffrent historical periods spanning over a millinea. It is written in various styles and not just one format of text is found within it. We have legal documents, poetry, census records, chronicals, bibliographys and eye witness accounts. It predicts events up and down its path, several centuries in advance of one another. The entire Bible and all the events and all the diffrent authors and everything, it fits together perfectly.

You've yet to show me anything the Bible predicted. You said this before, in the previous thread, but most of the prophecies in the Bible are circular and easily fabricated. The genuine prophecies that are unfalsifiable have yet to come to pass, such as world peace, resurrection, etc. Prophecy isn't a convincing argument, and this is why not a single peer-reviewed work exists today that claims a prophecy has been fulfilled.

Nor does the Bible "fit together perfectly." The Gospels don't even agree on the date when Jesus was born, and the fact that the New Testament doesn't match the Tanach is so clear that Christianity failed as a Jewish sect and only succeeded when uneducated Goyim interpreted a Greek translation of it. Not that Goyim are uneducated, but the early Christians en masse were compared to the educated Jews who rejected it.

I suggest then you read this

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0571032591/026-6077885-4451633?v=glance&n=266239

It is a book called "Who moved the stone" and it is written by somone who originally set out to disprove the resurection by using the historical evidence. He failed and became a Christian as a result.

Well lets see, I went to school, studied religion for years, and got a degree int he subject. One man's book probably isn't going to change my mind, but if I ever get free time and its sititng in front of me I'll take it as a sign from God and read it.

On that note, the claim that "OMG, I was an atheist and I tried to prove the Bible wrong, but now I proved it right" is an apologist tactic and claim that dates back to the Middle Ages, and polemics against Jews. Rarely is it true, and rarely can it be confirmed. Most of these converted apologists were Christians all along, and they simply fabricate it to push their story.

And, I'll give you my testimony. I used to believe in Jesus. Then I went to university and studied the history, texts, culture, etc. and I no longer believe in Jesus. What do you think of that?

In fact, Frank Morison's field had nothing to do with religion. He wasn't a scholar in that are, and not really qualified to comment on any such subjects. He was a journalist with a background in Law. Exactly like another famous modern-day apologist who has essentially ruined his legal and journalistic career after his books, Lee Strobel. What is with these journalists writing apologetic books? Here is your answer - $$$$. These books sell like hotcakes, so seemingly intelligent men with no background in the subject write books directed to a Christian audience, and make a fortune. McDowell, Strobel, Morison, etc. are all of the same breed in that respect.

As I stated before, you wont find any scholarship of merit to support your conclusions. You may find the excuses and apologetics of people working outside their field, however.

Arn't there?

http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm

Uh no, there aren't. None are listed on that link, either.

And you know, I've written numerous letters to CARM questioning sloppy scholarship and attempting to bring false claims to the attention of the academic world, and I have not gotten a single response back. Not once. Wonder why... :confused:

The Koran records history as accurately as the Bible does, if not moreso.

Urrm,...TS, I think you are stretching that one a little too far.

Certianly there is

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

You keep link-dropping, but if you actually examined the content, and were familiar with the history, you would know better. This link claims that Josephus and Thallius were eyewitnesses to Jesus. Yet, Josephus was not even born until after Jesus suppossedly died. Neat trick there. Thallius as well was not born until after Jesus' death. Neither claimed to be eyewitnesses to Jesus, as this website asserts.

I am a Christian. I am NOT one of those fundamentalists who beleives everyone other than Christians are going to hell. I beleive that anyone who lives a good life will go to heaven and find a place in His eternal kingdom. I believe in science. I believe that creatures on Earth were created over 700 million years, not 7 days. But I was raised as a Christian, and I have come to see that there MUST be a God. If our planet had been 10 miles farther away from the sun, there would be no life. If our planet rotated any faster or slower, there would be no life. Certain numbers, like 1.616, exist in almost everything in nature. Therefore, there must be a God.

I was not arguing for the existence of a god in this thread, only positing that rules/physical laws must arise before or simultaneously with energy and matter.Hehe, but we just don't know that. If we know anything at all, it's that we have absolutely no reason to believe either to be the case.

When we calculate our way back to the first itty bits of the first second of the rapid expansion of our universe, we hit a wall we don't know how to overcome. We can't calculate our way back to "Time 0", because everything we know about how stuff works, stops being true.

That does not mean that physics don't "arise before or simultaneously with energy and matter." It just means that we don't know, and may be unable to find out.

Even if we somehow do manage to get to "Time 0", we still can't know anything beyond that, because we'd have to be able to zip through the universe and.. The universe is everything, so just how does one go through everything & out the other side of it, without spontaniously having a total existence failure?

And now I need another beer to stop my poor head spinning.

Oh? I bet I could point out more historical inaccuraces in the Bible than in the Koran. And that is coming from an honest Jew who is thorougly familiar with both. And one man having visions in the cave is no more remarkable than Elijah having visions of God in the wilderness, or Moses on Mt. Horeb. You're exposing your double standard, it would seem.

I was under the impression that Mohammed was not a writer. Not sure about Elijah. But the current Koran seems to have been something like a second version. Not sure how that affects accuracy, but it was probably necessary because the first collection was too confusing and contradictory. I doubt it compares to the Old Testament parts that agree with archeology. Still, it's rather a hard thing to determine which of the scriptures records history more accurately. I was also under the impression that the Koran, for the most part, is not that concerned with history--at least not in the same category as something like Kings or Chronicles of the OT.


As I stated before, you wont find any scholarship of merit to support your conclusions. You may find the excuses and apologetics of people working outside their field, however.

I wonder what you think of Ravi Zacharias.

BTW, that's an interesting history you have there, TS. A Jew that once believed in Jesus as the Messiah, and now no longer. What would you say was the major turning point for you? Sloppy Christian apologetics?

Religion has always bothered me...at least to the extent that you're supposed to blindly subscribe to an enormous collection of beliefs.
Even past religion, the idea of a deity, the idea of god is somewhat absurd. I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm simply voicing an opinion and a curiosity. Why do you believe in god? I've always considered the existence of a god far too convenient to be real...something that's all-powerful, all-knowing, all-controlling, seems like a fairy-tale for adults.
Not only this, the fact that the idea of a "god" fits perfectly into the early-day agenda of the church...in which the aristocratic church hierarchy tithed the illiterate common man, lest they sin and burn in hell.
Nevertheless, back to my main point, somebody explain their belief in god please.
Fortunately, it is not necessary to believe in religious text to believe in god. I believed in god before I acquainted myself with religious texts, and I found that many of them concur with what I believe.

I can't explain it. I don't think an explanation of why I believe would do you any good, even if I could explain. I don't believe in the validity of any listed characteristics for god, except good --because 'good' is about us. Descriptions of god are unnecessary to belief in god, and yes, they are convenient, silly, and a cop-out when taken literally. Even a fairy-tale has more use than a literal mispresentation.

Hate to contradict you since I agree with your point in general, but in the epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh travelled to the underworld and saw his dead companion Enkidu there. Maybe that was a metaphor that I didn't explore when I read it, but there was at least the concept of an afterlife there.

Wait, wait, hold up. You actually READ the epic of Gilgamesh? :confused:

The idea of some big man in the sky shaking his fist at me really isn't my vision of a higher power. I think that we are all part of a higher power, but it's not the Judeo-Christian higher power. I also believe in re-birth and have a hard time believing in hell. If there is a hell, I don't think it's a eternity-long sentence. I also have a strong belief in karma.

Anyhow, I believe in a higher power and in karma because I feel I have seen these things. I believe in re-birth because as a child I had a feeling I've been on this Earth before and I've done all of this before. It was a weird overwhelming feeling and I knew things a child should have never known. I wept for my classmates because although I knew I wanted to leave my family home, I realized that they did not know they would one day have to leave and even loose some family members. I also remember crying in church as a child because I *knew* that what they were saying was wrong; it just didn't make sense to me. Sorry if this isn't clear... these feelings are hard to explain.

Well... I guess there are a lot of things in this universe that are hard to explain. Maybe that's religious or paranormal or just things science hasn't figured out yet. I guess you should read "believe" as "due to my experience" and "in my best estimation." :)

...you saw that movie about the guy in the waiting room for heaven, didn't you?

I was under the impression that Mohammed was not a writer. Not sure about Elijah. But the current Koran seems to have been something like a second version. Not sure how that affects accuracy, but it was probably necessary because the first collection was too confusing and contradictory. I doubt it compares to the Old Testament parts that agree with archeology. Still, it's rather a hard thing to determine which of the scriptures records history more accurately. I was also under the impression that the Koran, for the most part, is not that concerned with history--at least not in the same category as something like Kings or Chronicles of the OT.

Right, Mohammed wasn't a writer. He may have even been illiterate. The Koran was compiled years after his death from many sources that attributed histories and sayings to him. But most of the history in the Koran is rather mundane and accurate. Plus, because it is later down the road, we can verify it much more easily.

And the Koran isn't as concerned with history as the Kethuvim in the Tanach. In the Tanach, certain texts were written to be historical-religious accounts of events. In the Koran, it was compiled to be mostly religious in nature. In any case, both the Koran and the Bible in general are relatively accurate. But they are no more accurate than other religious texts in general, or other histories of the time. The argument that history somehow proves the validity of the spiritual claims doesn't cut it.

I wonder what you think of Ravi Zacharias.

BTW, that's an interesting history you have there, TS. A Jew that once believed in Jesus as the Messiah, and now no longer. What would you say was the major turning point for you? Sloppy Christian apologetics?

Not sloppy Christian apologetics as much as the stronger arguments of Judaism. Going to school, studying the history of the religions, etc. were all a large factor as well. I usually acknowledge the two largest factors of me leaving Christianity as when I began to study the history of Christianity and found the huge number pagan influences in the Jesus story, and that Jesus didn't fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanach. From that point, it makes about as much sense to worship any deity as Jesus.

When we calculate our way back to the first itty bits of the first second of the rapid expansion of our universe, we hit a wall we don't know how to overcome. We can't calculate our way back to "Time 0", because everything we know about how stuff works, stops being true.

I have an interesting challenge for you. Define 'time' without using terms that are defined using the word 'time' or imply time change. Do we really know what 'time' is?

Pratically speaking, unless the laws of nature have their origin in the big bang, it is extremely unlikely for the big bang to have happened, based on what we now know of the laws of nature. And if you think that the laws of nature have their origin in the big bang, then you are without a cause for the big bang, which means you have separated cause and effect (i.e. identifying an effect that has no cause), something science cannot investigate anyway.



And now I need another beer to stop my poor head spinning.

It's the jolly beer that makes my head spin in the first place. Maybe you ought to lighten up on that stuff.

Because of the evidence and my own experiance.
Evidence?
Experiences?
Everybody come quick, this man has seen and met god, AND has some tpye of way to logically explain all of the contradictions in the Bible, as well as the Omnipotence Paradox and the facts of science that go against things in The Bible like Darwinian Evolution, not to mention the whole natural disasters killing millions of people many of whom are very devout followers of the church.... Please
ENLIGHTEN ME

I have an interesting challenge for you. Define 'time' without using terms that are defined using the word 'time' or imply time change. Do we really know what 'time' is?

Oh, I think I can do it. The movement of matter through space.

Everybody come quick, this man has seen and met god

He's got photos too.

Oh, I think I can do it. The movement of matter through space.

Are you serious? And would that be a description of the effect of time, or time itself?

Does your definition mean that when I move my fingers to type this, I am creating time?

Please note that I probably won't respond to you again.I have an interesting challenge for you. Define 'time' without using terms that are defined using the word 'time' or imply time change. Do we really know what 'time' is?The nonspatial continuum in which events occur. Is that what you were after?Pratically speaking, unless the laws of nature have their origin in the big bang, it is extremely unlikely for the big bang to have happened, based on what we now know of the laws of nature. And if you think that the laws of nature have their origin in the big bang, then you are without a cause for the big bang, which means you have separated cause and effect (i.e. identifying an effect that has no cause), something science cannot investigate anyway.Which is what I've been saying in various different ways over the last couple of pages of this thread.It's the jolly beer that makes my head spin in the first place. Maybe you ought to lighten up on that stuff.I can't function when I'm sober. You can't function when you're not. Long live diversity.

Are you serious? And would that be a description of the effect of time, or time itself?

Does your definition mean that when I move my fingers to type this, I am creating time?

I don't know, its out of my league. Its a definition that a physics friend of mine told me. I've never studied physics so I can't explain it, haha.

Are you serious? And would that be a description of the effect of time, or time itself?

Does your definition mean that when I move my fingers to type this, I am creating time?No. Time is the non-space in which the movement occurs. It is a fairly simple concept.

Right, Mohammed wasn't a writer. He may have even been illiterate. The Koran was compiled years after his death from many sources that attributed histories and sayings to him. But most of the history in the Koran is rather mundane and accurate. Plus, because it is later down the road, we can verify it much more easily.

But being in a position to verify something as accurate, and accuracy are two different things, not to be confused. You cannot claim that the Koran is more accurate simply because it is more recent. Otherwise you'll have the Mormons here chanting Joseph Smith slogans.


And the Koran isn't as concerned with history as the Kethuvim in the Tanach. In the Tanach, certain texts were written to be historical-religious accounts of events. In the Koran, it was compiled to be mostly religious in nature. In any case, both the Koran and the Bible in general are relatively accurate. But they are no more accurate than other religious texts in general, or other histories of the time. The argument that history somehow proves the validity of the spiritual claims doesn't cut it.

I agree that historical accuracy in a text is not final proof of God. But it does say something (perhaps) for the integrity of the writers.



Not sloppy Christian apologetics as much as the stronger arguments of Judaism.

So are you looking for the Messiah still?


Going to school, studying the history of the religions, etc. were all a large factor as well. I usually acknowledge the two largest factors of me leaving Christianity as when I began to study the history of Christianity and found the huge number pagan influences in the Jesus story, and that Jesus didn't fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanach. From that point, it makes about as much sense to worship any deity as Jesus.

You are probably aware of the high numbers of students who come from religious backgrounds who 'lose' their faith upon attending a university. Most religious people have several good explanations for this effect. But perhaps you are also aware that most of the recent cult movements are filled with university educated people. University, it seems, is the place where change is most likely to happen. I also went to university and came out the other side realizing that my faith was challenged pretty much the whole 10 years, but that I was more of a Christian than before I entered. My faith before was virtually that of my parents. Afterwards, it was definitely my own.

But this claim of yours that Jesus didn't fill the Messianic prophecies......which ones do you have in mind? (please keep it brief--I'll probe you when I want more).

But being in a position to verify something as accurate, and accuracy are two different things, not to be confused. You cannot claim that the Koran is more accurate simply because it is more recent. Otherwise you'll have the Mormons here chanting Joseph Smith slogans.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that being recent makes it more accurate. I was just saying that because it is more recent, it becomes easier to verify historical claims. That 'fog of time' thing means that we may never be able to know if certain things in the Torah were accurate, because it was just too long ago.

I agree that historical accuracy in a text is not final proof of God. But it does say something (perhaps) for the integrity of the writers.

Agreed.

So are you looking for the Messiah still?

Yup. We actually believe that when the Messiah comes, everyone will know. It will be impossible to miss the Messiah, as Christians claim Jews did. This is because Messinaic prophecy states that everyone will come to worship God, that war will cease, etc.

But this claim of yours that Jesus didn't fill the Messianic prophecies......which ones do you have in mind? (please keep it brief--I'll probe you when I want more).

Here is a short list at What Jews Believe (http://whatjewsbelieve.org/)that outlines Messianic prophecies Jesus didn't fulfill:

1. The Messiah is preceded by Elijah the prophet who, with the Messiah, unifies the family (Malachi 4:5-6), which is contradicted by Jesus in Matthew 10:34-37.
2. The Messiah re-establishes the Davidic dynasty through the messiah's own children (Daniel 7:13-14). But Jesus had no children.
3. The Messiah brings an eternal peace between all nations, between all peoples, and between all people (Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-4; Ezekiel 39:9). Obviously there is no peace. Furthermore, Jesus said that his purpose in coming was to bring a sword, and not peace (see Matthew 10:34, as referenced above.)
4. The Messiah brings about the universal world-wide conversion of all peoples to Judaism, or at least to Ethical Monotheism (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Zechariah 8:23; Isaiah 11:9; Zechariah 14:9,16). But the world remains steeped in idolatry.
5. The Messiah brings about an end to all forms of idolatry (Zechariah 13:2). But the world remains steeped in idolatry.
6. The Messiah brings about a universal recognition that the Jewish idea of God is God (Isaiah 11:9). But the world remains steeped in idolatry.
7. The Messiah leads the world to become vegetarian (Isaiah 11:6-9). It isn't.
8. The Messiah gathers to Israel, all of the twelve tribes (Ezekiel 36:24). Many of the ten lost tribes remain lost.
9. The Messiah rebuilds The Temple (Isaiah 2:2; Ezekiel 37:26-28). It hasn't been rebuilt.
10. There will be no more famine (Ezekiel 36:29-30). People starve to death every day.
11. After the Messiah comes, death will eventually cease (Isaiah 25:8). People die every day.
12. Eventually the dead will be resurrected (Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2; Ezekiel 37:12-13; Isaiah 43:5-6);
13. The nations of the earth will help the Jews, materially (Isaiah 60:5-6; 60:10-12;
14. The Jews will be sought out for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23);
15. All weapons will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9,12);
16. The Nile will run dry (Isaiah 11:15)
17. Monthly, the trees of Israel will yield their fruit (Ezekiel 47:12);
18. Each tribe of Israel will receive and settle their inherited land (Ezekiel 47:13-13);
19. The nations of the earth will recognize that they have been wrong, that the Jews have been right, and that the sins of the Gentile nations, their persecutions and the murders they committed, have been borne by the Jewish people (Isaiah 53)

Hehe, but we just don't know that. If we know anything at all, it's that we have absolutely no reason to believe either to be the case.

When we calculate our way back to the first itty bits of the first second of the rapid expansion of our universe, we hit a wall we don't know how to overcome. We can't calculate our way back to "Time 0", because everything we know about how stuff works, stops being true.

That does not mean that physics don't "arise before or simultaneously with energy and matter." It just means that we don't know, and may be unable to find out.

Even if we somehow do manage to get to "Time 0", we still can't know anything beyond that, because we'd have to be able to zip through the universe and.. The universe is everything, so just how does one go through everything & out the other side of it, without spontaniously having a total existence failure?

And now I need another beer to stop my poor head spinning.
And so we bump against the buffers of irreconcilable agreement.

I think I'll join you in that beer.

:headbang:

Yup. We actually believe that when the Messiah comes, everyone will know. It will be impossible to miss the Messiah, as Christians claim Jews did. This is because Messinaic prophecy states that everyone will come to worship God, that war will cease, etc.


I understand what the Jewish faith holds, but my question was more a personal one as to whether you consider yourself a believer or not. I think you have answered it.


Here is a short list at What Jews Believe (http://whatjewsbelieve.org/)that outlines Messianic prophecies Jesus didn't fulfill:

I'm no theologian, but regarding these prophecies that the Messiah came to fulfill, is it necessary to expect that he will do away with things like war and death IMMEDIATELY? Like the Jews, the Christians are still waiting for the better days. We acknowledge that Christ came to bring peace, since he gave his peace to his disciples. But we see that there is a difference between personal peace (despite the surrounding catastrophe's) and peace between the nations (turning swords into ploughs). Personal peace is available as a gift from God, but we are still waiting for the Christ to install peace on earth through an iron rule. For example, we might say that Jesus came to bring division, in order that this might result in peace.

At any rate, it seems as though your objections to Jesus as the Messiah are a matter of assuming that all prophecies should have been completed already.

And I'm unsure as to how your Messiah is going to fulfill prophecies like Isaiah 53 (the ones about him suffering). What would you expect there?

I'm no theologian, but regarding these prophecies that the Messiah came to fulfill, is it necessary to expect that he will do away with things like war and death IMMEDIATELY? Like the Jews, the Christians are still waiting for the better days. We acknowledge that Christ came to bring peace, since he gave his peace to his disciples. But we see that there is a difference between personal peace (despite the surrounding catastrophe's) and peace between the nations (turning swords into ploughs). Personal peace is available as a gift from God, but we are still waiting for the Christ to install peace on earth through an iron rule. For example, we might say that Jesus came to bring division, in order that this might result in peace.

The reason I (and Jews in general) believe they will occur immediately is because it is implied. When prophecies occur in the Torah, they tend to either give timeframes or some details. A key detail that should be given, if it were part of the prophecy, would be that the messiah would come not just once, but two times. Because that occurs nowhere, I tend to just accept that it is implict that the messiah will only come once. On top of that, there are no messianic prophecies that talk about the death or resurrection of the messiah. Christians went back and reinterpreted non-prophetic verses to justify this new development.

At any rate, it seems as though your objections to Jesus as the Messiah are a matter of assuming that all prophecies should have been completed already.

Yup, pretty much. I believe if the Messiah were here, the prophecies would be fulfilled.

Another thing that bothers me is that every prophecy Jesus suppossedly fulfilled, aside from many not being actual prophecies, tend to be easily fabricated things that any one of us could fulfill. Christians point out in Zachariah when Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem, for example, while ignoring a few verses down where it says war will stop. In short, its suspicious that Jesus fulfilled all of the easy ones, while all of the ones that would actually prove something were left unnfulfilled. I mean, I can ride a donkey into Jerusalem today, but it doesn't mean I fulfilled a messianic prophecy.

And I'm unsure as to how your Messiah is going to fulfill prophecies like Isaiah 53 (the ones about him suffering). What would you expect there?

Isaiah 53 is disputed. Some believe it refers to the Messiah, but I think most (and the historical interpretation) is that it is a reference to Israel. In fact, in Isaiah 52 it states that the suffering servant (who is named all throughout 53) is Israel. In short, since I don't think Isaiah 53 is really a messianic prophecy per se, I don't expect a coming Messiah to fulfill it. I wrote an article on Isaiah 53 on my site that explains both the messianic and non-messianic interpretation, and why I don't believe Jesus fits either.

Isaiah 53 (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id3.html)

O wow this thread...really grew...but the thing is that I cannot come up and give you guys a photograph of Jesus, or some trophy that says "This belongs to Jesus, who was the Messiah". There are a million "but ___" in the world about religion, not all of which can be explained. I generally don't explain religion to other people, but I have taken numberous theology classes. There is proof that archaeology can back up the fact that the bible is an extremely accurate history book. However, I cannot pull it up. Why? Because I am a lazy freak that can't be bothered to search through hundreds of files to find one fact, which will be denied and disputed due to people closing their minds and hearts. One cannot understand something by just saying "this is not true" or "this is true". He or she will have to look to both sides and listen earnestly to what both sides are saying before making the decision. Also, the Christian bible is in no way edited. Go to www.bible.org and read up on how it is nothing close to what is assumed in the fiction by Dan Brown. Jews and Christians share the same bible. However, the differences come up because the Jews use only the Old Testament, and Christians use the New Testament as well as the Old. Thus, the interpretations may be different. Look, if you guys want to diss the bible, at least read the entire thing first. Read it, match it up with historical finds, then think about everything you've said. Proof is out there. You just have to find it.

But why is religion socially acceptable? - I'm quite sure I'd be the center of ridicule with liberal sprinklings of pity, if I started professing my faith in dragons.
Because religion isn't about god, or even faith in god. It's about us.

Actually, that makes sense. The same applies to anything involving belief, e.g. a scientific theory. Belief in a theory can actually help develop that theory. It also brings with it some pitfalls. But would anybody recommend a person for SETI that held a belief that alien intelligence could not be found?

Sometimes, believing is a requirement for seeing.
Um... that would be the BEST kind of person to recommend for SETI project.

I believe in God because Im weak minded. I need to think an imagerny man is watching me at all times even when Im getting dressed because I need the safety blanket feeling and its kind of a turn on. I also believe in God so that when something really bad happens I dont have to cope with it properly, I can just say it was God' will or they're in heaven now or something. I also believe in God because I am a horrible person and I need a book written 2000 years ago to tell me not to kill you. If there wasnt a God I would be a mass murderer. Thats why I believe in God, hope it helps.

Oh? I bet I could point out more historical inaccuraces in the Bible than in the Koran. And that is coming from an honest Jew who is thorougly familiar with both. And one man having visions in the cave is no more remarkable than Elijah having visions of God in the wilderness, or Moses on Mt. Horeb. You're exposing your double standard, it would seem.

The diffrence is which is more reliable.

Vision experiances of one man

OR

Historical accounts from many men from many times

Census records from many men from many times

Legal documents written by many men from many times

Vison experiances of many men from many times

Records of miraculous happenings from many men from many times



You've yet to show me anything the Bible predicted. You said this before, in the previous thread, but most of the prophecies in the Bible are circular and easily fabricated. The genuine prophecies that are unfalsifiable have yet to come to pass, such as world peace, resurrection, etc. Prophecy isn't a convincing argument, and this is why not a single peer-reviewed work exists today that claims a prophecy has been fulfilled.

I have shown you several things the Bible predicted. The first example I gave was of King Cyrus and the Jews. Look it up. Secondly I could give you many others about Jesus like predictions about where he was born, whose line he would be born into, how he would die etc.

http://www.carm.org/bible/prophecy.htm

And just saying "Its easily fabiricated" is silly since that is true of all history.


Nor does the Bible "fit together perfectly." The Gospels don't even agree on the date when Jesus was born, and the fact that the New Testament doesn't match the Tanach is so clear that Christianity failed as a Jewish sect and only succeeded when uneducated Goyim interpreted a Greek translation of it. Not that Goyim are uneducated, but the early Christians en masse were compared to the educated Jews who rejected it.

The "Educated Jews" (AKA Pharasies) were too proud to accept that someone like Jesus who hung around with thives, tax collectors and prostitutes etc could be their saviour.



On that note, the claim that "OMG, I was an atheist and I tried to prove the Bible wrong, but now I proved it right" is an apologist tactic and claim that dates back to the Middle Ages, and polemics against Jews. Rarely is it true, and rarely can it be confirmed. Most of these converted apologists were Christians all along, and they simply fabricate it to push their story.

Well this one can be confirmed, since he actually has his original research plan and other documents showing what he wanted to do.


In fact, Frank Morison's field had nothing to do with religion. He wasn't a scholar in that are, and not really qualified to comment on any such subjects. He was a journalist with a background in Law.

He's not writing about religion, he's writing about history.

The diffrence is which is more reliable.

Vision experiances of one man

OR

Historical accounts from many men from many times

Census records from many men from many times

Legal documents written by many men from many times

Vison experiances of many men from many times

Records of miraculous happenings from many men from many times

That is a bandwagon fallacy.

I have shown you several things the Bible predicted. The first example I gave was of King Cyrus and the Jews. Look it up. Secondly I could give you many others about Jesus like predictions about where he was born, whose line he would be born into, how he would die etc.

http://www.carm.org/bible/prophecy.htm

Actually you havn't. You've posted a few links. From websites that refuse to acknowledge my emails and academic challenges none the less. "Look it up" isn't exactly showing me, either.

And just saying "Its easily fabiricated" is silly since that is true of all history.

We're not talking about history, we're talking about spurious claims of fulfilled prophecy. When a Christian says "Oh, Jesus fulfilled a prophecy because he rode a donkey" it is absurd, because by that reasoning everyone who has done it has fulfilled a prophecy.

The "Educated Jews" (AKA Pharasies) were too proud to accept that someone like Jesus who hung around with thives, tax collectors and prostitutes etc could be their saviour.

Oh, got any information about the Pharisees except for anti-Semitic polemic in Gospels that were written by non-Jews? Probably not. The sum total of what you know about Jews during that time period is based on non-Jewish polemic against Jews, i.e. the Gospels. Please, if you want to discuss historical Pharisees, we can. But don't try to present anti-Semitic versions of the Pharisees presented in the Gospels as how they were.

Well this one can be confirmed, since he actually has his original research plan and other documents showing what he wanted to do.

Oh, it can? Confirm it for me.

He's not writing about religion, he's writing about history.

No, I'm afraid not. His book is under the "Christianity" section at B&N, not history. He isn't a historian. He isn't even someone with a background in religious studies. He's a journalist, like virtually all apologists, who wrote an apologetic work.

Whereas, the statement that prompted my question assumed that matter and energy pre-dated such rules. Hence my question.

It assumed that? Not intentional. By "rules springing into existance on their own if all we have is matter and energy," I wasn't talking about the order things happened in. I just meant, all these physical rules and constants, how do we explain why we have them when we're assuming nothing exists beyond matter and energy. It comes down to either "they just are" or "there's some cause" (or the more sensible option of "I don't know") with religion suggesting possible causes. Not a question of time, just another way of phrasing the same question I was asking throughout that whole conversation, really.

Wait, wait, hold up. You actually READ the epic of Gilgamesh? :confused:

It's the oldest work in literature and it's only like a hundred pages. It's hard to get through a freshman year without reading it.

Wait, but then why did God even go to the trouble of putting Jesus on Earth and stuff to take away our sins and not just go "Oi, human types! I am forgive you! Now be nice." :confused:

I'm not sure. I'll have to ask Him that when I see Him.

I tend to believe in God, but don't follow a religion. Most people make the mistake of thinking that people who believe in god must also follow a religion. I'm more agnostic than deist though, and so I guess most people would call me a bloody fence sitter, but that's fine because I can abuse atheists who are irrational and religious people who are either gullible.

I’m not sure. I’ll have to ask Him that when I see Him.
See, that sounds a lot like:

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

“Hi! I’m John, and this is Mary.”

Mary: “Hi! We’re here to invite you to come kiss Hank’s ass with us.”

Me: “Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who’s Hank, and why would I want to kiss his ass?”

John: “If you kiss Hank’s ass, he’ll give you a million dollars; and if you don’t, he’ll kick the shit out of you.”

Me: “What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shakedown?”

John: “Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do what ever wants, and what he wants is to give you a million dollars, but he can’t until you kiss his ass.”

Me: “That doesn’t make any sense. Why...”

Mary: “Who are you to question Hank’s gift? Don’t you want a million dollars? Isn’t it worth a little kiss on the ass?”

Me: “Well maybe, if it’s legit, but...”

John: “Then come kiss Hank’s ass with us.”

Me: “Do you kiss Hank’s ass often?”

Mary: “Oh yes, all the time...”

Me: “And has he given you a million dollars?”

John: “Well no, you don’t actually get the money until you leave town.”

Me: “So why don’t you just leave town now?”

Mary: “You can’t leave until Hank tells you to, or you don’t get the money, and he kicks the shit out of you.”

Me: “Do you know anyone who kissed Hank’s ass, left town, and got the million dollars?”

John: “My mother kissed Hank’s ass for years. She left town last year, and I’m sure she got the money.”

Me: “Haven’t you talked to her since then?”

John: “Of course not, Hank doesn’t allow it.”

Me: “So what makes you think he’ll actually give you the money if you’ve never talked to anyone who got the money?”

Mary: “Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you’ll get a raise, maybe you’ll win a small lotto, maybe you’ll just find a twenty dollar bill on the street.”

Me: “What’s that got to do with Hank?”

John: “Hank has certain ‘connections.’ ”

Me: “I’m sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game.”

John: “But it’s a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don’t kiss Hank’s ass he’ll kick the shit of you.”

Me: “Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight from him...”

Mary: “No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank.”

Me: “Then how do you kiss his ass?”

John: “Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his ass. Other times we kiss Karl’s ass, and he passes it on.”

Me: “Who’s Karl?”

Mary: “A friend of ours. He’s the one who taught us all about kissing Hank’s ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times.”

Me: “And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss his ass, and that Hank would reward you?”

John: “Oh no! Karl’s got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining the whole thing. Here’s a copy; see for your self.”

John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on “From the desk of Karl” letterhead. There were eleven items listed:

From the desk of: KARL
1. Kiss Hank’s ass and he’ll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the shit out of people who aren’t like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don’t drink.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank’s ass or he’ll kick the shit out of you.

Me: “This would appear to be written on Karl’s Letterhead.”

Mary: “Hank didn’t have any paper.”

Me: “I have a hunch that if we checked we’d find this is Karl’s handwriting.”

John: “Of course, Hank dictated it.”

Me: “I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?”

Mary: “Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people.”

Me: “I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they’re different?”

Mary: “It’s what Hank wants, and Hank’s always right.”

Me: “How do you figure that?”

Mary: “Item 7 says ‘Everything Hanks says is right.’ That’s good enough for me!”

Me: “Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up.”

John: “No way! Item 5 says ‘Hank dictated this list himself.’ Besides, item 2 says ‘Use alcohol in moderation,’ Item 4 says ‘Eat right,’ and item 8 says ‘Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.’ Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true too.”

Me: “But 9 says ‘Don’t Drink,’ which doesn’t quite go with item 2, and 6 says ‘The moon is made of green cheese,’ which is just plain wrong.”

John: “There’s no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you’ve never been to the moon, so you can’t say for sure.”

Me: “Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock...”

Mary: “But they don’t know if the rock came from the Earth, or from outer of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese.”

Me: “I’m not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn’t make it cheese.”

John: “Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!”

Me: “We do?”

Mary: “Of course we do, Item 5 says so.”

Me: “You’re saying Hank’s always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That’s circular logic. That’s no different from saying ‘Hank’s right because he says he’s right.’”

John: “Now you’re getting it! It’s so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank’s way of thinking!”

Me: “But... oh, never mind. What’s the deal with wieners?”

Mary blushes.

John: “Wieners, in buns, no condiments. Anything else is wrong.”

Me: “What if I don’t have a bun?”

John: “No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong.”

Me: “No relish? No Mustard?”

Mary looks positively stricken.

John: (yelling) “There’s no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!”

Me: “So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?”

Mary sticks her fingers in her ears: “I am not listening to this. La la la la la la la la.”

John: “That’s disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that...”

Me: “It’s good! I eat it all the time.”

Mary faints.

John: “Well, if I knew you where one of those, I wouldn’t have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you, I’ll be there counting my money and laughing. I’ll kiss Hank’s ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater.”

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.


Appy polly loggies my droogs, if you’ve read that before.

That is a bandwagon fallacy.


Your going to have to elaborate on this one


Actually you havn't. You've posted a few links. From websites that refuse to acknowledge my emails and academic challenges none the less. "Look it up" isn't exactly showing me, either.

If a 1000 pear reviewed journals said 2+2=5 and one non pear reviewed one said 2+2=4 who would you listen to?

It is the content, not the authorship. Go and read.


We're not talking about history, we're talking about spurious claims of fulfilled prophecy. When a Christian says "Oh, Jesus fulfilled a prophecy because he rode a donkey" it is absurd, because by that reasoning everyone who has done it has fulfilled a prophecy.

You are deliberately ignoring every other prophecy. There are seveal hundrud about Jesus's life. Take one in isolation and yes it does look silly. Look at all the others and a picture begins to emerge

You are also repeatedly ignoring the other example I give regarding King Cyrus and the Jews and Daniels prophecy about the exact number of days, months and years it would be from when he wrote that for Jesus to be born.


Oh, got any information about the Pharisees except for anti-Semitic polemic in Gospels that were written by non-Jews? Probably not. The sum total of what you know about Jews during that time period is based on non-Jewish polemic against Jews, i.e. the Gospels. Please, if you want to discuss historical Pharisees, we can. But don't try to present anti-Semitic versions of the Pharisees presented in the Gospels as how they were.

The Gospels were written by Jews. If you are talking about Jews by race. Jesus himself was a Jew. And the Gospels were far from anti-semetic.


Oh, it can? Confirm it for me.

Read the book and it will show you it


No, I'm afraid not. His book is under the "Christianity" section at B&N, not history. He isn't a historian. He isn't even someone with a background in religious studies. He's a journalist, like virtually all apologists, who wrote an apologetic work.

Where it is on the stands and who he is doesnt change what he is writing about. He is writing about a historical event. He is writing about history.

God sucks. I mean really, he does. He sucks at his job. He sucks at making people believe in him. He sucks at dishing out punishments to deserving people. He sucks at dishing out eternal bliss to deserving people. He sucks at just about everything. I bet there are multiple Gods out there, like, you know, God's parents and sisters and brothers and stuff, and I bet God was the down-syndrome-kid out of them. Got the bright idea to create these things called humans and now he doesn't know wtf to do with them. What an idiot. More trouble then we're worth, and he shoulda known that, being psudo-omnipotent and all. Please. Gimme a fucking break. The funny thing is, I do believe in him. Why? Guess it's better then believing that I just zap out of existance when I die, out of comfort maybe... but does that mean I really believe in him? I donno. In fact, I probably don't. If he is up there though, I hope he knows he sucks saggy goat nuts.

God sucks. I mean really, he does. He sucks at his job. He sucks at making people believe in him. He sucks at dishing out punishments to deserving people. He sucks at dishing out eternal bliss to deserving people. He sucks at just about everything. I bet there are multiple Gods out there, like, you know, God's parents and sisters and brothers and stuff, and I bet God was the down-syndrome-kid out of them. Got the bright idea to create these things called humans and now he doesn't know wtf to do with them. What an idiot. More trouble then we're worth, and he shoulda known that, being psudo-omnipotent and all. Please. Gimme a fucking break.

I've often wondered why almost seems willing to entertain the notion that perhaps God does exist, and that he is also a total wanker. Most people who insist that THERE IS SO A GOD are people who also feel the need to insist that God is a really nice guy, and this is where they really tend to get into logical trouble.

I mean, give me omnipotence for 2 minutes, and I bet you I could eliminate 95% of human violence without interfering with free will at all. And I'm just some random weirdo on the internet. I'm not an omnipotent creator-being or anything.


The funny thing is, I do believe in him. Why? Guess it's better then believing that I just zap out of existance when I die, out of comfort maybe...

Then you're in the same boat as most "true believers." Whatever gets you through the day, I suppose.

Nevertheless, back to my main point, somebody explain their belief in god please.


God is real, so I believe in him.

God is real, so I believe in him.
Round and round and round we go! Circular logic; everyone’s favourite get-out clause.

God is real, so I believe in him.
Umm... I'm not really sure you answered the question. Would you mind elaborating?

Umm... I'm not really sure you answered the question. Would you mind elaborating?


The question was why do I believe in God.

My answer is that I believe in him because he is real.

Round and round and round we go! Circular logic; everyone’s favourite get-out clause.


It's very easy to understand really. Why do you like a certian painting, or a particular music genre, or a certian authours style of writting, or a particular food, or wine, or beer?

Yes of course there are well reasoned thought out logical answers to all of the above, but mostly it is for some undefined inner feeling. I truely don't know why I love the blues so much, truely. Yes I like guitar music, but my love of the blues goes way beyond that reason. It is because it touches something deep within me, for the emotions it evokes, for feelings it gives me, for all sorts of intangible reasons.

Art in all of it's forms is like this and if this is true of art, if we can see that there is at least one aspect of the human mind that in a very real senses does not work along lines of logic, then why not more.

We the religous cannot explain to you the non religious why we belive as we do, in a way that you can easily understand, lets just say it is the same as saying 'I may not know art, but I know what I like'

Mostly irrational reasons, wrapped around a couple of decent ones :)

Irrational:

I really hate Christianity and Islam. Believing in the Jewish G*d I get to look at them like the look at the Latter Day Saints or the Druze. I'm not saying this is a nice motive but (shrug)

When I was taught Catholicism, it deformed my thinking. I am not capable of believing conclusively in the absence of G*d. I don't actively believe in my heart that there is such a force or entity around....but I can't _disbelieve_ either.

(I was the only nine year old I ever heard of who refused to listen to their priest because "the priest is too soft on human failings" and then went on to the position of "I'll decide what the theology that follows from the Catechism should be since the local representitive isn't up to teaching the right one.")

(I'm a little less arrogant now, but more of Caspian Sea compared to the Pacific Ocean sort of decline)

My family was exceptionally good. Being orderly, peaceful and harmonious (despite minor imperfections) it gave me the expectation that the world would be that way. The world has not been that way, but I still have the belief it should be better because of my childhood. A G*d shaped being is the only force that can credibly lead to there ever being a world as good as my family was.


The rational bits:

(1) I go into this is a lot more detail in the Judaism thread, but it boils down to this: after meticulous anaylsis of history, science, sociology and psychology I firmly believe the Jewish G*d could well exist and not contradict what reason and observation tell me about any part of the world. No other religion of any type has managed this feat for me regarding its divine force(s). I believe this based on logic, deduction and induction.

(the supporting facts and observations are rather too complicated to go into here... (if you're curious, read my post on that thread))

I do not believe I have proved it _has_ to exist. But for me, given that no other religious system of _any_ kind even comes _close_ to providing a cosmology and deity that _could_ exist...this has convinced me if there is a deity it is the one described by Judaism.

(2) too many exceptional events happened to Jewish society compared to Christian and Moslem society (distorted offshoots) and those compared to the rest of human societies. Either they're damned smart or they had divine intervention to set themselves up on the road they did (much less to follow it so relatively well.)

Yet humans have proved that their intellect is paltry and unequal to their fundamental problems of the capacity for evil. To me, it is more credible the Jews had divine intervention then that they were that brilliant to be able to write something that useful from scratch. Other similar attempts have been lacklustre to disastrous....

It's not an enthusiastic "yay, this argument for teh win!" sort of thing. Hardly.

I emotionally want for there to be a rational explanation for a G*d to exist and have influence (in this case torturously indirect but real regardless). While the logical conclusions I have arrived at are obviously thus tainted by that bias....the fact remains that I could only believe in something that at least has a strong veneer of "scientific explanation" to it.

So to me it is miraculous and deeply satisfying that even superficially rational findings point to G*d. Because I was absolutely convinced that even such a halfway result was impossible after 11 years of ardent secular humanism.

Now of course is the trick of making the miracle of climbing out of the pit my depression and autistic spectra crap has dumped me in :)

The question was why do I believe in God.

My answer is that I believe in him because he is real.
So is that is a no to the invitation to elaborate?

If a 1000 pear reviewed journals said 2+2=5 and one non pear reviewed one said 2+2=4 who would you listen to?

It is the content, not the authorship. Go and read.

This is a nonsensical response. You're attempting to create an absurd hypothetical to avoid the fact that there is scholarly conensus on many issues regarding the history of the Bible, and Christianity and Christian apologists often work outside of that scholarly concensus.

You are deliberately ignoring every other prophecy. There are seveal hundrud about Jesus's life. Take one in isolation and yes it does look silly. Look at all the others and a picture begins to emerge

I'm willing to go over every single pseudo-prophecy with you and demonstrate why not a single one refers to Jesus. In fact, I've done this with other parties before, in both informal and formal academic settings. I have no problem doing it here on NSG, I really enjoy it. Pick a prophecy, one at a time, and I will show you. We can go through every one you want.

You are also repeatedly ignoring the other example I give regarding King Cyrus and the Jews and Daniels prophecy about the exact number of days, months and years it would be from when he wrote that for Jesus to be born.

Actually, Daniel doesn't give the exact number of days, months, and years. I've written about that on my website already. And there is quite a bit about Cyrus and Jews. What you've done is give vague references, you havn't actually given any examples. If you want to talk about Cyrus, show me what specifically you're making a reference to. Chapter and verse please. If you want to discuss Daniel, we can do that as well. But don't just say "Daniel said so." Show me where it occurs.

Christians frequently avoid presenting the text, because solid exegesis of the texts is inconsistent with Christian claims about it.

The Gospels were written by Jews. If you are talking about Jews by race. Jesus himself was a Jew. And the Gospels were far from anti-semetic.

The argument "Jesus was a Jew so the Gospels can't be anti-Semitic" is a fallacy called argument by ethnicity. Yes, you can be of a specific ethnicity and hate your own ethnicity. Then again, the Gospels weren't written by Jesus. They most likely were not written by Jews, for that matter. If they were written by Jews, they would have been written by Hellenized Jews, who tended to have a severe disdain for Jewish culture and religion to begin with.

In any case, the fact that the Gospels are written as polemic against Jews and are anti-Semitic in many places is, again, almost universally accepted by modern scholarship. The only ones who claim anything to the contrary are Christians arguing from a subjective religious POV.

Where it is on the stands and who he is doesnt change what he is writing about. He is writing about a historical event. He is writing about history.

I'm afraid it does. No one considers his work to be a historical work. He was not a historian. Nor was he someone with a background in religious studies, or a theologian of any type. His work is classified as "Christian inspiration", not history. Just because a Christian invents a pseudo-history does not mean that he is actually writing about history.

So is that is a no to the invitation to elaborate?


What's to elaborate on?

What's to elaborate on?
Perhaps why you believe he is real. If not that then just as a point of interest you might explain a little bit about the characteristics of the God that you believe in.

.... Why do you like a certian painting, or a particular music genre, or a certian authours style of writting, or a particular food, or wine, or beer?

Yes of course there are well reasoned thought out logical answers to all of the above, but mostly it is for some undefined inner feeling....

Art in all of it's forms is like this and if this is true of art..then why not more[types of phenomena]?

We the religous cannot explain to you the non religious why we belive as we do, in a way that you can easily understand, lets just say it is the same as saying 'I may not know art, but I know what I like'


Yay :)

Thank you for saying something heartfelt and _comprehensible. I write for the sake of the one or two messed up eccentrics who might (but probably do not) stumble upon my ruminations.

It is heartening to see someone communicate to the rest of humanity.

Good on you :)

I dunno, I'm naturally connected to a higher power I guess.

Religion has always bothered me...at least to the extent that you're supposed to blindly subscribe to an enormous collection of beliefs.
Even past religion, the idea of a deity, the idea of god is somewhat absurd. I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm simply voicing an opinion and a curiosity. Why do you believe in god? I've always considered the existence of a god far too convenient to be real...something that's all-powerful, all-knowing, all-controlling, seems like a fairy-tale for adults.
Not only this, the fact that the idea of a "god" fits perfectly into the early-day agenda of the church...in which the aristocratic church hierarchy tithed the illiterate common man, lest they sin and burn in hell.
Nevertheless, back to my main point, somebody explain their belief in god please.

Well, I'm a Buddhist, so it is actually against my religion to believe something blindly, we are specifically intstructed not to trust Buddha's teachings until we have tested them for ourselves.
As for God? *shrugs* well he doesn't really feature in my faith, I think there is probably a higher power and I think it is beyond human means to describe. I don't believe in bearded parents in the sky protecting our narcissistic interests. I believe in this because of personal experience.

I think this is ultimately the reason for many religious types - we tried it, it worked.

I totally agree with the idea that religion is a fairy tale for adults. It all comes down to the most basic fear we all have: dying. In one sense, it is virtually impossible for the conscious mind to conceive of death, simply because the conscious mind cannot conceive of not existing. Think about it; what is it like to not exist? This is such a great unknown, that people feel the need to cope with this literally mind-boggling idea by justifying it to their conscious mind: when you die, you do not cease to exist, but change form. You have an afterlife. Of course, this immediately creates the idea of the soul, some immaterial part of the body that continues to exist after the body dies. Cultures throughout human history have held some form of this belief.

Well once again, Buddhism denies the existence of an eternal soul. We know that our ego will be destroyed because it was born. Anything that is created will eventually be destroyed.
Our religion is not interested in death or afterlife, but rather how we live right now.
The focus of my faith is living a happy and fulfilled life, free from suffering.

...need to insist that God is a really nice guy, and this is where they really tend to get into logical trouble.

I mean, give me omnipotence for 2 minutes, and I bet you I could eliminate 95% of human violence without interfering with free will at all. And I'm just some random weirdo on the internet. I'm not an omnipotent creator-being or anything.



Yay! Someone else did that test and didn't like the answers they got from it :)

I profoundly respect that you believe what you believe based on thoughtful insights like that which seem largely absent from most people's contemplations about what they cleave to.

In my case, I believe G*d is not "nice". No reading of the facts could _possibly_ substain such a claim. But people like to believe they are "nice" when in fact the majority of them are quite prone to nastiness but like to sweep those bits under the rug.

I'm part of "most people" alas. Though I try very hard to sweep as little away as I can.

As below, so above, thus for the "typical person" and how they can believe something so at odds with reality.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that as a species we have a hard lesson that must be taught. That whatever deity is, it cannot logically be truly ominpotent, or that knowledge could be confered directly.

Like learning to do a math problem by the rules rather than intuition....like the way that every important lesson in my life has come with a vast price tag of pain on it (because there are so many important things I did not and could know coming out of childhood)....

I can see the vague outlines that something divine _could_ have reasons for this arcane "almost entirely hands off" approach it has taken. I don't have to like these reasons any more that I had to like the pain price in my learning curve.

However, I doubt this observation will change your mind or anything. But I just found it neat that you brought up something I had forgotten to mention. And that you're really thoughtful :)

Well once again, Buddhism denies the existence of an eternal soul. We know that our ego will be destroyed because it was born. Anything that is created will eventually be destroyed.
Our religion is not interested in death or afterlife, but rather how we live right now.The focus of my faith is living a happy and fulfilled life, free from suffering.


Umm strange that one I alsways thought that Bhudism taught re-incarnation and that the only way off of the wheel of life-death-rebirth was a cesation of suffering?

I put the question 'If Budists are trying, to end suffering then would an end to life accomplish this?' to a Budist friend of mine just the otherday, he replied saying that no it would not, because (and although he did not use the word soul) reincarnation means that if you have not ceased suffering you come back to do it all over again.

The way he explained it was, if you have not achived a state of nirvana, then your spirt searches out an new body upon your death.

Please expaline, or was he just pullin me pud?

See, that sounds a lot like:

[amazingly amusing analogical exposition of Christianity's issues via the parable of a million dollars (with conditions!) for kissing Hank's ass]



Did you come up with yourself ? Whom do I attribute it to ?

And that's exactly what drove me out of Catholicism in the first place was being unable to reconcile a G*d whose system destroys all moral agency in His followers.

Judaism is different, but I doubt you'd like it anyway and probably have something equally irreverent to say in that regard but that would be fine. At least you're thinking hard or value hard thinking :)

lol the "god isn't nice" argument is fairly strong, but only for a given definition of god.

In the context of many deities it simply looks like spoilt brats going "waaa daddy didn't buy me a pony so he doesn't love me."

People either assume

a) no god

b) if there is a god he should be our own personal servant, making sure that all of our selfish and petty little needs are taken care of.
We couldn't possbibly concieve that he might know better, what is good for us, that maybe our frail little minds aren't all they are cracked up to be.

When I was a child I could see no good reason for my parents forbiding my certain things. As an adult I can now see that, and I realise that they were right.
When we stand toe to toe with the vastness of creation, and consider the limits of our minds, our species can't really claim to be much more than children.

The "B" argument seems to boil down to "I don't think god exists because he isn't what I want him to be"

It's a very anthropocentric point of view.

The reason I belive in a God is becuase of cause and effect. Basicly for every thing that exist (this is the effect) there is a reason behind its existince. The universe has to have a cause to come into exinstine even the big bang thory fails to explain something what cause the big bang? Humans have been trying from nineteen 50 to recreate (in a controled enviorment) something that resimble the big bang (which i belive in) and we havnt been able to (weve tried all the enviormental conditions that are posible and theres no natural way to recreate it.) That leaves us to wonder who/what caused the big bang science tells us that everything must have a cause (the cause for my life well lets just say my parents were catholic and this was after the ban on birth control.) My answer to that question is God.

Umm strange that one I alsways thought that Bhudism taught re-incarnation and that the only way off of the wheel of life-death-rebirth was a cesation of suffering?

I put the question 'If Budists are trying, to end suffering then would an end to life accomplish this?' to a Budist friend of mine just the otherday, he replied saying that no it would not, because (and although he did not use the word soul) reincarnation means that if you have not ceased suffering you come back to do it all over again.

The way he explained it was, if you have not achived a state of nirvana, then your spirt searches out an new body upon your death.

Please expaline, or was he just pullin me pud?

Nope, it is a common misconception. Many younger Buddhists still hold it.
Buddhists have a concept called rebirth, which is wholly different.
Rebirth is more like a seed becoming a tree, or firewood becoming ash. The "next" thing is not the same thing as the originally. It is intrinsically linked but it isn't "you".
No-Self is very central to Buddhism, and in the Brahmajala Sutra Buddha specifically lists reincarnation as a impossible belief.

Once we realise the truth of our situation, we are already free from suffering, right here and now. Nirvana is a question of perception, not of location.

lol the "god isn't nice" argument is fairly strong, but only for a given definition of god.

In the context of many deities it simply looks like spoilt brats going "waaa daddy didn't buy me a pony so he doesn't love me."

People either assume

a) no god

b) if there is a god he should be our own personal servant, making sure that all of our selfish and petty little needs are taken care of.
We couldn't possbibly concieve that he might know better, what is good for us, that maybe our frail little minds aren't all they are cracked up to be.

When I was a child I could see no good reason for my parents forbiding my certain things. As an adult I can now see that, and I realise that they were right.
When we stand toe to toe with the vastness of creation, and consider the limits of our minds, our species can't really claim to be much more than children.

The "B" argument seems to boil down to "I don't think god exists because he isn't what I want him to be"

It's a very anthropocentric point of view.
Perhaps the 9/11 terrorists knew better than we did and should be idolized and emulated. Perhaps the father who abuses his children knows better and should be encouraged.
The possibility of someone knowing better is no reason to assume they do.

My answer to that question is God.

my answer to who that God is im not going to gwt into btw

Perhaps the 9/11 terrorists knew better than we did and should be idolized and emulated. Perhaps the father who abuses his children knows better and should be encouraged.
The possibility of someone knowing better is no reason to assume they do.

Unfortuantly one thing that is the same in ALL religions is that God is omniscient it is one of his main qualitys if you belive in God you must belive in his omnicince

I profoundly respect that you believe what you believe based on thoughtful insights like that which seem largely absent from most people's contemplations about what they cleave to.

Also a lot of drinking. But thanks :).


In my case, I believe G*d is not "nice". No reading of the facts could _possibly_ substain such a claim. But people like to believe they are "nice" when in fact the majority of them are quite prone to nastiness but like to sweep those bits under the rug.

I'm part of "most people" alas. Though I try very hard to sweep as little away as I can.

As below, so above, thus for the "typical person" and how they can believe something so at odds with reality.

Ooooooooh. I like that. I hadn't quite thought of it in those terms, but it sounds spot-on to me.


The only thing that makes sense to me is that as a species we have a hard lesson that must be taught.

I'd say more than one. ;)


That whatever deity is, it cannot logically be truly ominpotent, or that knowledge could be confered directly.

The whole omnipotence thing is such silliness, in my opinion. It just introduces needless complications and moral problems into the whole theory. Why not simply say that God is really really powerful, and a really cool fellow, and we ought to be nice to him and give him his props? Why bother throwing in this whole omnipotence mess? It just sounds like playground one-upsmanship:

"My God is a million times more powerful than you!"
"Oh yeah? My God is infinity times more powerful than your God!"
"Oh yeah? My God is infinity PLUS ONE times more powerful!"


Like learning to do a math problem by the rules rather than intuition....like the way that every important lesson in my life has come with a vast price tag of pain on it (because there are so many important things I did not and could know coming out of childhood)....

I can see the vague outlines that something divine _could_ have reasons for this arcane "almost entirely hands off" approach it has taken. I don't have to like these reasons any more that I had to like the pain price in my learning curve.
I'm sure I could think of millions of possible Creation myths, along with various explanations for why God appears to be applying a "hands-off" parenting strategy with us. I just don't have any particular reason to care.

I'm not worried about what the Flying Spaghetti Monster has in store for me, so why worry about God?


However, I doubt this observation will change your mind or anything. But I just found it neat that you brought up something I had forgotten to mention. And that you're really thoughtful :)
Shucks. *Blush*

You're fun, too.

Perhaps the 9/11 terrorists knew better than we did and should be idolized and emulated. Perhaps the father who abuses his children knows better and should be encouraged.
The possibility of someone knowing better is no reason to assume they do.


Your comparison is a non-sequiter, and once again only works for a given definition.

Those things are the actions of fallable humans.

On the whole I buy your argument, but once again, it only works for a given definition of god, and that defintion is always created by the Atheists who are denying his existence.

If you define god as a big parent designed to look after our every whim, then yes, he does not hold up to scrutiny. But this is a petty and anthropocentric conception.

Your argument does not work against god, but rather one version of god

Unfortuantly one thing that is the same in ALL religions is that God is omniscient it is one of his main qualitys if you belive in God you must belive in his omnicince
Why believe in that omnicince?

Unfortuantly one thing that is the same in ALL religions is that God is omniscient it is one of his main qualitys if you belive in God you must belive in his omnicince

Deities in the Greek pantheon didn't seem very omniscient.

Deities in the Greek pantheon didn't seem very omniscient.

true but i am speaking of modren theology

Umm strange that one I alsways thought that Bhudism taught re-incarnation and that the only way off of the wheel of life-death-rebirth was a cesation of suffering?

Please expaline, or was he just pullin me pud?


The idea, I think, is that you live each incarnation as it were the last one, and if you truly manage to live properly....then the satiation of desire finally dissolves the ego and there is the peace of non being. The ego cannot end until it reaches the culmination of every desire...and the tricky desires are the ones to do good, because given the human vessel , that comes with far more difficulty than evil :)

But that was just my understanding....

Unfortuantly one thing that is the same in ALL religions is that God is omniscient it is one of his main qualitys if you belive in God you must belive in his omnicince
Actually, in the overwhelming majority of human religions, God/gods have not been viewed as omnipotent. For some fun examples, try visiting Godchecker.com.

true but i am speaking of modren theology

Hindu deities aren't either ;)

Neither are the gods of Shinto, Religious Taoism, Animism or neopaganism

Your comparison is a non-sequiter, and once again only works for a given definition.

Those things are the actions of fallable humans.

On the whole I buy your argument, but once again, it only works for a given definition of god, and that defintion is always created by the Atheists who are denying his existence.

If you define god as a big parent designed to look after our every whim, then yes, he does not hold up to scrutiny. But this is a petty and anthropocentric conception.

Your argument does not work against god, but rather one version of god
I'm not denying god, I'm merely not making wild assumptions about him without cause. If god is omnicient then my argument means nothing. If god is fallable or not omnicient then my argument is applicable.

If god created everything then he is responsible for cancer and alzheimers. Saying that the god who creates these diseases is not a nice one is not because he has not looked after our every whim, but rather because he has gone out of his way to cause us pain.

I'm not denying god, I'm merely not making wild assumptions about him without cause. If god is omnicient then my argument means nothing. If god is fallable or not omnicient then my argument is applicable.

If god created everything then he is responsible for cancer and alzheimers. Saying that the god who creates these diseases is not a nice one is not because he has not looked after our every whim, but rather because he has gone out of his way to cause us pain.

Then on the whole I agree with you,

Though once again, God could be defined as asimply a sustaining life force, or central truth, rather than an actual being or creator.
So it all depends on conception

Hindu deities aren't either ;)

Neither are the gods of Shinto, Religious Taoism, Animism or neopaganism

taoism is mor philosophy than religion... dont know what animism is and Shinto is a VERY ancient religion that has been watered down from its origional state and mixed with budhism over the years.(so no one knows what the actual "Shinto" teachings on this would be today)

Then on the whole I agree with you,

Though once again, God could be defined as asimply a sustaining life force, or central truth, rather than an actual being or creator.
So it all depends on conception
Why do you assume an omnicient god?

Ive though of a better way to phrase my first argument for the existence of a God (rather thomas aqunis has):

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

taoism is mor philosophy than religion... dont know what animism is and Shinto is a VERY ancient religion that has been watered down from its origional state and mixed with budhism over the years.(so no one knows what the actual "Shinto" teachings on this would be today)

Taoism is divided into two schools, Religious and Philosophical.
I'm referring to religious that has numerous small deities.

Shinto is an ancient religion (as most religions are), but it still has a modern form that includes non-omniscient deities.

Animism is an umbrella term for many shamanic religions, many still practised today. Shinto is very similar to animistic faiths, they generally revere nature deities and spirits, all non-omniscient.

Why do you assume an omnicient god?


I assume nothing, that's my point.

I don't see god as a definable entity.

Taoism is divided into two schools, Religious and Philosophical.
I'm referring to religious that has numerous small deities.

Shinto is an ancient religion (as most religions are), but it still has a modern form that includes non-omniscient deities.

Animism is an umbrella term for many shamanic religions, many still practised today. Shinto is very similar to animistic faiths, they generally revere nature deities and spirits, all non-omniscient.

i proably undid myself on the shinto thing lol when i admited it had been waterdown with budhism which it has. i belive it was when the main female shinto god came to the shogun in a vision declareing herself a budhisvisto (again excuse spelling)

I assume nothing, that's my point.

I don't see god as a definable entity.

i am catholic so i define him as God the Father maker of Heaven and Earth. Jesus Christ His only son our Lord. And The Holy Spirit the counseler sent to us by the Son.

A Bodhisattva?

lol that's a whole other can o' beings.

There have been recent movements trying to "purge" Shinto of Buddhist influence, though seems a bit in vain these days.

On the whole it is largely a cultural religion with lots of rituals and small non-omniscient deities.

A Bodhisattva?

lol that's a whole other can o' beings.

There have been recent movements trying to "purge" Shinto of Buddhist influence, though seems a bit in vain these days.

On the whole it is largely a cultural religion with lots of rituals and small non-omniscient deities.

Shintoism is very intresting to study i admit (im minoring in religous studys) personaly though i define it as a lot of local superstitions muddled together in a religion.

anywho - I gotta go and get some work done.

lol see ya'll later.

Shintoism is very intresting to study i admit (im minoring in religous studys) personaly though i define it as a lot of local superstitions muddled together in a religion.

"I contend Sir, that we are both Atheists, I simply believe in one less god than you.
When you can explain why you reject everyone elses gods, you will know why I reject yours"

-Stephen somethinforanother.

and with that. I really must go

The reason I belive in a God is becuase of cause and effect.

Actually, if you're going to take that road, there is no proof of G*d inherent in the cosmology of the universe (I love playing Devil's Advocate)....

As far as physics has discerned, in a pure vaccuum, particles _spontaneously appear_...and when they appear they are a positive matter particle and an equivalently massed anti-matter particle. It's like saying instead of 0 == 0 that 1 - 1 = 0

So the universe according to the rules we have can be like a soap bubble. I'm not clear how the big bang theory or other contemporary cosmology works in but my geek friend who liked physics a lot and keeps somewhat read up on it said that's how it is.

And matter by the manner in which is manifests imposes conditions. The universe is simply that portion of endless nothingness in which certain laws and principles are imposed by the overwhelming preponderance of a certain type of matter, a huge amount of which materialized at some point in the distant past.

Of course, I could be wrong here. Physics was a subject I respected but was never great at the application of. So if anyone has concrete facts please share them....

But if I'm on the right general track...G*d will always be superficially extraneous because physics supports the idea that there is no need for an external agency to explain how something does come about. By stating that everything is all nothing, just with irregular interuptions of that void by substance and its collapse.

Why does nothingness have that property, that it can go from being nothing to something ? I do not see how we can ever acquire any evidence to shed light on that question and that it is fundamentally unanswerable. There could be a G*d within such a system, there could be a G*d and this system is the manifestation of them, or there could just be this system, eternal and intrinsic.

Eventually all questions of "why" have to reduce to "because that's how it is".

"I contend Sir, that we are both Atheists, I simply believe in one less god than you.
When you can explain why you reject everyone elses gods, you will know why I reject yours"

-Stephen somethinforanother.

and with that. I really must go


I'm pretty sure that's Stepeh Leacock since it was in the same style as a VERY short poem that goes something like:

A man says to the Universe
Sir, I exist!
The universe replies "this fact
has singularly failed to impress us."

And ironically Leacock is quite correct. I know why an atheist rejects my G*d :) They go that one step farther because a rational person can see that the universe does not exist to accomodate them.

For various emotional reasons, you can be motivated to find patterns to create some degree of relief from this implacable irrelevance of your life to the history and process of the universe.

If the universe is created by agency, then it must be an agency that is mostly (or even entirely) endorsing this hostile environment. The more you are willing to look at what is, the scarier it is. The point at which you say "enough! I require my universe to have this amount of comfort to it" is fundamentally depend on yourself.

The _true_ atheist is the person who can go to the very end and erase all cosmological comfort and proceed with living. Everyone else is an agnostic.
(and this is why I maintain standard Communism is not truly atheistic because it's faith in "the inevitability of history" is essentially a source of cosmological comfort.)

So the difference is a question of whether you find it less uncomfortable to believe there is an agency which offers some incomplete measure of mitigation of our suffering....or to believe there is no agency at all and no mitigation at all.

There are two parts to any reasoning. One is to decide what you believe is true. The second to articulate how it can be true. On matters where you cannot perform the imperical method, this leads to fundamental ambiguity because there can be no 100% conclusive proof as with matters like gravity, magnetism, etc.

The decision of what to believe is a reflection of who you are.

I assume nothing, that's my point.

I don't see god as a definable entity.
Wrong. You do assume things or otherwise you would not have made this argument

lol the "god isn't nice" argument is fairly strong, but only for a given definition of god.

In the context of many deities it simply looks like spoilt brats going "waaa daddy didn't buy me a pony so he doesn't love me."

People either assume

a) no god

b) if there is a god he should be our own personal servant, making sure that all of our selfish and petty little needs are taken care of.
We couldn't possbibly concieve that he might know better, what is good for us, that maybe our frail little minds aren't all they are cracked up to be.

When I was a child I could see no good reason for my parents forbiding my certain things. As an adult I can now see that, and I realise that they were right.
When we stand toe to toe with the vastness of creation, and consider the limits of our minds, our species can't really claim to be much more than children.

The "B" argument seems to boil down to "I don't think god exists because he isn't what I want him to be"

It's a very anthropocentric point of view.

I thought that you were making the mistake of attributing omnicience to the concept of god. In that case you would have been making a decent argument even if it would be based on a flawed assumption.

If you really assume nothing, then you were actually making a completely unsupported and meaningless argument. This is more troubling than the former possibility because at that point it still seemed you were at least following a rational path.

If you assume nothing then my original objection about "knowing better" is applicable. The absurd either or situation you develop is so wildly flawed and obviously false that it serves no purpose.

Your arguments are too colored by your personal feeling that everyone out there is a bunch of athists that hate some silly strawman of god that they have created. You accuse people of having baseless assumptions at the same time as you attack them with your own arsenal of baseless assumptions.

If you assume nothing and accept everything as a possibility then it seems you have determined to never say anything about the topic of god. Even the absurd dilemmas you dream up to criticise are beyond your power without some kind of assumption. All you can ever do is to say, "That is a possibility"

To assume nothing is to think nothing. Assumptions are ideally based on thought, but without them you are paralyzed and unable to formulate ideas or arguments. So either get some assumptions or stop wasting space with posts that say nothing.

Shintoism is very intresting to study i admit (im minoring in religous studys) personaly though i define it as a lot of local superstitions muddled together in a religion.


In what do you find this interest ? That is , what distinctive elements did it have ? I'm not terribly impressed with it because as it has ended up, it is the last holdout of a society-wide religion that states "we are the only true human beings".

I am challenged to see how any religion with true integrity to its principles would sell out like that if these are _not_ it's essential beliefs . (And I will note that this lack of integrity is _precisely_ my issue with most of Protestant Christianity) (my issues with Catholic-cousinly Christianity are another matter entirely :) )

People _accuse_ Judaism (inaccurately) of that sort of egocentricism, but of State Shinto it is true. Or at least it seems from my studies in Japanese history, admitedly not too extensive, all of one course, a half hear in social studies in grade school, fragments of courses here and there.

The reason I belive in a God is becuase of cause and effect.

What is God's cause?

If you don't believe that god has cause then you don't believe in cause and effect and there is no reason for you to believe in god in the first place.

If god has a cause then what is that cause? How does that affect our relationship with god? Should we worship god, or the creator of god? What was the cause of the creator of god?

If you truly believe in cause and effect then you believe in an infinate regression backward through infinity of god upon god, all creating each other, with no beginning.

If I am missing something, please help me out of my confusion.

Religion has always bothered me...at least to the extent that you're supposed to blindly subscribe to an enormous collection of beliefs.
Even past religion, the idea of a deity, the idea of god is somewhat absurd. I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm simply voicing an opinion and a curiosity. Why do you believe in god? I've always considered the existence of a god far too convenient to be real...something that's all-powerful, all-knowing, all-controlling, seems like a fairy-tale for adults.
Not only this, the fact that the idea of a "god" fits perfectly into the early-day agenda of the church...in which the aristocratic church hierarchy tithed the illiterate common man, lest they sin and burn in hell.
Nevertheless, back to my main point, somebody explain their belief in god please.
Certainly, I'm happy you're being civil about it. First of all, I'll have you know that I'm not very religious ("religion is the opiate of the masses"), just God-Fearing (there IS a considerable difference). Second of all, I can see that you think it's logical to assume there is no God, and that anyone who assumes otherwise did not reach their conclussion based on logic. Not so. Everything, as far as we know, has a cause-and-effect. Thus, if you trace back this equation so far, God is inevitably your...or at least my conclussion.
The fact is, you beleive we Theoists, worship God like he's Zeus, or something. Am I correct? Allow me to tell you my concept: God is love, everything is God. Everyone, has a soul (that which differenciates us from androids), and all souls are a part of a God. God is everything, knows everything, and oversees everything. He can only be compared to a being of some sort, abstractly at best.
There, I've said my bit. I don't expect you to run out, and become a preist, but I like to set the facts straight, that the beleif in God, is not attained like a child and a fairy-tail, but can, and is attained through logic.

because God sent jesus to die for us and since jesus fied to take our sins away when we die we can go to heaven and be with jesus. in heaven there is no sin and it is very wonderful. jesus loves us more than you can EVER imagine. to get to heaven we have to accept jesus in our heart. to do that we have to pray to god and say that you belive jesus died for us and admit to him. let jesus be the boss of your life. but if u dont do that then u will go to hell and burn. after u become a christian and accept God, you have to read the bible and go to church.
that is why i belive in God. i hope that clarifies this topic

This is a nonsensical response. You're attempting to create an absurd hypothetical to avoid the fact that there is scholarly conensus on many issues regarding the history of the Bible, and Christianity and Christian apologists often work outside of that scholarly concensus.

Its not non sensical at all. It is real. It doesnt matter about the source, what matters is the content. If the content is false or flawed, the flaws will show themselves. It doesnt matter if its pear reviewd or not. What matters is what it says and whether it stands up to scrutiny.


I'm willing to go over every single pseudo-prophecy with you and demonstrate why not a single one refers to Jesus. In fact, I've done this with other parties before, in both informal and formal academic settings. I have no problem doing it here on NSG, I really enjoy it. Pick a prophecy, one at a time, and I will show you. We can go through every one you want.

Prophecy

"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity." (Micah 5:2)

And fufillment

"And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register, along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child.... And she gave birth to her first-born son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn." (Luke 2:4-5, 7)

Prophecy

When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.(Hosea 11:1)

And fufillment

And he arose and took the Child and His mother by night, and departed for Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod, that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, "Out of Egypt did I call My Son." (Matthew 2:14-15)

Prophecy

Then the eyes of the blind will be opened, And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. Then the lame will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb will shout for joy. For waters will break forth in the wilderness and streams in the Arabah. (Isaiah 35:5-6)

And fufillment

And He answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the gospel preached to them." (Luke 7:22)

and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" And Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. (Matthew 11:3-5)

Prophecies

He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. (Isaiah 53:3)

"Then He shall become a sanctuary; But to both the houses of Israel, a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over, And a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem." (Isaiah 8:14)

Therefore thus says the LORD God, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed." (Isaiah 28:16)

The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief corner stone. (Psalms 118:22)

And fufillment

He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. (John 1:11)

But they cried out all together, saying, "Away with this man, and release for us Barabbas!" (Luke 23:18)

He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the very corner stone. (Acts 4:11)

For this is contained in Scripture: "Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, And he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed." This precious value, then, is for you who believe. But for those who disbelieve, "The stone which the builders rejected, This became the very corner stone," and, "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. (1 Peter 2:6-8)

Prophecy

Even my close friend, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me. (Psalms 41:9)

For it is not an enemy who reproaches me, Then I could bear it; Nor is it one who hates me who has exalted himself against me, Then I could hide myself from him. But it is you, a man my equal, My companion and my familiar friend. (Psalms 55:12-13)

"And one will say to him, 'What are these wounds between your arms?' Then he will say,' Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.' (Zechariah 13:6)

And fufillment

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor." While He was still speaking, behold, a multitude came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was preceding them; and he approached Jesus to kiss Him. But Jesus said to him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?" (Luke 22:47-48)

And immediately he went to Jesus and said, "Hail, Rabbi!" and kissed Him. And Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you have come for." Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him. (Matthew 26:49-50)


Actually, Daniel doesn't give the exact number of days, months, and years. I've written about that on my website already. And there is quite a bit about Cyrus and Jews. What you've done is give vague references, you havn't actually given any examples. If you want to talk about Cyrus, show me what specifically you're making a reference to. Chapter and verse please. If you want to discuss Daniel, we can do that as well. But don't just say "Daniel said so." Show me where it occurs.

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. (Daniel 9:24-27)

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2004/daniel.html


I'm afraid it does. No one considers his work to be a historical work. He was not a historian. Nor was he someone with a background in religious studies, or a theologian of any type. His work is classified as "Christian inspiration", not history. Just because a Christian invents a pseudo-history does not mean that he is actually writing about history.

It is about an event in the past. It is an analysis of an event in the past. Every history teacher whom I have shown it to in my college agrees with me that it is history and that it makes a pesuasive argument. Again you are choosing to ignore content over the source.

I believe in God because there is a lot o stuff that happens in the universe that is explained as to how it happened, but not necessarily why. Earth forming, for example. 4.6 billion years ago molten rock and stuff came together... but why? The Big Bang was a tiny piece of crunched-up matter... but why did it explode and create the universe? Stuff came together to form single-celled things, but WHY? And why did those cells come together to form life as we know it? If you wonder WHY, there has to be some type of Higher Power in there somehwere, whether divine or natural, if you want a WHY. You can ask science for the HOW, but not really so much the WHY.

As for Christianity- why can't that Higher Power have a son to come and save us all? As a Christian that is what I believe. You don't *have* to believe it, nor will I convert you.

And an answer to why God was "here" in the Bible but not now...

Back then people accepted God, and admitted they needed him, and were willing to learn how to survive. However more recently we've seen people hating on God and telling Him to go away, so therefore, God is lurking around somewhere, waiting for us to realize we still need Him despite our technology and superior intelligence. Humans do have a sinful nature, and as long as that's still around, people are going to need help from God.

Also, God is not something that will baby you. He/She/It will help, but not do everything.

And why did God create us? Well... I don't know.

Christians always brings up this idea that science answers the how, and they turn to religion to answer the why. One of the examples given above was that, and I'm paraphrasing, 4.6 BYA, the earth formed blahdiblah, but why?

The why is as simple as the how. The why is because there exists an attractive force between particles of matter, and all else being equal, they tend to congregate rather than dissipate. The fallacy of the Christian argument is that they seek a "higher" reasoning for our existence in their "why". They want there to be a greater reason, a meaning to all of existence. Quite simply, there isn't. There is no need for there to be.

To address another issue, it was mentioned somewhere earlier in the thread that, and again I'm paraphrasing, there must be a God because if the earth had been 50 miles closer to the sun or rotated just a bit faster or just a bit slower, or any of the other reasons then life wouldn't exist. This is a silly, illogical argument. For one thing, if the Earth had been 50 miles closer to the sun, we wouldn't be here to argue whether or not God exists. It's the same as looking back and evolution and seeing some "divine plan". There is no particular specialness about the Earth or its life-forms. Just that, in a universe of nearly infinite stars and planets, the odds are that some planets are going to be just right for life, while others are not. Arguing that there must be a God because the Earth is perfect for life is the same as my saying there cannot be a God because Mars doesn't support life. The two have no relation to one another. Likewise, we exist as conscious and thinking beings now not because we were "planned" in the evolutionary sense, but because that's just the result we got from the random evolutionary process. There are likely thousands of worlds out there whose life-forms didn't quite make it to the level we have, and they are not arguing about God. There are probably thousands of worlds out there who got an even better deal than we. Who knows, maybe they're saying that their world is so perfect and they are so intelligent, that only a God could have created them? It's all nonsense. People who don't understand evolution always try to say it's impossible for things to have evolved their complexity, and they apply the same flawed reasoning to how the Earth came about. These people close their minds to any possibility of their beliefs being wrong, and then elect leaders who will cater to their every illogical fear and whim. It's driving me insane to have to share a country with this bunch of idiots, the Christian masses. I wish atheists were a bit more... well, common.

Every year science claims to have solved it all and yet for it's entire existence science has changed that vision as often as it has stated it. We can easily trace the path of Newtonian Physics through to "M" theory and see that there is no end in sight. At least the theists have shown some consistency.

Christians always brings up this idea that science answers the how, and they turn to religion to answer the why. One of the examples given above was that, and I'm paraphrasing, 4.6 BYA, the earth formed blahdiblah, but why?

I didn't use my religion to use that argument. I used reason. Yes, particles are attracted to eachother, and that formed Earth... But why did all the cells come together to form animals? And WHY did that little ball of stuff explode? What was it doing before then? Huh? That's why science doesn't ALWWAYS answer the "why." And why are you saying "Christians" anyway? Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm more prone to use the argument. I'm actually considering things from a scientific point of view based on MY KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENCE. I just got out of eighth grade, does that make me stupid? I'm a Christian too, does that make me a Bible-thumping moron? NO, IT DOESN'T. It seems to me like you're saying that "there simply isn't" without analyzing the possibilites of what "could be."

I believe in God because I have experienced him. Not with my senses, not with my body, and not with my mind. It was with my 'essence', or spirit, or jiva, or whatever you may call it.

When I say God, I mean the "Supreme Cosmic Spirit is regarded to be eternal, genderless, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, yet indescribable. It can be at best described as infinite Being, infinite Consciousness and infinite Bliss."


Nothing could ever sway me from 'belief' in God, because I realised him. It wasn't based on a logical conclusion.

It's driving me insane to have to share a country with this bunch of idiots, the Christian masses. I wish atheists were a bit more... well, common.

Oh so all Christians are idiots now? Are Jews, Muslims, Pagans, and Hindus idiots too, for believing in higher powers, or is it just "the Christian masses"?

I don't hate you for not believing in God, or in fact hate you because you have a different argument. I am just fustrated that so many atheists believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong, THE SAME THING THAT THEY ACCUSE EVERYONE ELSE OF DOING.

Oh so all Christians are idiots now? Are Jews, Muslims, Pagans, and Hindus idiots too, for believing in higher powers, or is it just "the Christian masses"?

I don't hate you for not believing in God, or in fact hate you because you have a different argument. I am just fustrated that so many atheists believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong, THE SAME THING THAT THEY ACCUSE EVERYONE ELSE OF DOING.

I freely admit that I am a hateful, narcissistic prick. I don't hate other religions the way I hate Christianity, because the others tend not to care if I'm not one of them. Christians, on the other hand, want us all to believe exactly like they do, or they threaten us with hellfire. You don't see many Jews or Pagans trying to get the ridiculous notion of "Intelligent Design" made into something we teach our kids. If Christians want to teach their children this drivel, let them. But don't make it something taught in public schools, where my tax dollars have to indoctrinate children into Christianity, the most evil and hateful religion in existence.

The difference between "atheists" saying they are right and everyone else is wrong is that atheists can back up their claims with logic and evidence. Religion can't. I don't even like the term atheist, because it leaves too much open to interpretation, and it imposes a discriminatory nature on so-called atheists. It's like calling African Americans "not-whites". Atheist, in and of itself, implies that one does not believe in God. It doesn't mention anything, as a term, about spirituality. This is why I don't like it. I don't believe in spirits, or souls, or any other ephemeral nonsense either. I'm not so much an atheist, as simply a Naturalist; also known as a scientist.

My biggest issue with God is morality, other than that, I'd be ok with God, except that Darwin, Freud and Marx basically ended the idea that you can be advanced intellectually and still believe in a Creator that helps you when you are sick.

I freely admit that I am a hateful, narcissistic prick. I don't hate other religions the way I hate Christianity, because the others tend not to care if I'm not one of them. Christians, on the other hand, want us all to believe exactly like they do, or they threaten us with hellfire. You don't see many Jews or Pagans trying to get the ridiculous notion of "Intelligent Design" made into something we teach our kids. If Christians want to teach their children this drivel, let them. But don't make it something taught in public schools, where my tax dollars have to indoctrinate children into Christianity, the most evil and hateful religion in existence.

The difference between "atheists" saying they are right and everyone else is wrong is that atheists can back up their claims with logic and evidence. Religion can't. I don't even like the term atheist, because it leaves too much open to interpretation, and it imposes a discriminatory nature on so-called atheists. It's like calling African Americans "not-whites". Atheist, in and of itself, implies that one does not believe in God. It doesn't mention anything, as a term, about spirituality. This is why I don't like it. I don't believe in spirits, or souls, or any other ephemeral nonsense either. I'm not so much an atheist, as simply a Naturalist; also known as a scientist.

Oh, I get it. I'm not only stupid, but evil and hateful too. And how can the term "atheist" be "open to interpretation"? It's not. If oyu know history, and you know how to tell lore from historical fact, then Christianity does make sense. The Biblical Creation was a tale as the result of lack of modern science. The Bible is up for interpretation too, if you know what to pick out and if you have a shre of knowledge of history, you troll.

My biggest issue with God is morality, other than that, I'd be ok with God, except that Darwin, Freud and Marx basically ended the idea that you can be advanced intellectually and still believe in a Creator that helps you when you are sick.

Are you talking Christian God or higher-power in general?

Shinto is a VERY ancient religion that has been watered down from its origional state.(so no one knows what the actual "Shinto" teachings on this would be today)

Which is different from Judaism/orthodox/reform/Christianity/catholicism/methodists/baptists/protestants/Islam/sunni/shi'ite... how, exactly?

Which is different from Judaism/orthodox/reform/Christianity/catholicism/methodists/baptists/protestants/Islam/sunni/shi'ite... how, exactly?

Islam should not be casually linked with Judaism and Christianity. Islamic people worship a different god than the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob that Jewish people and Christians worship.

Islam should not be casually linked with Judaism and Christianity. Islamic people worship a different god than the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob that Jewish people and Christians worship.

As Islam is considered an Abrahamic faith, I think they DO worship the Judeo-Christian God. They just call him Allah. :rolleyes:

Much of this disdain for God (which, while the author of the thread has not shown it, is generally present in Western society at large) has come from the self-hating attitude of European culture at large. We've come to the stage where we look back on imperialism not as a largely positive force that was tainted with cruel action, but as an evil virus on mankind. (ie focusing on the existence of the slvae trade rather than its abolition). Because often the Church was compromised by self-serving attitudes, and because the Church became a part of the establishment, belief in the Church, and therefore God, has become intellectually contemptible in mainstream society.

A United States Marine was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist and a member of the ACLU.

One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes." The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am God. I'm still waiting." It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold. The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, "What the hell is the matter with you? Why did you do that?"

The Marine calmly replied, "God was too busy today protecting America's troops who are protecting your right to say stupid shit and act like an asshole. ................So, He sent me."

i.e Leeporia.

Islam should not be casually linked with Judaism and Christianity. Islamic people worship a different god than the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob that Jewish people and Christians worship.

It is stated in the Koran that it is the same God.

As Islam is considered an Abrahamic faith, I think they DO worship the Judeo-Christian God. They just call him Allah. :rolleyes:

Have you studied Islam or read the Qur'an? Please provide specific surahs to explain your position.

That professer's attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. The aggressive aetheisism of our age is pervasive to say the least.

It is stated in the Koran that it is the same God.

The Qur'an describes a god with very different properties than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The Qur'an describes a god with very different properties than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

People change. Why not God?

Definitely. God is Love doesn't quite make the right description of Allah.

Personally, I would say that there are parallels between the original use of Islam (to unite the Arab world) and the developement of the Shinto/Aimai spirit of Japan. All the way through history God has been hijacked to make political power, (and don't accuse me of ignoring the manipulation of Christianity).

Islam should not be casually linked with Judaism and Christianity. Islamic people worship a different god than the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob that Jewish people and Christians worship.


Do you know anything about this faith? Obviously not, as you made that statement.

In Islam, they believe that the Prophet Muhammed was given the true message of God by the Arch Angel Gabriel....hmm isn't that the same Angel that removed Lucifer from Heaven in Judaism and Christianity? I thought so! Also, he taught that Jesus should be respected, and that he was a Prophet, but he was not the son of God.


I rest my case.

"People change. Why not God?"

God is a constant. That's the whole concept of Him! Human societies keep attempting to manipulate the view of Him to suit the time, but in reality there is only one God.

because I should have died when I was a little kid but I lived

I can't figure out any way that happened except God

In any case, does it matter either way why someone believes in God? I mean, do you judge people based on their views toward God?

Yes. I judge people based on their reasoning, and that often includes their views on God.

Schrandtopia']because I should have died when I was a little kid but I lived

I can't figure out any way that happened except God

Chance, maybe?

Schrandtopia']because I should have died when I was a little kid but I lived

I can't figure out any way that happened except God

What about when a person is supposed to die and they do? Does that mean God doesn't exist because there was no intervention?

In my opinion, that isn't a very logical reason to believe in God.

What about when a person is supposed to die and they do? Does that mean God doesn't exist because there was no intervention?Hmm.. Either that, or god kills them - in which case I don't think one or two isolated slip-ups are terribly surprising. There's a lot of us, after all, and we do kind of look alike.In my opinion, that isn't a very logical reason to believe in God.Not if it's a benevolent god at least.

Religion has always bothered me...at least to the extent that you're supposed to blindly subscribe to an enormous collection of beliefs.
Even past religion, the idea of a deity, the idea of god is somewhat absurd. I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm simply voicing an opinion and a curiosity. Why do you believe in god? I've always considered the existence of a god far too convenient to be real...something that's all-powerful, all-knowing, all-controlling, seems like a fairy-tale for adults.
Not only this, the fact that the idea of a "god" fits perfectly into the early-day agenda of the church...in which the aristocratic church hierarchy tithed the illiterate common man, lest they sin and burn in hell.
Nevertheless, back to my main point, somebody explain their belief in god please.

The "all-powerful, all-knowing, all-controlling" is somewhat of a oversimplification of a general concept of God. I guess that would fit into a Judeo-Christian_Islamic idea, but you have a wide variety of religious faiths, with a wide variety of opinions about the relative power of God. In some eastern religions, "God" is little more than a concept. I would agree that complex rules and regulations and physiological customs and beliefs seem absurd alongside the spiritual and the mystical. The idea or concept of something greater than one's self is, however, not absurd IMHO.

Schrandtopia']because I should have died when I was a little kid but I lived

I can't figure out any way that happened except God

And you're somehow incapable of simply not knowing - you must have an answer - so you just picked the most convenient one?

I believe in God because there is a lot o stuff that happens in the universe that is explained as to how it happened, but not necessarily why. Earth forming, for example. 4.6 billion years ago molten rock and stuff came together... but why? The Big Bang was a tiny piece of crunched-up matter... but why did it explode and create the universe? Stuff came together to form single-celled things, but WHY?

Why does a stone fall back to Earth if you toss it in the air?


And why did those cells come together to form life as we know it?

That's a really fun question, and it's one that you will find amazing and beautiful answers to if you study biology. The shaping of life as we know it is an endlessly fascinating process.


If you wonder WHY, there has to be some type of Higher Power in there somehwere, whether divine or natural, if you want a WHY.

Um, no. Indeed, I find that to be a very unimaginative cop-out.


You can ask science for the HOW, but not really so much the WHY.

Religion has never provided any answer that humans didn't already know. Science provides more "why" answers in a day than religion has done in 10,000 years.


As for Christianity- why can't that Higher Power have a son to come and save us all?

Sure, why not? And why not say that Son was Elvis while we're at it? Go with whatever makes you feel good.


As a Christian that is what I believe. You don't *have* to believe it, nor will I convert you.
Very generous of you.

Very generous of you.

However I'm not a Christain, and heathens like yourself should be converted! Muuuhahhhahhhahhhahhahahhahahahaha:eek:

I don't believe in god, but I'm afraid that, if he does exist, he's going to eat me. :eek:

However I'm not a Christain, and heathens like yourself should be converted! Muuuhahhhahhhahhhahhahahhahahahaha:eek:
Heh.

I find it really cute when Christians feel compelled to specify that they won't try to convert anybody, as though that's some kind of generous act on their part. Where I come from, refraining from shoving your personal superstitions on others is refered to as "polite." You don't get a cookie for polite.

Heh.

I find it really cute when Christians feel compelled to specify that they won't try to convert anybody, as though that's some kind of generous act on their part. Where I come from, refraining from shoving your personal superstitions on others is refered to as "polite." You don't get a cookie for polite.

You do, however, get one for accuracy. ;)

http://www.cookiesinheaven.com/images/cookies/chocolate_chip_cookie.jpg

Heh.

I find it really cute when Christians feel compelled to specify that they won't try to convert anybody, as though that's some kind of generous act on their part. Where I come from, refraining from shoving your personal superstitions on others is refered to as "polite." You don't get a cookie for polite.


Ahh yeah but I guess for a Christian who is told that it an example of love to bring somebody to God, then perhaps we should give those that don't love us enough to try and convert us a cookie?

Ahh yeah but I guess for a Christian who is told that it an example of love to bring somebody to God, then perhaps we should give those that don't love us enough to try and convert us a cookie?
Christians who try to convert people always make me think of my ex-girlfriend.

She wasn't Christian, but she was one of those girls who likes to date "fixer-uppers." She viewed dating as a way to take somebody who was "rough around the edges" and polish them up into a better person. I swear, she got physically turned on by fixing my hair and getting me to wear more stylish clothes.

At first this kind of thing seems nice. "Oh, she cares about me! She wants to give me attention, and to help me be a better person. That's sweet." But then, after a bit, you realize that it's really kind of insulting. She basically thinks that you aren't good enough until she makes you over to be more like her. If you don't dress "the right way," then you're a slob who needs to be fixed. If you don't go to "the right parties," or hang around with "the right sort of people," then she pities you for being such a loser. Never mind what you find comfortable or fun, she knows best.

Eventually, you figure out that she doesn't really care about you at all. She's not interested in finding out what makes you happy, she's interested in telling you about what SHOULD make you happy. She doesn't care about who you are as an individual, she cares about making sure that your individuality is carefully tailored to fit her specifications.

Christians who try to convert are a lot like that. They don't know the first thing about you, but they just KNOW that you need Jesus. They don't know your personality, or your needs, or your hopes, or your dreams, but they just KNOW that you want to be born again. They just KNOW that their religion is the best religion for everybody, and that people who don't follow it are going to be really sorry in the end.

That's not love. And it sure as hell isn't about them caring about you.

Religion has always bothered me...at least to the extent that you're supposed to blindly subscribe to an enormous collection of beliefs.
Even past religion, the idea of a deity, the idea of god is somewhat absurd. I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm simply voicing an opinion and a curiosity. Why do you believe in god? I've always considered the existence of a god far too convenient to be real...something that's all-powerful, all-knowing, all-controlling, seems like a fairy-tale for adults.
Not only this, the fact that the idea of a "god" fits perfectly into the early-day agenda of the church...in which the aristocratic church hierarchy tithed the illiterate common man, lest they sin and burn in hell.
Nevertheless, back to my main point, somebody explain their belief in god please.

I am of the belief that God is not some malevolent force that will "burn" a person for doing something so trivial. I see God as a peaceful observer. I do not expect God to bestow miracles on me. I am fully in control of my own situation, but it's good to know that there is someone up there.

Not making a whole lot of sense? Don't worry about it, I'm barely understanding my logic myself. But...I dunno. I just think that with the vastness of the universe, there has to be an existence beyond what we can percieve.

Christians who try to convert people always make me think of my ex-girlfriend.

She wasn't Christian, but she was one of those girls who likes to date "fixer-uppers." She viewed dating as a way to take somebody who was "rough around the edges" and polish them up into a better person. I swear, she got physically turned on by fixing my hair and getting me to wear more stylish clothes.

At first this kind of thing seems nice......


You nutter you so you are really baseing this on what you percive a girls reason for wanting to cahnge a man is?

Heh you're onto a wrongun right away there I'm afraid. Girls all girls without execption are like this(those that say they are not are lieing), why shit I dunno, who knows how girls think(other girls duh!) but I don't think thay do it for the reasons you listed, thena gain I could be wrong, shit I dunnop, wimmin huh!?!? Lovely creatures girls, from a differant realm than us but loverly!;)

You nutter you so you are really baseing this on what you percive a girls reason for wanting to cahnge a man is?

Heh you're onto a wrongun right away there I'm afraid. Girls all girls without execption are like this(those that say they are not are lieing),

If you choose to associate with women of this sort, I'm very sorry for you. If you are silly enough to sleep with them or date them, then I'm afraid I've gotta laugh at that...you poor, poor sucker.

The vast, overwhelming majority of women are nothing like this at all. If you let some girl convince you that all girls are like this (as if that's some kind of excuse) then let me be the one to clue you in: you are getting chumped.

Bottle, weren't you a lass?

Bottle, weren't you a lass?
Alas, I were.

;)

Alas, I were.

;)
Past tense?

Past tense?
Poetic license. I liked the pun.

Poetic license. I liked the pun.

Keep it up and you end in severe danger of becoming flufflable in MY sight!



*fluffles.... Mssie!* ( who has gone too quiet)

Keep it up and you end in severe danger of becoming flufflable in MY sight!



*fluffles.... Mssie!* ( who has gone too quiet)

:p

:fluffle: