NationStates Jolt Archive

doubtful. the vast vast overwhelming majority barely have a clue about their own religious teachingsBack this up

the fact that republicans get any votes at all from christians, let alone overwhelming support from evangelicals.

people are almost universally the religion they are because they weren't born into a culture or community that practiced another one. that is all there is to it.Back this up

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8f/Worldreligion.png/800px-Worldreligion.png

the fact that republicans get any votes at all from christians, let alone overwhelming support from evangelicals.


So you are saying that if you are a republican you know nothing about your religion?

Again, back this up. I see absolutely know logical reason for this.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8f/Worldreligion.png/800px-Worldreligion.png

Thats not proof. All you have shown is that different religions are more popular in different places, not why.

Back this up

While I don't agree with Free Soviets completely he does have a point. You might find this (http://members.shaw.ca/perchaluk/drbob/chapter4.pdf) interesting. The relevant part starts near the top of page 136 ("A few surprising findings about fundamentalists").

Santa.

Correct.:D

*offers cookie*

I cannot fathom why anyone who would stare in the face of complete absense of evidence would still hold religious beliefs.

Oooh, oooh, I can! It's this thing we like to call "faith." Not all of us have to see to believe. What's so wrong with that?

Oooh, oooh, I can! It's this thing we like to call "faith." Not all of us have to see to believe. What's so wrong with that?
It means you're willing to hold, completely irrationally, a wholly baseless position. If you're willing to base so much of your life on something completely devoid of supporting evidence, you make yourself wholly unpredictable. Who knows what other baseless positions you might believe completely?

So you are saying that if you are a republican you know nothing about your religion?

Again, back this up. I see absolutely know logical reason for this.

no, i'm saying it is fundamentally inconsistent to be a good christian and support the republican party of usia. utterly irreconcilably inconsistent. it just is not logically possible. the only possible explanations are that they either do not know their own religion's teachings, or they are cynically claiming one thing and doing another. i'm going with the most charitable interpretation. i'll save the cynical manipulation for their gay meth-fiend leaders.

Thats not proof. All you have shown is that different religions are more popular in different places, not why.

the data shows strong clustering of incompatible religions by geographic and cultural areas, both in the present and historically over time (with shifts being precisely linked with cultural events such as conquests). the possible explanations for this are that:

a) religion is essentially determined culturally

b) all the religions are true, and the various gods reveal themselves in specific geographical locations, and begin revealing themselves in new areas after a human conquest that somehow chases the old gods away

or c) everybody except the also geographically and culturally clustered hindus are wrong.

only (a) is plausible in the slightest.

everybody except the also geographically and culturally clustered hindus are wrong.
Their religion is the oldest of the major surviving religions. If anyone is right it's probably them.

While I don't agree with Free Soviets completely he does have a point. You might find this (http://members.shaw.ca/perchaluk/drbob/chapter4.pdf) interesting. The relevant part starts near the top of page 136 ("A few surprising findings about fundamentalists").

i was actually just looking for that

btw, that book scares the fuck out of me

It means you're willing to hold, completely irrationally, a wholly baseless position. If you're willing to base so much of your life on something completely devoid of supporting evidence, you make yourself wholly unpredictable. Who knows what other baseless positions you might believe completely?

Irrational and wholly baseless? That's a bold statement. Now back it up. Prove to me that God doesn't exist. (and, by the way, saying He can't exist doesn't count. Just because the evidence shows He probably doesn't exist doesn't mean that He actually doesn't.) So, let's debunk this whole thing now, right here.

Their religion is the oldest of the major surviving religions. If anyone is right it's probably them.

yeah, though the san bushmen are still engaging in rituals and ceremonies that their ancestors painted on rocks ten thousand years ago, so they'd be even more plausible on that account.

if only i could occasionally join the healing trance dance, feel my lion teeth growing, and be taken away to the village of the spirits and gods so that i could gather and activate my n/om and know the truth directly. i wonder why that never happens...

i was actually just looking for that

btw, that book scares the fuck out of me

I haven't read the whole book yet, only a few chapters. You're right though, it is scary.

Most Christians are Christians because it was their culture's default setting.

i was actually just looking for that

btw, that book scares the fuck out of me

am I really to believe that all fundamentalists are brain dead? Isn't saying things like that fueling this "religious prejudice" that he accuses the "RWA" of?

I seriously couldn't stomach more than a few pages......but I guess if it's what you want to believe you could read it all day then?

am I really to believe that all fundamentalists are brain dead? Isn't saying things like that fueling this "religious prejudice" that he accuses the "RWA" of?

he did fucking studies - facts, data, empirical evidence, all that good stuff. you are required by logic to either believe them or present reasons why and how specifically they went wrong.

he did fucking studies - facts, data, empirical evidence, all that good stuff. you are required by logic to either believe them or present reasons why and how specifically they went wrong.

he has empirical evidence that none of the evangelicals are intelligent? that's interesting......since I am an evangelical, and a lot my friends are, and none of us are stupid.

and btw all I saw were quotes from other people (opinions are not empirical evidence) and surveys (also not empirical evidence)

btw do you know what empirical evidence is?

Irrational and wholly baseless? That's a bold statement.
Not very. To be irrational and baseless the belief would simply have to lack conclusive evidence, which everyone in this thread (even the Christians) seem to accept.
Now back it up.
I just did.
Prove to me that God doesn't exist. (and, by the way, saying He can't exist doesn't count. Just because the evidence shows He probably doesn't exist doesn't mean that He actually doesn't.)
Ignoring for a second that I wouldn't need to prove God's non-existence in order to demonstrate a lack of evidence for his existence, you just asserted that proof that something was impossible would be insufficient to prove it wasn't true.

Please tell me you didn't mean to say that. Otherwise you're frightening me with your utter lack of brain power.

Most Christians are Christians because it was their culture's default setting.

indeed.

though i really would like to see somebody even attempt to come up with an explanation for the clustering of religions and religious denominations we see in the world without that as a primary causal factor.

no, he found that they don't know even simple things about the thing they claim is the most important document ever written, and other such findings. perhaps you should actually read the chapter in question...
I did. Most people in America are ignorant of what the constitution says....what's your point?

he has empirical evidence that none of the evangelicals are intelligent? that's interesting......since I am an evangelical, and a lot my friends are, and none of us are stupid.

no, he found that they don't know even simple things about the thing they claim is the most important document ever written, and other such findings. perhaps you should actually read the chapter in question...

It means you're willing to hold, completely irrationally, a wholly baseless position. If you're willing to base so much of your life on something completely devoid of supporting evidence, you make yourself wholly unpredictable. Who knows what other baseless positions you might believe completely?

I'm getting really damned tired of being told I'm stupid, or irrational or whatever because I believe in my gods. WHO THE HELL AM I HURTING by it?!?! So you don't like theists. Great! Have fun with that! Go frolic in the fields proclaiming your lack of belief in a deity at the top of you lungs. But leave the rest of us alone!

Earlier in this thread, I acknowledged that there is no empirical evidence that my gods exist. Well, there's no empirical evidence to me that you exist, but I continue to give you the benefit of the the doubt. I don't tell people who believe you exist without evidence that they're idiots. Or irrational. Or whatever. So why don't you STFU and leave us theists alone? :headbang:

Why, yes I am pissed off. What tipped you off?

!?!

!!!!??

surveys are easily biased and without seeing the exact survey, knowing how respondents were picked and seeing the actual data I don't see it as anything worth my while. Statistics are easily biased in the favor of your motive.

surveys (also not empirical evidence)

!?!

!!!!??

!?!

!!!!??

Well, surveys are notoriously unreliable even if the person performing the study wants to get an unbiased result. There was a great little book out a while ago called "How to Lie with Statistics" which discussed this in some detail.

While I don't agree with Free Soviets completely he does have a point. You might find this (http://members.shaw.ca/perchaluk/drbob/chapter4.pdf) interesting. The relevant part starts near the top of page 136 ("A few surprising findings about fundamentalists").Yep.
and Chronicles is the book that establishes the replacement of Israel by Yehuda.

Well, surveys are notoriously unreliable even if the person performing the study wants to get an unbiased result. There was a great little book out a while ago called "How to Lie with Statistics" which discussed this in some detail.

shhhh.....he wants to make me look stupid, by saying things like "he did fucking studies" and so I am supposed to blindly follow along and not question anything about it. questioning things is illogical.

I did. Most people in America are ignorant of what the constitution says....what's your point?

this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12538147&postcount=241)

this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12538147&postcount=241)

and yet, most of America is ignorant of what the constitution says, because some people are ignorant doesn't mean they all are, even if the majority is, to assume otherwise is illogical, to take a few of your own bad experiences and to apply them to an entire people group is ignorant and bigoted.

no, i'm saying it is fundamentally inconsistent to be a good christian and support the republican party of usia. utterly irreconcilably inconsistent. it just is not logically possible. the only possible explanations are that they either do not know their own religion's teachings, or they are cynically claiming one thing and doing another. i'm going with the most charitable interpretation. i'll save the cynical manipulation for their gay meth-fiend leaders.

I wish people would at least try to back themselves up as opposed to what you did; be simply a partisan hack.

Tell us how being a Christian and a Republican is "utterly irreconcilably inconsistent... not logically possible." And, I think I speak for most of us when I say that our leaders aren't manipulating us; nor are they gay or meth users.



the data shows strong clustering of incompatible religions by geographic and cultural areas, both in the present and historically over time (with shifts being precisely linked with cultural events such as conquests). the possible explanations for this are that:

a) religion is essentially determined culturally

b) all the religions are true, and the various gods reveal themselves in specific geographical locations, and begin revealing themselves in new areas after a human conquest that somehow chases the old gods away

or c) everybody except the also geographically and culturally clustered hindus are wrong.

only (a) is plausible in the slightest.

:eek: No, really? I mean, maybe this is just me thinking again, but I was under the impression that culture was (at least partially) defined by religion. :confused:

shhhh.....he wants to make me look stupid, by saying things like "he did fucking studies" and so I am supposed to blindly follow along and not question anything about it. questioning things is illogical.

I'd certainly be happier if I could see the raw data. One reason why I'm sceptical of surveys is that there's a very easy way to skew them if you want to:

1. Perform a survey.
2. If the result is what you want, publish it.
3. If not, tear up the results and return to step one.

This has actually been used on many occasions by tobacco lobbies and other groups; as the book is only available on the Internet it probably wasn't subject to peer review. I just posted the link because I thought some people might find it interesting.

Well, surveys are notoriously unreliable even if the person performing the study wants to get an unbiased result. There was a great little book out a while ago called "How to Lie with Statistics" which discussed this in some detail.

yes, but that just means you have to be careful, not that they don't constitute empirical evidence. and one certainly doesn't get to dismiss them out of hand, purely on the basis of not liking what they found.

yes, but that just means you have to be careful, not that they don't constitute empirical evidence. and one certainly doesn't get to dismiss them out of hand, purely on the basis of not liking what they found.

Certainly not, but I'd prefer to see some peer-review before I drew any conclusions from it.

Anyhoo, I'm off to bed. 'Night all. :)

yes, but that just means you have to be careful, not that they don't constitute empirical evidence. and one certainly doesn't get to dismiss them out of hand, purely on the basis of not liking what they found.

I think it's pretty clear that the guy who wrote the paper had an agenda, I only said that without more information I am not really too worried about the surveys he performed. A biased survey is not empirical evidence, and without information of what was asked, to whom, how and when, I can only go by the tone of the rest of the paper, which isn't at all scientific but reads more like a newspaper editorial.

yeah, though the san bushmen are still engaging in rituals and ceremonies that their ancestors painted on rocks ten thousand years ago, so they'd be even more plausible on that account.

if only i could occasionally join the healing trance dance, feel my lion teeth growing, and be taken away to the village of the spirits and gods so that i could gather and activate my n/om and know the truth directly. i wonder why that never happens...

Because you are a skeptic, and their 'religion' is only revealed to those with pure hearts?

(or some such message... it's what almost every religion peddles, in one form or another, to explain why skeptics don't get it. That or 'because you are the devil's concubine'...)

yes, but that just means you have to be careful, not that they don't constitute empirical evidence. and one certainly doesn't get to dismiss them out of hand, purely on the basis of not liking what they found.

When I worked for a market research company, one of the things we were told, over and over and over, was that we had to be very careful of our tone of voice and emphasis when reading questions. You'd be amazed how much the interviewers emphasis can influence the outcome of a study. Our company was very careful to be as unbiased as possible and that the client got the best possible results. Not everyone is so ethical or so careful. You just have to look at polls with a jaundiced eye and make sure you understand what the questions were. Frex: A good question:

Under what circumstances do you feel abortion should be legal? (none, some, etc)

Bad question:

Are you pro-life or are you a godless commie?

Because you are a skeptic, and their 'religion' is only revealed to those with pure hearts?
why isn't it okay for me to be a skeptic?

(or some such message... it's what almost every religion peddles, in one form or another, to explain why skeptics don't get it. That or 'because you are the devil's concubine'...)
the answer is nearly always "devil's concubine"

well its a gut feeling for me and that might not be enough for u but it is for me.

but on a off topic note why is the thread always why are u christian this and why are u christian that there are other religions!!!:headbang:

well, there is that 'blessed are peacemakers' bit. and the owning all things in common and giving to each according to his need bit. and the 'what you do to the least of these you do to me' bit. and the impossibility of a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven bit. etc.

i honestly can't think of a single teaching attributed to jesus that isn't flatly in contradiction with republican politics. the only one that comes close is the opposition to divorce, though that doesn't appear to be of any consequence at all within the republican party and the christians who vote for them, given the high divorce rate among the stars of the party.


you know that the improbability of a rich man to enter heaven actually had nothing to do with monetary wealth right?

I wish people would at least try to back themselves up as opposed to what you did; be simply a partisan hack.

Tell us how being a Christian and a Republican is "utterly irreconcilably inconsistent... not logically possible." And, I think I speak for most of us when I say that our leaders aren't manipulating us; nor are they gay or meth users.

well, there is that 'blessed are peacemakers' bit. and the owning all things in common and giving to each according to his need bit. and the 'what you do to the least of these you do to me' bit. and the impossibility of a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven bit. etc.

i honestly can't think of a single teaching attributed to jesus that isn't flatly in contradiction with republican politics. the only one that comes close is the opposition to divorce, though that doesn't appear to be of any consequence at all within the republican party and the christians who vote for them, given the high divorce rate among the stars of the party.

:eek: No, really? I mean, maybe this is just me thinking again, but I was under the impression that culture was (at least partially) defined by religion. :confused:

not defined by, but the two are certainly related. some are trying to argue otherwise, and it is clearly silly to do so.

I'm getting really damned tired of being told I'm stupid, or irrational or whatever because I believe in my gods.
If it's any consolation, I think the vast majority of the earth's population is irrational.
WHO THE HELL AM I HURTING by it?!?!
No one. Maybe you (if being wrong can be classified as harm).
So you don't like theists.
No, I don't like theism.
Great! Have fun with that! Go frolic in the fields proclaiming your lack of belief in a deity at the top of you lungs.
Isn't that what I'm doing?
But leave the rest of us alone!
I can't do both.
Earlier in this thread, I acknowledged that there is no empirical evidence that my gods exist.
Good for you. At least you see it.
Well, there's no empirical evidence to me that you exist, but I continue to give you the benefit of the the doubt.
There's some. These posts on this message board, for starters.

why isn't it okay for me to be a skeptic?


Hey, it's okay by me. :)

The point I was making... the other poster was rubbishing the rligious truth of a particular group, because he'she had not experienced their religious 'rapture'. Obviously - we are, then, supposed to accept the fact that some (maybe even most?) people NOT 'getting' a thing, can be fairly considered as a criticism of the 'truth' of that thing.

Obviously, that flaw is logic-ed. :)

In Judeo-Christian traditions, it is commonly held that one must 'discern' the true depths of scripture, and that a full understanding of the material ca only be revealed through a 'gift' of understanding.


the answer is nearly always "devil's concubine"

Wouldn't be any fun, otherwise. :) I have to admit, I mainly used that phrasing because I am such an Anthony Hopkins fan...

Why am I a Christian?

Well... technically, I think that's the wrong descriptor for me. I prefer Diest, Raise Methodist.

I believe there's something bigger then me... you... the universe. I also believe in the methodist teachings of salvation and free will. That the thing bigger then me, you and the universe wants us to be good, wants us to choose good, and wants us to enter the perfect after life that they created for us.

Also, a lot of my current faith isn't based on my experiences with the celestial, but with the infernal.

I kid you not, I ran into... I dunno. The Devil, a Demon... something bad. Ultimate universal evil.

That's why I'm a diest. If Ultimate Universal Evil exists, then logically, Ultimate Universal Good exists. What is that? I dunno. It may be God... it may be Zeus. Who am I to tell?

Now, the methodist part of me is how I was raised. And it makes sense. To me, at least, that this thing that's bigger then me and you and the universe wants us to be good, choose good, and enter the perfect afterlife created for us.

Also, I'm not to fearful about my beliefs being incorrect. No diety is so petty that if you do not lead a good, just life that you'll be damned, sent to purgatory, or worse... wander the universe as a hollow spirit unable to communicate with anyone.

Compared to that last one, ceasing to exist upon death would be preferable.

And now... I await for my beliefs to be picked apart. Have at me!

Hey, it's okay by me. :)

The point I was making... the other poster was rubbishing the rligious truth of a particular group, because he'she had not experienced their religious 'rapture'. Obviously - we are, then, supposed to accept the fact that some (maybe even most?) people NOT 'getting' a thing, can be fairly considered as a criticism of the 'truth' of that thing.

Obviously, that flaw is logic-ed. :)

In Judeo-Christian traditions, it is commonly held that one must 'discern' the true depths of scripture, and that a full understanding of the material ca only be revealed through a 'gift' of understanding.
yeah, I know. I have to leave for a bit, can you take over my side of the argument? (might be fun!) :D



Wouldn't be any fun, otherwise. :) I have to admit, I mainly used that phrasing because I am such an Anthony Hopkins fan...
I am as well. You and I have a lot of stuff in common. :eek:

yeah, I know. I have to leave for a bit, can you take over my side of the argument? (might be fun!) :D


I quite often end up fighting your side... kinda funny, when you think about it. :)

I'll help if I can, but I could never replace you. :D


I am as well. You and I have a lot of stuff in common. :eek:

Yeah. Just one itty bitty difference... that some people would tell you must be the nail in the coffin for any hope we'd get along. :)

Could you place the 'Devil's Concubine' ref?

The point I was making... the other poster was rubbishing the rligious truth of a particular group, because he'she had not experienced their religious 'rapture'. Obviously - we are, then, supposed to accept the fact that some (maybe even most?) people NOT 'getting' a thing, can be fairly considered as a criticism of the 'truth' of that thing.well, there are those who claim that "who feels it knows it", and with it they claim that those who do not feel it, and are getting nothing out of it, are then those rejected by 'god', in which case their failure to experience god is no hint at the nonexistence of god but rather a confirmation of its existence...

Certainly not, but I'd prefer to see some peer-review before I drew any conclusions from it.

well, that's just the popularization altemeyer is writing. his stuff has been extensively published elsewhere. for example,

Altemeyer B. "Highly dominating, highly authoritarian personalities"
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 144 (4): 421-447 AUG 2004

Altemeyer B. "Dogmatic behavior among students: Testing a new measure of dogmatism"
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 142 (6): 713-721 DEC 2002

Altemeyer B. "The other 'authoritarian personality'"
ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 30: 47-92 1998

The point I was making... the other poster was rubbishing the rligious truth of a particular group, because he'she had not experienced their religious 'rapture'. Obviously - we are, then, supposed to accept the fact that some (maybe even most?) people NOT 'getting' a thing, can be fairly considered as a criticism of the 'truth' of that thing.

actually, my point is that their religious experiences are entirely culturally bound too. the san never see the virgin mary, and catholics never get visited by avatars of vishnu, and hindus have yet to enter the dream time.

I quite often end up fighting your side... kinda funny, when you think about it. :)

I'll help if I can, but I could never replace you. :D



Yeah. Just one itty bitty difference... that some people would tell you must be the nail in the coffin for any hope we'd get along. :)

Could you place the 'Devil's Concubine' ref?

Dracula?

well, there is that 'blessed are peacemakers' bit. and the owning all things in common and giving to each according to his need bit. and the 'what you do to the least of these you do to me' bit. and the impossibility of a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven bit. etc.

i honestly can't think of a single teaching attributed to jesus that isn't flatly in contradiction with republican politics. the only one that comes close is the opposition to divorce, though that doesn't appear to be of any consequence at all within the republican party and the christians who vote for them, given the high divorce rate among the stars of the party.

Actually, believe it or not, we Republicans aren't out to get the poor. Shocking, I know, but pick your jaw up off the floor and we'll continue.

-"Blessed are the peacemakers." Yes. We Republicans make peace.
-"own all things in common" No offense or anything, but I think you made that up unless you can provide me a verse.
-I think you meant "give according to your means," but whatever, I know what you mean. Lots of us do; lots of us don't; so sue us. I'm sure you don't, either.
-Like Smunkee said, it isn't because he's rich that he can't enter heaven (and, by the way, it's still possible).
-Ah, divorce. At least this is a new argument. Well, I can't defend their private lives, but at least I can say that we don't: kill people by drowning them in our car while waiting a few days for our hangovers to go away, incite race/socio-economic wars just to get a few votes, or run around pretending to be scientists.

And, just so you know, lots of Christians vote Republican because we dislike the Democrats' social agendas: pro gay marriage, et c.

actually, my point is that their religious experiences are entirely culturally bound too. the san never see the virgin mary, and catholics never get visited by avatars of vishnu, and hindus have yet to enter the dream time.does the cultural binding of religion have any influence on the possibility of divine existence?

you know that the improbability of a rich man to enter heaven actually had nothing to do with monetary wealth right?

so when jesus told the rich young man that what he ought to do is sell everything he owned and give it to the poor, he wasn't actually talking about selling everything and actually giving to the poor?

so when jesus told the rich young man that what he ought to do is sell everything he owned and give it to the poor, he wasn't actually talking about selling everything and actually giving to the poor?hopefully, because this would be an incredibly ineffective course of action

does the cultural binding of religion have any influence on the possibility of divine existence?

it certainly gives ample reason to doubt any of the current guesses, as they are indistinguishable on this account. but in the abstract, not really.

so when jesus told the rich young man that what he ought to do is sell everything he owned and give it to the poor, he wasn't actually talking about selling everything and actually giving to the poor?

No, He was. But He was proving a point: being rich and, thus, powerful, it would be very difficult to give it all up, even for eternal life. And the point is driven home; we don't know what happened to him, but as he walked away from Jesus, he wept because he couldn't do it. Being rich, he needed to give more because he had more to give, and I think we all know how hard that is.

Christians? Aren't they those wacky people who blow up abortion clinics and say they hate homosexuals on the radio?

-"Blessed are the peacemakers." Yes. We Republicans make peace.

this is just about the most insane thing i've heard all day.

-"own all things in common" No offense or anything, but I think you made that up unless you can provide me a verse.
-I think you meant "give according to your means," but whatever, I know what you mean. Lots of us do; lots of us don't; so sue us. I'm sure you don't, either.

none taken - i've already mentioned that i don't really expect christians to know the bible.

acts 2:44-45
kjv:
And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

niv:
All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

that's just the actual quote - the idea is found throughout the gospels as jesus wanders around convincing people to give up everything and literally follow him.

And, just so you know, lots of Christians vote Republican because we dislike the Democrats' social agendas: pro gay marriage, et c.

i suspect you've mistaken me for a democrat

Christians? Aren't they those wacky people who blow up abortion clinics and say they hate homosexuals on the radio?

They say they are, but they aren't.

And the Lord said, thou shalt support rich corrupt business and economy ruining tax cuts, and killing brown people, and gays. Amen.

Christians? Aren't they those wacky people who blow up abortion clinics and say they hate homosexuals on the radio?
There are extremists that can be found to any religious or atheist group of people.
For example
Muslims? Arent they those wacky people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up people?
Of course there are a few extremists Muslims who blow themselves up and I'm sure that the average Muslim would say that the suicide bomber isnt a true beleive, this is the same for Christians.

They say they are, but they aren't.so we have Christians and "real" Christians, huh? very convenient.

And the Lord said, thou shalt support rich corrupt business and economy ruining tax cuts, and killing brown people, and gays. Amen.

hallelujah!

hopefully, because this would be an incredibly ineffective course of action

it was an apocalyptic death cult, the world was going to end within that very generation. keeping your wealth in such circumstances is just silly.

it was an apocalyptic death cult, the world was going to end within that very generation. keeping your wealth in such circumstances is just silly.well, but since the world obviously did not end within that very generation, the silliness just dropped dead. and now only rich people who stay rich can really do something for the poor effectively.

this is just about the most insane thing i've heard all day.

Meh, ok. Disbelieve it all you want.

none taken - i've already mentioned that i don't really expect christians to know the bible.

I resent that. I know the Bible well, I just can't remember every detail in it; it is a large book, after all.

acts 2:44-45
kjv:
And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

niv:
All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

that's just the actual quote - the idea is found throughout the gospels as jesus wanders around convincing people to give up everything and literally follow him.

Yes, and your point is? He asked us to, and it's our choice to give it all up; that they (the early Christians) had everything in common isn't a command, it's a statement.

i suspect you've mistaken me for a democrat

And I take it you aren't. No matter. That wasn't my point. Since here in the US we only really get 2 parties to choose from (let's not argue about 3rd parties, we all know they aren't going anywhere), it's a "vote for the guys who like stamping on our religious rights" or those who, at worst, pretend to have the same values as us. I know, it's a really really hard choice...

I picked a few random pages of the thread to read, and it seems as if there's a lot of christian and religion bashing going on rather than real discussion. Not surprising, given the OP title, but how about this:

Some people are Christian because they want to be, and why shouldn't they, since their beliefs are none of my business.

I hope I'm just posting something others have already said.

And the Lord said, thou shalt support rich corrupt business and economy ruining tax cuts, and killing brown people, and gays. Amen.
And the mod said, thou shalt not TROLL!

Their religion is the oldest of the major surviving religions. If anyone is right it's probably them.

You, my friend, get a GIANT, and I mean GIANT cookie.

Some people are Christian because they want to be

except that the distribution of them isn't random or evenly spaced. so the question is why? and the answer is obvious.

so we have Christians and "real" Christians, huh? very convenient.

But it's true. Like what someone said about Muslims, you have extremist nuts in every religion, and we're no exception, unfortunately.

And the Lord said, thou shalt support rich corrupt business and economy ruining tax cuts, and killing brown people, and gays. Amen.

Sigged.

well, there are those who claim that "who feels it knows it", and with it they claim that those who do not feel it, and are getting nothing out of it, are then those rejected by 'god', in which case their failure to experience god is no hint at the nonexistence of god but rather a confirmation of its existence...

Indeed. A single person's failure to experience a religious experience can only speak to subjective evidence. It can make no real assertions about objective nature.

actually, my point is that their religious experiences are entirely culturally bound too. the san never see the virgin mary, and catholics never get visited by avatars of vishnu, and hindus have yet to enter the dream time.

You know this all for sure, somehow?

How would you even begin to present evidence for this kind of claim?

Their religion is the oldest of the major surviving religions. If anyone is right it's probably them.what about the older, but "extinct" religions? those religions that were forgotten because of the re-interpretation that was made by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?

But it's true. Like what someone said about Muslims, you have extremist nuts in every religion, and we're no exception, unfortunately.But where would you make the distinction between Christians and "real" Christians?

Indeed. A single person's failure to experience a religious experience can only speak to subjective evidence. It can make no real assertions about objective nature.what? :confused:

But where would you make the distinction between Christians and "real" Christians?

Real Christians don't blow up abortion clinics, drown their own kids, or do other things that people use to label us all as either crazy (at best), fundies, or a plethora of other names.

Real Christians don't blow up abortion clinics, drown their own kids, or do other things that people use to label us all as either crazy (at best), fundies, or a plethora of other names.So where exactly is the dividing line?

I'm a Christian for tax purposes.

That's funny, because I always thought I was taxed for Christian purposes.

I, personaly, am an Atheist. I look at things from a scientifical point of view. Ex:Jesus rose from the grave to heaven on Easter.
Ex:In my opinion, that couldn't happen because people can't come back from the dead.

I, personaly, am an Atheist. I look at things from a scientifical point of view. Ex:Jesus rose from the grave to heaven on Easter.
Ex:In my opinion, that couldn't happen because people can't come back from the dead.

people can't, God can. well, actually people can.....if God wants them to.

So where exactly is the dividing line?

...Right where I said it was.

Real Christians don't blow up abortion clinics, drown their own kids, or do other things that people use to label us all as either crazy (at best), fundies, or a plethora of other names.

That list isn't all-inclusive. Real Christians are content to live their lives quietly and be perfectly normal citizens. Being a perfectly normal citizen does not include blowing up abortion clinics or publicly claiming to hate gays because they're gay.

That list isn't all-inclusive. Real Christians are content to live their lives quietly and be perfectly normal citizens. Being a perfectly normal citizen does not include blowing up abortion clinics or publicly claiming to hate gays because they're gay.

But it's ok to privately hate gays because they're gay?

People are Christian for the self same reasons that they adhere to other religions, which are so well traversed and covered so as to render this thread facile.:)

People are Christian for the self same reasons that they adhere to other religions, which are so well traversed and covered so as to render this thread facile.personal subjective mental convenience?

...Right where I said it was.blowing up abortion clinics or publicly claiming to hate gays because they're gay. just that? what about wanting creationism taught in schools? or just wanting to omit certain things in schools? what about claiming "we're all god's children" ?

You know this all for sure, somehow?

How would you even begin to present evidence for this kind of claim?

well, the utter lack of mass conversions on the basis of such things, and the lack of widespread reports of such. they just do not happen in significant amounts to get noticed, assuming they happen at all. and they certainly didn't happen before contact between the cultures in question.

assuming that any of these mutually exclusive religious experiences actually were really linked to objectively true gods, it is utterly baffling that not only are there different religions in existence, but there are absolutely no cases where widely separated cultures wound up hitting on the same religion independently. the closest you'll get are the tens of thousands of variations on animism, which really aren't all that close to each other anyway.

i stand by my claim as something we know with much more certainty than we know the opposite.

But it's ok to privately hate gays because they're gay?

No

Yes, and your point is? He asked us to, and it's our choice to give it all up; that they (the early Christians) had everything in common isn't a command, it's a statement.

that is how christians ought to live, as told by those that allegedly founded the damn religion.

it's your choice, but only in the sense that you can choose to follow jesus or not. you can't follow jesus and keep your riches. the new testament is unequivocal on this point.

that is how christians ought to live, as told by those that allegedly founded the damn religion.

it's your choice, but only in the sense that you can choose to follow jesus or not. you can't follow jesus and keep your riches. the new testament is unequivocal on this point.

You can't say Jesus "allegedly" founded the religion. He did.

"Damn religion." Heh, ironic. :)

All Jesus wants is that we show that we follow him over the other master (money). That's all. Not necessarily to surrender all your riches, but to be willing to part with them for Jesus'/God's sake. You follow me?

You can't say Jesus "allegedly" founded the religion. He did.Not in the strict sense. He wanted to reform Judaism, or at least a section of it. It were rather Peter and Paul who made a "new" religion of the, um, small Jewish sect.

I, personaly, am an Atheist. I look at things from a scientifical point of view. Ex:Jesus rose from the grave to heaven on Easter.
Ex:In my opinion, that couldn't happen because people can't come back from the dead.Yes, if they steal my zombie making device they can.

It is a sad reality that the many Christians fit the stereotype of thoughtless sheep so well. However, what is equally as sad is the growing number of atheists who feel themselves superior to Christians simply because of their own deficiency of understanding of Christianity and their unwillingness to expel this ignorance.

For the past 2000 years, the philosophies of Christianity have had to not only make sense, but also have had to provide satisfactory explanations. Contrary to some of the unjust viewpoints that have been expressed, the people of the past used reason and logic as far as it could take them. Their beliefs, when examined, are also just as logical and believable as any of the newer sets created in modern times. Take a look at the works of such philosophers as Bacon, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, and Chesterton, who have produced quite well crafted arguments and explain questions posed about the world and our existence while remaining in the context of the Christian religion.

This trend of defaming Christianity while ignoring its substance is quite disturbing. Ignorance and arrogance do not mix.

Just like the title says. Why do people believe in this religion? There are obviously many non-Christians here; what do you think is going on here?

[sarcasm] I'm the average NSGer, bla bla bla, Christianity is bad, bla bla bla, everyone deserves unlimited rights (including the right to harm themselves and others indirectly) escept christians, bla bla bla join the left wing bla bla. [sarcasm/]

It is a sad reality that the many Christians fit the stereotype of thoughtless sheep so well. However, what is equally as sad is the growing number of atheists who feel themselves superior to Christians simply because of their own deficiency of understanding of Christianity and their unwillingness to expel this ignorance.

For the past 2000 years, the philosophies of Christianity have had to not only make sense, but also have had to provide satisfactory explanations. Contrary to some of the unjust viewpoints that have been expressed, the people of the past used reason and logic as far as it could take them. Their beliefs, when examined, are also just as logical and believable as any of the newer sets created in modern times. Take a look at the works of such philosophers as Bacon, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, and Chesterton, who have produced quite well crafted arguments and explain questions posed about the world and our existence while remaining in the context of the Christian religion.

This trend of defaming Christianity while ignoring its substance is quite disturbing. Ignorance and arrogance do not mix.It is so typical to accuse non-believers of ignorance. The fact of the matter is rather that the believers themselves are the ignorants. And btw, 'Atheist' is not equal to 'non-Christian'. Your arrogance blinds you, Master Cotenshire. Active non-Christians have no lack of understanding of Christianity, instead they know Christianity all too well.

From the posts that I have read so far, this seems to be the argument:

Christians: God exists. The bible says so.

Atheists: Christians are stupid doodyheads, but I'm completely tolerant.

I'm tempted to side with the Christians.

It is so typical to accuse non-believers of ignorance. The fact of the matter is rather that the believers themselves are the ignorants. And btw, 'Atheist' is not equal to 'non-Christian'. Your arrogance blinds you, Master Cotenshire.
I never asserted anywhere in my previous post that all non-believers were ignorant. I was specifically addressing those atheists who attack Christianity despite their complete lack of interest in studying beforehand the various Christian philosophies that they dismiss so carelessly. I am also only discussing Christianity in this thread because that is what this thread is about and it is the religion of which I am the most knowledgeable.
Active non-Christians have no lack of understanding of Christianity, instead they know Christianity all too well.
While many atheists know Christianity very well, your remarks have led me to believe that you are not among them. To castigate Christians because they believe in magic which has no evidence of existence and is therefore not real is revoltingly obtuse because it assumes that the beliefs of Christians (or religious people in general, since you seem so adamant about that point) are mutually exclusive from any reasoning or thought on their part.

From the posts that I have read so far, this seems to be the argument:

Christians: God exists. The bible says so.

Atheists: Christians are stupid doodyheads, but I'm completely tolerant.

I'm tempted to side with the Christians.

er... why?

I actually have no problem whatsoever with Christianity. My only problem is that in modern times, and particularly in the US, christianity has become a group-hug of partisan hacks from the republican party, who also see some need to associate it with rigid ultra-right wing conservatism and greedy pro-business lobbies. The true message of Jesus was the social gospel, of helping out the poor, dislocated, disenfranchised and abject of society, the true message of Jesus was a profoundly tolerant and accepting message of universal equality. Just like neo-nazi groups, aforementioned kind of 'christian's are just bigots looking for excuses to justify their bigotry.

The verse you're thinking of is in Kings somewhere but it's not much of a contradiction: it can be explained as an approximation. There are plenty of contradictions and absurdities in the Bible but that isn't one of them IMHO.

Biggest contradiction: Thou shall not kill. Now here's a list of bad people and the correct method of killing them.

what kind of persecution is being "dished out"?

Look up Tempest Smith.

There's some. These posts on this message board, for starters.

Not evidence of your existence, only evidence that someone or something posted the words I quoted.

Not evidence of your existence, only evidence that someone or something posted the words I quoted.

When I was a little kid and got a Atari 2600, I thought for sure that the computer I was playing against was not a computer at all but another kid in another bedroom. This may not be relevant.

-"Blessed are the peacemakers." Yes. We Republicans make peace.

Peace through superior firepower?

er... why?

Because many of the Atheists in this thread are being asshats.

Because many of the Atheists in this thread are being asshats.

Oh, sorry.

Is any thing really relevant?
Maybe?

When I was a little kid and got a Atari 2600, I thought for sure that the computer I was playing against was not a computer at all but another kid in another bedroom. This may not be relevant.

Is any thing really relevant?

Honestly I haven't waded through all of this I'm sure it has likely degenerated the way these always tend to, frankly all I would like to do is expres the wish that the people on both sides could just live or let live. Or failing that at least try and keep their critisisms on both sides current with present theories in history and the anthropology of religion and try not to grossly simplify both as seems to happen in these threads. I would mildly object on those grounds to the accusations that religion is not logical, many of the often are they just make different base assumptions that they build off of than science does, as such to understand said religion you need to examin it with those base assumptions in mind if one is to understand it. Look at Christianity for example enourmous ammounts of effort whent into trying to fit it into the different Classical modles of thought, so it wasn't mere intelectual lazyness it would likely have been far easier to have just not bothered yet still the efforts were made since they had the assumption that both the masters and Christianity were correct so they had to get them to work together. I'm probably not going to post again just wanted to vent about some of what I find annoying about these threads. I know I know I should just not open it, but the other threads I was looing at just weren't moving so I grew bored and read a few pages saw no progress out of the normal and posted.:(

what? :confused:

Ha ha! :D

Basically - the point I was making is that - my failure to see something, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Atheists: Christians are stupid doodyheads, but I'm completely tolerant.


I've never claimed to be tolerant.

well, the utter lack of mass conversions on the basis of such things, and the lack of widespread reports of such. they just do not happen in significant amounts to get noticed, assuming they happen at all. and they certainly didn't happen before contact between the cultures in question.

assuming that any of these mutually exclusive religious experiences actually were really linked to objectively true gods, it is utterly baffling that not only are there different religions in existence, but there are absolutely no cases where widely separated cultures wound up hitting on the same religion independently. the closest you'll get are the tens of thousands of variations on animism, which really aren't all that close to each other anyway.


Mass conversions do happen. Mass 'revivals' do happen.

What you appear to be wanting to see as evidence, is the sudden conversion of people to religions they haven't been exposed to, by mortal means.

Maybe that would be good evidence - but, maybe religions are friendly to cultural peculiarites for other reasons thatn convenience - maybe 'god' tailors his Aspect (how he presents hmself) to the cultural mores of the people he gifts with his presence?

I stand by my claim as something we know with much more certainty than we know the opposite.

No such thing. We 'know' nothing with certainty when it comes to god(s). We can believe, if we have faith. We can doubt if we don't... but both ends of the spectrum are fundamentally flawed when they claim to know anything.

You can't say Jesus "allegedly" founded the religion. He did.


No - 'allegedly' is appropriate.

There isn't even any independent, contemporary evidence to support a literal existence of 'Jesus'... much less 'his' role as founder of a religion or claims to supernatural significance.

People are Christian because for those people it is the most attractive supernatural belief system they have found, and it hasn't yet occurred to them that they need not hold beliefs on supernatural issues.

I refer you to my previous post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12536243&postcount=10).

Well agnoticism I suppose is the only real objective view point then. I could be called an atheist, but in Marx's theories genuine spirituality (belief in God etc) isn't discluded, only religion is denouced as an upper class tool to control the commons. That isn't an attack on God, it's the reality.

What you appear to be wanting to see as evidence, is the sudden conversion of people to religions they haven't been exposed to, by mortal means

i'd need a damn good reason why they never happen, at the very least. if the gods communicate directly with humans at all, then it is utterly unexplainable that there even are multiple religions in the first place, let alone that the gods never revealed themselves to more than one group on the face of the planet.

Maybe that would be good evidence - but, maybe religions are friendly to cultural peculiarites for other reasons thatn convenience - maybe 'god' tailors his Aspect (how he presents hmself) to the cultural mores of the people he gifts with his presence?

impossible, as the various aspects contradict each other completely. there is no unified core of principles that they all agree on. there ain't even a core that they predominantly do, beyond a few very restricted rules that are necessary to group survival and would automatically show up without any divine guidance at all. it's either many geographically limited gods who can be chased away through social pressures, one true set of gods that want to be universally acknowledged but also refuse make their presence felt outside of those limited geographical areas, or none at all.

No such thing. We 'know' nothing with certainty when it comes to god(s).

we know almost nothing with certainty in general. but we do have more certainty to our knowledge of some things than of others. in order to say that the san actually do have visions of the virgin mary, we have to make a whole pile of unsupportable (even in principle) suppositions. so while we can't say with certainty that they never do, it would be utterly stupid to claim otherwise.

Maybe?

Is any thing really relevant?

The space/time continuum continues to be irrelevant to Jolt . . .

we know almost nothing with certainty in general. but we do have more certainty to our knowledge of some things than of others. in order to say that the san actually do have visions of the virgin mary, we have to make a whole pile of unsupportable (even in principle) suppositions. so while we can't say with certainty that they never do, it would be utterly stupid to claim otherwise.

How so?

How so?

well, we have to either claim that somehow their not virgin mary-like at all experiences actually are or that the effects of these virgin mary encounters are conceptually invisible for some reason. and fleshing either of those options out just necessarily spirals off into random unsupportables, because that's the only way to make the false appear true.

...Right where I said it was.



That list isn't all-inclusive. Real Christians are content to live their lives quietly and be perfectly normal citizens. Being a perfectly normal citizen does not include blowing up abortion clinics or publicly claiming to hate gays because they're gay.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

What is a real Christian has changed a lot over the years. Christianity has been considerably adjusted by the followers over the years to fit their moral codes.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.What is a real Christian has changed a lot over the years. Christianity has been considerably adjusted by the followers over the years to fit their moral codes.

true enough, but i think you need a better example.

luke 19:11, kjv
"And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable..."

true enough, but i think you need a better example.

luke 19:11, kjv
"And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable..."


For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.


Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

The parable was over and then Jesus started saying something (I think, the Bible is hardly the easiest writing to follow).

Ha ha! :D

Basically - the point I was making is that - my failure to see something, doesn't mean it isn't there.But that's not what my point was, nor has it anything to do with it, right?

The parable was over and then Jesus started saying something (I think, the Bible is hardly the easiest writing to follow).What was he saying? And what is the parable about, besides a butthole who somehow became a king ?

No one. Maybe you (if being wrong can be classified as harm).

This is my problem with many atheists, right here. I am more than willing to admit that I could be wrong on the subject of religion. Hell, most of the world could be wrong. South Park could be right! But I've yet to meet an atheist who isn't convinced that s/he was not only right, but that s/he had found the One True Way, and everybody else is Wrong. Gee, golly, that sounds so familiar! Who else have I head this from? Oh, yeah. The radical Christian/Islamic Reich.

There's this fun little thing called live and let live, folks. I don't go around telling atheists that they're mental midgets and that their lives would be so much better if they followed Dionysus divine plan for their lives. So why can't you all have the same respect for the rest of us? Hell, I'll settle for for pretend respect at this point! You don't have to actually think we have the right to worship (or not) however we please, all you have to do is STFU and quit calling us morons. M'kay?

This is my problem with many atheists, right here. I am more than willing to admit that I could be wrong on the subject of religion. Hell, most of the world could be wrong. South Park could be right! But I've yet to meet an atheist who isn't convinced that s/he was not only right, but that s/he had found the One True Way, and everybody else is Wrong. Gee, golly, that sounds so familiar! Who else have I head this from? Oh, yeah. The radical Christian/Islamic Reich.

There's this fun little thing called live and let live, folks. I don't go around telling atheists that they're mental midgets and that their lives would be so much better if they followed Dionysus divine plan for their lives. So why can't you all have the same respect for the rest of us? Hell, I'll settle for for pretend respect at this point! You don't have to actually think we have the right to worship (or not) however we please, all you have to do is STFU and quit calling us morons. M'kay?But how would such respect be earned by Christians? Just by their existence? Or through the, um, "information" they spread about the divine? For their willingness to put baseless speculations over reasonable research? For their mindset of following someone who is allegedly a Jewish savior the description of which he does not even match? For following someone who is allegedly the son, incarnation, or whatever of a Jewish deity that was only modeled after much older gods? Why should anyone accept the enforcement of all these assumptions as equal to not having those assumptions? Why should anyone accept the Judeo-christian clutter of teachings as equal to just looking at the bare information available? Tolerance is something claimed by those who deserve none.

Tolerance is something claimed by those who deserve none.

Are you finished pulling stuff out your ass, UB? 'Cause this last little bon mot of yours is utter shit.

But how would such respect be earned by Christians? Just by their existence? Or through the, um, "information" they spread about the divine? For their willingness to put baseless speculations over reasonable research? For their mindset of following someone who is allegedly a Jewish savior the description of which he does not even match? For following someone who is allegedly the son, incarnation, or whatever of a Jewish deity that was only modeled after much older gods? Why should anyone accept the enforcement of all these assumptions as equal to not having those assumptions? Why should anyone accept the Judeo-christian clutter of teachings as equal to just looking at the bare information available? Tolerance is something claimed by those who deserve none.
Yes, because it's none of your effing business?

This is my problem with many atheists, right here. I am more than willing to admit that I could be wrong on the subject of religion. Hell, most of the world could be wrong. South Park could be right! But I've yet to meet an atheist who isn't convinced that s/he was not only right, but that s/he had found the One True Way, and everybody else is Wrong. Gee, golly, that sounds so familiar! Who else have I head this from? Oh, yeah. The radical Christian/Islamic Reich.

It should sound a lot more familiar than that. Pretty much EVERYBODY who has a personal philosophy or ideology thinks they're right...otherwise why would they hold those views?

Now, if you're claiming that every atheist you've met is as vehement and hard-line in their lack of God belief as the radical religious right, then you're either lying or wrong. You've probably met lots of atheists without even know they were atheist, because most of us don't walk around shouting about our lack of God-belief (any more than we walk around shouting about our lack of Santa-belief).


There's this fun little thing called live and let live, folks. I don't go around telling atheists that they're mental midgets and that their lives would be so much better if they followed Dionysus divine plan for their lives. So why can't you all have the same respect for the rest of us?

Try a little thought experiment with me, okay?

Let's pretend (and why not) that we live in a world where the godless are routinely shoved aside, portrayed as soulless, immoral, and wicked. Let's pretend (and why not) that the godless face constant, unremitting waves of superstitious propaganda. Let's pretend (and why not) that public funds, public buildings, and public offices are used to promote superstition and religious propaganda. Let's pretend that religious graffiti has been imposed upon virtually every public and government area. Let's pretend that godless individuals are seen as less trustworthy than terrorists, and that a godless individual has less chance of being elected to office than a lesbian abortion doctor.

In our little make-believe situation, can we see why an atheist might have a different view of what sort of "respect" they receive?


Hell, I'll settle for for pretend respect at this point! You don't have to actually think we have the right to worship (or not) however we please, all you have to do is STFU and quit calling us morons. M'kay?
I don't call people morons for being superstitious. I know lots of smart people who hold what I believe are silly or stupid views. I know lots of smart people who, for whatever reason, choose to believe in magic, astrology, Jesus, pixies, and other myths.

The fact that I am critical of IDEAS does not equate to a personal attack. Indeed, nothing I have ever said about god-believers can even begin to compare with the slurs that I have received on a routine basis. I am told that I will be sent to a dimension of endless torture, there to suffer for all eternity. Seriously, even if I DID call somebody a moron, how could that possibly compare with the pure, unadulterated hatred and contempt for basic humanity that is shown when somebody wishes endless torture upon a fellow human being?

This is my problem with many atheists, right here. I am more than willing to admit that I could be wrong on the subject of religion. Hell, most of the world could be wrong. South Park could be right! But I've yet to meet an atheist who isn't convinced that s/he was not only right, but that s/he had found the One True Way, and everybody else is Wrong. Gee, golly, that sounds so familiar! Who else have I head this from? Oh, yeah. The radical Christian/Islamic Reich.

There's this fun little thing called live and let live, folks. I don't go around telling atheists that they're mental midgets and that their lives would be so much better if they followed Dionysus divine plan for their lives. So why can't you all have the same respect for the rest of us? Hell, I'll settle for for pretend respect at this point! You don't have to actually think we have the right to worship (or not) however we please, all you have to do is STFU and quit calling us morons. M'kay?

Because in the end it gets a bit frustrating to have our lives run by what many Christians believe.

I am not saying you do not have the right to believe as you wish but until things in this country are a bit more reasonable for those not of the Christian faith you are going to get some frustrated atheists, that will debate on the quality of the "information" they use to justify things.

Now I am by no means saying all Christians are like this but there are enough to really screw with a persons life

It should sound a lot more familiar than that. Pretty much EVERYBODY who has a personal philosophy or ideology thinks they're right...otherwise why would they hold those views?

Now, if you're claiming that every atheist you've met is as vehement and hard-line in their lack of God belief as the radical religious right, then you're either lying or wrong. You've probably met lots of atheists without even know they were atheist, because most of us don't walk around shouting about our lack of God-belief (any more than we walk around shouting about our lack of Santa-belief).


Try a little thought experiment with me, okay?

Let's pretend (and why not) that we live in a world where the godless are routinely shoved aside, portrayed as soulless, immoral, and wicked. Let's pretend (and why not) that the godless face constant, unremitting waves of superstitious propaganda. Let's pretend (and why not) that godless individuals are seen as less trustworthy than terrorists, and that a godless individual has less chance of being elected to office than a lesbian abortion doctor.

In our little make-believe situation, can we see why the behavior of atheists you describe is EXACTLY the "same respect" that they receive?


I don't call people morons for being superstitious. I know lots of smart people who hold what I believe are silly or stupid views. I know lots of smart people who, for whatever reason, choose to believe in magic, astrology, Jesus, pixies, and other myths.

The fact that I am critical of IDEAS does not equate to a personal attack. Indeed, nothing I have ever said about god-believers can even begin to compare with the slurs that I have received on a routine basis. I am told that I will be sent to a dimension of endless torture, there to suffer for all eternity. Seriously, even if I DID call somebody a moron, how could that possibly compare with the pure, unadulterated hatred and contempt for basic humanity that is shown when somebody wishes endless torture upon a fellow human being?

Quoted because much better then thrusty's tired ramblings

Are you finished pulling stuff out your ass, UB? 'Cause this last little bon mot of yours is utter shit.You rather mean, Christians are pulling stuff out of their butts. They behave as if there really were a Jewish god throning in a place called heaven. Now that's utter shit. Oh, and btw, where is heaven?

Because in the end it gets a bit frustrating to have our lives run by what many Christians believe.

I am not saying you do not have the right to believe as you wish but until things in this country are a bit more reasonable for those not of the Christian faith you are going to get some frustrated atheists, that will debate on the quality of the "information" they use to justify things.

Now I am by no means saying all Christians are like this but there are enough to really screw with a persons lifeBut the point is that there is just no real "information" that Christian use to justify things, it's all only wild speculation out of their love cotton candy perspective. Basically all they will ever have to base justifications on is the writings of the Bible, which is only religiously re-interpreted history that gets no confirmation from non-Judeo-Christian sources.

i'd need a damn good reason why they never happen, at the very least.


You don't know they never happen. That is hubris speaking.


if the gods communicate directly with humans at all, then it is utterly unexplainable that there even are multiple religions in the first place,


Why? If I stand in a room full of mirrors, is it "utterly unexplainable" that there are multiple reflections of me?


let alone that the gods never revealed themselves to more than one group on the face of the planet.


Again, hubris speaks. How can you even pretend to know, what has been 'revealed', and to whom? The multiplicity of religions might suggest that - if god(s) is (are) real, that fact is evidenced by multiple translations into human perception.


impossible, as the various aspects contradict each other completely.


According to people. We are flawed vessels. The original messages might all be entirely harmonious.


...it's either many geographically limited gods who can be chased away through social pressures, one true set of gods that want to be universally acknowledged but also refuse make their presence felt outside of those limited geographical areas, or none at all.


Why? You get to set the rules, do you? You have some kind of authority to decide how 'god' may manifest?


we know almost nothing with certainty in general. but we do have more certainty to our knowledge of some things than of others. in order to say that the san actually do have visions of the virgin mary, we have to make a whole pile of unsupportable (even in principle) suppositions. so while we can't say with certainty that they never do, it would be utterly stupid to claim otherwise.

You don't know what 'they' see. You said you've never seen what 'they' see. And, again, human perspective might be key.

This is my problem with many atheists, right here. I am more than willing to admit that I could be wrong on the subject of religion. Hell, most of the world could be wrong. South Park could be right! But I've yet to meet an atheist who isn't convinced that s/he was not only right, but that s/he had found the One True Way, and everybody else is Wrong.

I think - perhaps - they are there, and you just don't notice them

Why? If I stand in a room full of mirrors, is it "utterly unexplainable" that there are multiple reflections of me?Oh, are you one of those who claim that all religions are in fact the same in believing in the same god but only differ in their perspectives on this god? As in the Christian-fundamentalist assumption that all are the Christian god's children, they just may not know it yet?

Oh, are you one of those who claim that all religions are in fact the same in believing in the same god but only differ in their perspectives on this god? As in the Christian-fundamentalist assumption that all are the Christian god's children, they just may not know it yet?

No, I'm not one of those who claim "all religions are in fact the same in believing in the same god but only differ in their perspectives on this god?"... quite simply, because I don't actually believe any of the religions, and I don't believe in 'god' or 'gods'.

But, I am willing to entertain the argument. If there is a 'god', and only one, then there are either a lot of false religions, or a lot of different 'visions' of the divine. It seems logical to me that all views of 'god' could easily be just that - 'views' of god.

You rather mean, Christians are pulling stuff out of their butts. They behave as if there really were a Jewish god throning in a place called heaven. Now that's utter shit.

But the point is that there is just no real "information" that Christian use to justify things, it's all only wild speculation out of their love cotton candy perspective. Basically all they will ever have to base justifications on is the writings of the Bible, which is only religiously re-interpreted history that gets no confirmation from non-Judeo-Christian sources.

Thats why I put information in "quotes" I don't view it as valid information either

But, I am willing to entertain the argument. If there is a 'god', and only one, then there are either a lot of false religions, or a lot of different 'visions' of the divine. It seems logical to me that all views of 'god' could easily be just that - 'views' of god.What would the nature of such visions be?

The more sensible question is why do people have views on religion which defy proof. This of course includes athieism. The whole concept of God is that He/she/it is beyond proof. When scientists tell us we live in a universe which is one of an infinate number hanging like sheets in the 11th dimension, God starts to sound rather normal. The only truly scientific view on religion is "No proof for, no proof against, don't Know!" This of course upsets those who believe they think scientificly, and wont admit that there are vast holes in the theorys of the creation of life and evolution. (thats why they are still theorys!)

snip (thats why they are still theorys!)

For the love of god everything is still "Theories" in science, what a stupid statement.

*looks around*

Yep, no agnostic terrorists anywhere.

The whole concept of God is that He/she/it is beyond proof. Is it really? Beyond proof means that there are no manifestations of god in the real world. Ever. Which subsequently means that all alleged experiences with god are fabricated, because otherwise they would not be beyond proof (just outside current means of proof, maybe).

What would the nature of such visions be?

As an atheist, I can't give you the inside track. I'd say it is at least possible, though, that if there is a god, all 'religions' might just be glimpses of 'god' through the lens of cultural experience.

In the experiments where they stimulate the brain to produce 'religious experiences'... the experiences varied according to the upbringing of the subjects. Just so, any 'real' god might be perceived through filters made out of out upbringing.

Oh, are you one of those who claim that all religions are in fact the same in believing in the same god but only differ in their perspectives on this god?
I'm like this. What's wrong with this stance? What is commonly labelled "Religious experience" would seem to be a real phenomenon playing a key role in all of the major religions and, while I don't trust any given religion to be accurate in their speculation as to what's causing it, there would most certainly seem to be a common origin.

As to what this phenomenon is, my speculation is that it's a variant on what we call Mob Mentality; basically, that the group around you can influence your subconscious thinking (and by extension your perception) to bring it in line with the group itself. The process of religious conversion is an attempt to expose an individual to this sensation (through services of worship and prayer in western Religions) after having given their explanation prior to the event, supposedly demonstrating the validity of the explanation.

'course, it's just supposition on my part.

I'm like this. What's wrong with this stance? What is commonly labelled "Religious experience" would seem to be a real phenomenon playing a key role in all of the major religions and, while I don't trust any given religion to be accurate in their speculation as to what's causing it, there would most certainly seem to be a common origin.What origin?

What origin?
The congregation of human beings and the resulting effect this has on thought.

The congregation of human beings and the resulting effect this has on thought.Which is devoid of a divine connexion. The question was one for the common god to be the origin of the different religious beliefs.

Which is devoid of a divine connexion. The question was one for the common god to be the origin of the different religious beliefs.
In asserting things about their personal God, people are referring not to some obscure figure but to the origin of their experience. That, after all, is what is important to the Religious; not that what they know is right but that they can share in a relationship with this thing or being they have encountered

My supposition is that the congregation not only conceptually creates the divine being that the individual is told about but actually physically composes what they encounter. Basically, this mesh of thinking beings in mental harmony creates a mind of its own, hovering barely above them in the heirarchy of being but nonetheless an existence in its own right.

It's God from the Bottom Up rather than the Top Down. Whether or not any given Gods are exactly the same, they are all "real" and they are all the product of the same source.

As an atheist, I can't give you the inside track. I'd say it is at least possible, though, that if there is a god, all 'religions' might just be glimpses of 'god' through the lens of cultural experience.

In the experiments where they stimulate the brain to produce 'religious experiences'... the experiences varied according to the upbringing of the subjects. Just so, any 'real' god might be perceived through filters made out of out upbringing.

I would agree with this. I have had no religious upbringing and so when I had my 'religious experiences' or 'visions', I never felt or saw or experienced anything that symbolised or alluded to any religion. It just was.

As to what this phenomenon is, my speculation is that it's a variant on what we call Mob Mentality; basically, that the group around you can influence your subconscious thinking (and by extension your perception) to bring it in line with the group itself. The process of religious conversion is an attempt to expose an individual to this sensation (through services of worship and prayer in western Religions) after having given their explanation prior to the event, supposedly demonstrating the validity of the explanation.

'course, it's just supposition on my part.

This is something I do not agree with. My experiences had nothing to do with anyone else. In fact, I really wish I had been alone when these experiences occurred in public or social settings.

Don't get me wrong, as I think there probably is something to what you say in terms of mob mentality and a common origin for religion. I just don't think that religious experiences of the type that Grave_n_Idle was speaking of in the post previous to yours.

Why? If I stand in a room full of mirrors, is it "utterly unexplainable" that there are multiple reflections of me?

no. but it would be utterly unexplainable if the reflections in those mirrors looked nothing alike. if the reflections were merely distorted by imperfections in the mirrors so that perspectives and scales were off, that's one thing. but in the 'reflections' we're talking about, they look like crisp images of not just different people, but different organisms entirely. it's a room full of mirrors in which you don't see your own reflection at all, but instead see a pride of lions and an alpaca and a giant squid and a forest of kelp and even a small pile of gravel, etc, and no matter how you squint those are the images that are there.

According to people. We are flawed vessels. The original messages might all be entirely harmonious.

these messages are supposedly ongoing, yet they consistently differ along cultural lines. we aren't even playing a complex game of telephone here, which could possibly explain even really wide variations. rather, all these people believe that they have firsthand experience with their cultural gods (or their emissaries, or whatever). what sort of unified divine entity is unable to overcome these 'flaws' despite thousands of years of trying? i mean, you wind up having to assume that the unified divine is just fundamentally incompetent - too incompetent to actually be superior to humans, as at least when i talk to a bunch of people directly most of them will be able to get it at least generally right.

my trilemma stands as a point of logic (well, there is also the irrelevant 4th option - that everybody is wrong and the real gods just do not actually have anything to do with us. but we don't need to concern ourselves with that notion any more than we should spend time worrying about russell's teapot).

Because in the end it gets a bit frustrating to have our lives run by what many Christians believe.

I am not saying you do not have the right to believe as you wish but until things in this country are a bit more reasonable for those not of the Christian faith you are going to get some frustrated atheists, that will debate on the quality of the "information" they use to justify things.

Now I am by no means saying all Christians are like this but there are enough to really screw with a persons life

Among other things Kbrook and I are not Christians. Her complaints have nothing to do with Christianity so try to stay on topic, M'kay? She and I are tired of being called stupid (not necessarily by you or by all Atheists but by many here on this board) because we follow A religion.

She and I are tired of being called stupid (not necessarily by you or by all Atheists but by many here on this board) because we follow A religion.

Here we go. Let the 'everyone is persecuting us because of our beliefs' begin.

Among other things Kbrook and I are not Christians. Her complaints have nothing to do with Christianity so try to stay on topic, M'kay? She and I are tired of being called stupid (not necessarily by you or by all Atheists but by many here on this board) because we follow A religion.Well, if you follow A particular religion, you have ruled out the other religions. But since no religion can come up with any substantial argument (let alone evidence) why to follow the respective religion, it is indeed a somewhat illogical course of action.

Here we go. Let the 'everyone is persecuting us because of our beliefs' begin.

I really don't see where you're getting that from. "Everyone is persecuting us" is different than "I'm tired of a number of posters telling me I'm stupid because they're Atheists and I'm not" . . .

Well, if you follow A particular religion, you have ruled out the other religions.

Actually, no I haven't. The only thing I deny is that the JudeoChristian/Islamic god is alone in His existence. My omnitheistic point of view is that ALL gods exist. People throughout the years have mistaken instructions on how to be a good follower of <insert deity here> with instructions on how EVERYONE should behave.

I really don't see where you're getting that from. "Everyone is persecuting us" is different than "I'm tired of a number of posters telling me I'm stupid because they're Atheists and I'm not" . . .

Same difference.

I've been here a long while and it's very rare someone comes out and says: "You believe in a god, stupidz lol."

If you were a Neo-Con I'd not only believe you, I'd call you stupid. ;)

Well, if you follow A particular religion, you have ruled out the other religions. But since no religion can come up with any substantial argument (let alone evidence) why to follow the respective religion, it is indeed a somewhat illogical course of action.

What about those of us who believe in the divine but do not follow any religion?

no. but it would be utterly unexplainable if the reflections in those mirrors looked nothing alike.


Not really. If those mirrors cast their reflections to different places, and are (thus) seen by different people, the 'differences' in the reflections could all be entirely subjective.

Person A is hung up on my Viking looks. Person B can't get over how damn tall I am. Person C just likes my trenchcoat. They each take away a very different image of what they just saw. They may even colour any messages i give them, based on that image in their head.

Example: I say "Don't let anyone mess with your heads"

Person C reads it as anti-government-control, and his 'gospel' shows that bias.

Person B reads it as being more esoteric. Because I'm tall, not letting people mess with my head must mean it is GOOD to be tall. His gospel pursues this (rather bizarre) direction.

Person A,on the other hand, is still stumbling over my rugged viking appearance, as reads "Don't let anyone mess with your heads" as a reference to my crazy beserker hair. Person A writes a gospel that forbids trimming your hair...

if the reflections were merely distorted by imperfections in the mirrors so that perspectives and scales were off, that's one thing. but in the 'reflections' we're talking about, they look like crisp images of not just different people, but different organisms entirely. it's a room full of mirrors in which you don't see your own reflection at all, but instead see a pride of lions and an alpaca and a giant squid and a forest of kelp and even a small pile of gravel, etc, and no matter how you squint those are the images that are there.


The images are remarkably similar, though. There are very few pantheons that really include a token 'kelp' entity. Instead, they usually focus on basic anthropomorphism, and a general demeanour to care for your own pawns and be pretty shitty to everyone else.


these messages are supposedly ongoing,


Really? I'munder the impression most scriptures tends to put in clauses specifically prohibiting the possibility of further revelation?

yet they consistently differ along cultural lines. we aren't even playing a complex game of telephone here, which could possibly explain even really wide variations. rather, all these people believe that they have firsthand experience with their cultural gods (or their emissaries, or whatever). what sort of unified divine entity is unable to overcome these 'flaws' despite thousands of years of trying?

Who says 'god' would want to overcome these flaws? Maybe the differences of opinion don't matter - and all are equally valid? Maybe 'he' is hoping we'll work it out ourselves, as some sort of test?

Same difference.

I've been here a long while and it's very rare someone comes out and says: "You believe in a god, stupidz lol."

If you were a Neo-Con I'd not only believe you, I'd call you stupid. ;)
Isn't that what's been happening for most of this thread?

Isn't that what's been happening for most of this thread?

I'm usually quick to catch someone flaming, and I don't see DK anywhere...yet.

UB on the other hand... ;)

DK was known for flaming religious people? :confused:

Give it time. One of these days he'll become a christian fundy after reading one of Soviestan's posts and then..post hallucaust. :(

I'm usually quick to catch someone flaming, and I don't see DK anywhere...yet.
UB on the other hand... ;)

DK was known for flaming religious people? :confused:

Science is based upon evidence, and a requisite of this evidence is that it is falsifiable. Because it cannot be proven using falsifiable evidence that a God or higher power exists, then science is unconcerned with it. Making an argument for or against a God using science is impossible.

Christianity is not science, mmkay? So quit the 'Christians r teh dum!' We get it. Just because we believe in God doesn't mean we cannot understand logic and reasoning. As has been said, we're mostly sensible people. Most of us think fundies are as crazy as you think they are. And far and away most of us don't run around trying to convert you, so please give us the same courtesy.

Because we all have a choice.

We may either believe that there is no God, there is no happy place after we are dead, and that we should live for the moment and/or bring good will to fellow man.

Or...

We may just believe that there is a God, and that he is almighty. That he created all that is, and we are grateful to him. We may believe there is a Heaven, and a Hell as well as a Purgatory, and that what we do in our mortal life will determine our afterlife.

You also have this argument -

We're either created by completely, random chance from an empty void and evolved from literally nothingness.

Or...

We were created by a one, ultimate being. Not that we're just created, but that everything that is was set into motion by God. So, this meaning, we believe that all this randomity and chance was put into place by God.

Me...

There is a God, there is a Heaven and a Hell. I'm not sure about a Purgatory, personally I'd call that a lesser version of Hell. I believe that God created the randomity that created everything that is, being that the Universe and our meagre solar system and species. That he doesn't have the power to create destinies and fates, and that he doesn't have everything on a pre-planned route. That we are in control of our own crash course, and that it is up to us in the end on how we will be judged. I do not believe any one person should be any one religion. Atheists have their Anti-Godliness, and the Abrahamic religions have their Godliness. It does not mean any one part of the equation is evil, or wrong. It just means that man is meant to make his own path, his own decisions, and live his life the way he wants. I can not believe that we were created by a Scientific mystery, because all Science can prove is the Cloud of Dust which spawned everything into existance. Yet...what put that Cloud there? Just like who put God here...

So, I don't see why people have to be so questionable toward one another's fate. Like, the title of this thread, it's asked as if it's bad to be a Christian. I, for one, am an Unofficial Jew. That meaning I haven't taken the Conversion process, yet, but I've been slowly transitioning my life from Agnosticism to Judaism. If you feel that it is wrong, then that is you. I honestly support any man, woman, and child who choses to believe in something completely different and/or the opposite.

So, the real question is...

Why do people make it a point that something must be wrong about a certain Religion or Beliefe, so we must put the pressure on them to respond? Yet, taking this information we get...most likely being the Internet or someone who doesn't know how to Orate/respond well...it is just believed that the entire thing is fake and no one can ever give a good response thus it's logically proved as...well it's illogical.

Personally, I think most of Religion [And, if you haven't accepted this fact by now, Atheism is a Religion] is twisted because it is a man made 'project' of sorts. I don't take everything said in Scripture 100% to the teeth, I take in light it's meaning and I absorb the knowledge it tries to point out. Be it Morale knowledge, or just life logic. So, again yet worded differently...

Religion, or just Christianity to stick to the topic, is what you make of it. So is your view of those who choses it's path.

Personally, I think most of Religion [And, if you haven't accepted this fact by now, Atheism is a Religion] is twisted because it is a man made 'project' of sorts.

No... it really isn't.

Shame, really - you were doing quite well until that little outburst of preachy-ness.

No... it really isn't.

Shame, really - you were doing quite well until that little outburst of preachy-ness.

How is it preachyness? Or do you get to decide what is preachyness and what isn't? Also, why does everyone copy my 'ness' words :'(.

No, but it is a non-Theological Religion. It is a Beliefe that follows a, very leniant and open and diverse and not really an official state rule other than 'Well, there is no God.', standard code of some sort. Thus, it is a Religion. There isn't Churches, or any real Official Meeting places for Atheists to gather. Yet, officially in most Western States and including Russia I believe, Atheism is listed as a "Religion".

I was, in a way, sarcastically pointing out the small contradiction...however, I know the entire argument you have and I'm in no way trying to say you're wrong...because, there is no real wrong or real right.

Just because we believe in God doesn't mean we cannot understand logic and reasoning.You may understand them, but you do not apply them. Belief is exactly not based on logic and reasoning. Belief may use logic and reasoning to construct ideologies based on some basic doctrines, once they are established, but these doctrines fail any reality-check.
E.g. one can believe that Yeshua is the son and/or incarnation of Yhvh, and based on that one can apply logic and reasoning to make statements on his origins, conduct, and purposes. However, the basic assumption lacks credibility, reason(ing), and logic altogether.

You may understand them, but you do not apply them. Belief is exactly not based on logic and reasoning. Belief may use logic and reasoning to construct ideologies based on some basic doctrines, once they are established, but these doctrines fail any reality-check.
E.g. one can believe that Yeshua is the son and/or incarnation of Yhvh, and based on that one can apply logic and reasoning to make statements on his origins, conduct, and purposes. However, the basic assumption lacks credibility, reason(ing), and logic altogether.

Doesn't mean we Religious-folk can't understand logic. I understand the logic behind the Atheist-movement, and I understand the logic behind the Religious movement. Want the Religious logic?

It's that a good part of Humanity choses to believe in a higher power, and so chose to worship that power in some way. Sure, call us stupid and illogical but it doesn't really put you at any other disposition than us.

EDIT: And no, not Good as in "Good people" but a healthy percentage.

Link [Article] (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874)

Well, unless you want to stick to Atheism not being a Religion then it does mean I can bash you by all means and not be at fault. Yet, if it is a Religion then I get a choice to respect your own beliefe. I mean, not that I would bash you regardless, just stating a very loose example. So, until a court like this one rules God illogical and non-existant and Atheism not a Religion but just an Anti-Religion/Way of life, I'm sticking to my personal beliefe that God is there and that Atheism is a form of Religion..be it not a traditional-styled Religion, but by definition and jurisdiction...a Religion none the less.

PS - Though, I'm not trying to make one of those lame statements being "Well, you have to believe in something then..."

EDIT: Link [Article, more or less you may find to be more agreable.] (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm)

So, it's controversial in a way. However, I personally think of it as a choice of beliefe, so in some way and in definition a religion...just not an organized/official/scriptured religion.

How is it preachyness? Or do you get to decide what is preachyness and what isn't? Also, why does everyone copy my 'ness' words :'(.

No, but it is a non-Theological Religion. It is a Beliefe that follows a, very leniant and open and diverse and not really an official state rule other than 'Well, there is no God.', standard code of some sort. Thus, it is a Religion. There isn't Churches, or any real Official Meeting places for Atheists to gather. Yet, officially in most Western States and including Russia I believe, Atheism is listed as a "Religion".

I was, in a way, sarcastically pointing out the small contradiction...however, I know the entire argument you have and I'm in no way trying to say you're wrong...because, there is no real wrong or real right.

How are you defining 'religion'?

I can't think of a definition loose enough to accomodate a 'belief' system that has no dogma or doctrine, no churches or clergy, no rituals or practices, no core beliefs or disciplines, no scripture or liturgy, no traditions or observances.

If you are going to find a definition that IS loose enough to accomodate that, you have to realise, it would be loose enough to accomodate 'taking a dump' as a religion also.

I've already pointed out once - 'there is no god' isn't even universal among Atheists.

You may understand them, but you do not apply them. Belief is exactly not based on logic and reasoning. Belief may use logic and reasoning to construct ideologies based on some basic doctrines, once they are established, but these doctrines fail any reality-check.
E.g. one can believe that Yeshua is the son and/or incarnation of Yhvh, and based on that one can apply logic and reasoning to make statements on his origins, conduct, and purposes. However, the basic assumption lacks credibility, reason(ing), and logic altogether.

1.) Logic =/= materialistic evidence
2.) Being able to apply logic and reasoning =/= being an atheist.

I have had a revelation!

Is it just me, or is Grave's argument (with Free Soviets) a form of the "Well, God can do anything." argument diluted with reasoning?

It's that a good part of Humanity choses to believe in a higher power, and so chose to worship that power in some way. Sure, call us stupid and illogical but it doesn't really put you at any other disposition than us.What is that "choice" based on?

stuff like this ? (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/13/pope.book.reut/index.html)

It's actually pretty simple. If someone pounds the idea into your head for your entire life, you're going to believe it. It would take an incredible amount of intelligence, reasoning, or some other event to serve as a catalyst to shake you from your religious mindset.

Personally. I don't like believing in things that there are no evidence for. Believing in a god (the Christian god, specifically) seems as utterly ridiculous as believing that there is a 3 foot tall purple spotted elephant that lives in my garage (that cant be seen or felt of course). These two things both have the same amount of evidence for their existence: Zero.

So why are people christians? Because they don't like to analyse things. That would be my best guess.

Why do people believe in the big bang theorie?

It's actually pretty simple. If someone pounds the idea into your head for your entire life, you're going to believe it. It would take an incredible amount of intelligence, reasoning, or some other event to serve as a catalyst to shake you from your religious mindset.

Personally. I don't like believing in things that there are no evidence for. Believing in a mere theorie seems as utterly ridiculous as believing that there is a 3 foot tall purple spotted elephant that lives in my garage (that cant be seen or felt of course). These two things both have the same amount of evidence for their existence: Zero.

So why do people believe this theory? Because they don't like the alternative, that would be my best guess...

Why do people believe in the big bang theorie?

It's actually pretty simple. If someone pounds the idea into your head for your entire life, you're going to believe it. It would take an incredible amount of intelligence, reasoning, or some other event to serve as a catalyst to shake you from your religious mindset.

Personally. I don't like believing in things that there are no evidence for. Believing in a mere theorie seems as utterly ridiculous as believing that there is a 3 foot tall purple spotted elephant that lives in my garage (that cant be seen or felt of course). These two things both have the same amount of evidence for their existence: Zero.

So why do people believe this theory? Because they don't like the alternative, that would be my best guess...A theory is not what you seem to think it is. A theory is not just a fancy idea someone has, it is rather a complex model (created form a deep understanding of the matter at issue) that wraps up observed phenomena and offers coherent explanations. In addition most theories have already collected lots and lots of evidence to confirm their respective statements.

A theory is not what you seem to think it is. A theory is not just a fancy idea someone has, it is rather a complex model (created form a deep understanding of the matter at issue) that wraps up observed phenomena and offers coherent explanations. In addition most theories have already collected lots and lots of evidence to confirm their respective statements.

And most importantly, unlike most religion, these scientific theories make predictions that we can accurately verify. For instance, the existence of the CMBR has been confirmed.

I think - perhaps - they are there, and you just don't notice them

Good point. This is one of my hot buttons, I'll admit, because I have this argument every single time I try to have an intelligent discussion on the topic of religion with my mother. Having your own mother tell you that you're an idiot because you believe in a power greater than yourself gets real old, real fast. And I'm sure I've met atheists who aren't nasty and superior, we just haven't had religious conversations.

I am Christian because I believe Jesus is my personal lord and savior. I find it insulting when someone questions why I believe what I believe, but I also question the motives of any Christian (or any other religious person) who questions people who believe something else. I have a right to believe whatever I wish.

Because in the end it gets a bit frustrating to have our lives run by what many Christians believe.

I am not saying you do not have the right to believe as you wish but until things in this country are a bit more reasonable for those not of the Christian faith you are going to get some frustrated atheists, that will debate on the quality of the "information" they use to justify things.

Now I am by no means saying all Christians are like this but there are enough to really screw with a persons life

Do you really think it's any better for those of us who aren't Christian? Seriously? Look up Tempest Smith or Darla Wynne and see. I'm not saying pagans have it harder than atheists or vice versa, it's just comparable.

I am Christian because I believe Jesus is my personal lord and savior. I find it insulting when someone questions why I believe what I believe, but I also question the motives of any Christian (or any other religious person) who questions people who believe something else. I have a right to believe whatever I wish.

Yes, you do, indeed. Most people who ask questions such as this aren't trying to undermine anyone's faith, they're just curious. Same as anyone who asks atheists why they're they don't believe in god(s), or pagans why they believe in theirs. No offense meant, at least on my part. I'm pretty sure the OP is christian as well, so...

It is certain that there is no evidence for the existence of God that is testable scientifically. If the Christian God does exist, however, there would be no scientific evidence to prove his existence because it would run contrary to his very nature. It is for this reason that, while we may find ourselves inclined to one belief or another, we can never be sure of God’s existence except through divine intervention on a personal level.

The argument that God does not exist because he possesses no empirical substance is a very strong and valid one. However, for one to claim that they are superior over others by sole merit of their non-belief is a wrongful judgment because the two philosophies are not on the same plane when it comes to the reasoning behind the beliefs.

Both Christians and Atheists subscribe to their beliefs based on their own intuition and philosophical approach. I do not mean to say that the two ideologies are mutually exclusive and can not be debated. However, simply declaring “God is not real because there is no proof” and leaving it at that is as weak a belief as those had by Christians who blindly accept their faith with equally little thought.

Can I get a RAMEN from the congregation? Thank you, I've been trying to figure out a way to say this all day.

It's rAmen, heretic. *draws sword*

<snip>
Both Christians and Atheists subscribe to their beliefs based on their own intuition and philosophical approach. I do not mean to say that the two ideologies are mutually exclusive and can not be debated. However, simply declaring “God is not real because there is no proof” and leaving it at that is as weak a belief as those had by Christians who blindly accept their faith with equally little thought.

Can I get a RAMEN from the congregation? Thank you, I've been trying to figure out a way to say this all day.

I am Christian because I believe Jesus is my personal lord and savior. I find it insulting when someone questions why I believe what I believe, but I also question the motives of any Christian (or any other religious person) who questions people who believe something else. I have a right to believe whatever I wish.Why do you believe what you believe? :p

It is certain that there is no evidence for the existence of God that is testable scientifically. If the Christian God does exist, however, there would be no scientific evidence to prove his existence because it would run contrary to his very nature.Why? Does the Christian god not speak to people every now and then? Or appear as a whirling fire cloud? Or any such fancy things... And wouldn't a recording of such an occurrence be sufficiently scientific to be considered evidence? If this god does manifest himself in the real world, and such would be required to interact with humans, then it can be examined and be described, which subsequently would lead up to scientific treatment. I would rather say that his supposed transcendent nature runs contrary to the "experiences" folks have had with him.

Why? Does the Christian god not speak to people every now and then? Or appear as a whirling fire cloud? Or any such fancy things... And wouldn't a recording of such an occurrence be sufficiently scientific to be considered evidence? If this god does manifest himself in the real world, and such would be required to interact with humans, then it can be examined and be described, which subsequently would lead up to scientific treatment. I would rather say that his supposed transcendent nature runs contrary to the "experiences" folks have had with him.
The phenomena which you describe are not testable scientifically. Certainly, if God did appear as a whirling fire cloud, that would be testable, but nothing of this nature has ever happened during a scientific test or study. Unfortunately for modern scientists, God has not needed to perform any of these tricks himself since the Old Testament.

According to most widely held Christian doctrines, the bond between man and God was separated after the original sin, which also resulted in man’s gaining the knowledge of good and evil and of free will. For humans to be able to interact on their own will with a being as immaculate as God was impossible, because God was sinless and they were not. This was changed during the life of Christ, which enabled the communication of man to God through means such as prayer. There was, and still remains, however no corporeal substance of the connection between man and God that can be tested under the rigours of experimentation.

The experiences of others are certainly evidence of the existance of God, but unfortunately for science, these experiments can not be duplicated by the scientists themselves in a way that will produce provable conclusions.

Are you being serious with this statement, do you genuinely not know the answer?

Science, thought, and reason were not nearly as prevailant or developed then as they are today. Religion in general started because of mankind's inablility to explain phenomena that were beyond their understanding at the time. (lightning, disease, etc, were all "acts of god")

Kindly show an instance in the Bible where something quite explainable happened and it was atrubited to God in such a way that would mean that God and the explanation were ireconsiable.

Let me save your time by telling you in the first instance that Genesis does not explain the mechanics of creation, only that he created it. And don't take anything from Psalms as it is poetry.

It's rAmen, heretic. *draws sword*

Erp... Here, have some spaghetti. <runs like she's on fire>

It's rAmen, heretic. *draws sword*

*mutters* There can be only one. *draws sword as well*

Erp... Here, have some spaghetti. <runs like she's on fire>

Mmmm spaghetti. Thou hast appeased my wrath, for now.

*mutters* There can be only one. *draws sword as well*

*touches the scar along his neck line* Aww, jeez. Not this shit again.

Christ's life provided a tremendous example of what it meant to be virtuous, and offered forgiveness from sin and eternal life. That's a pretty strong motivation at a time when sin was virtually impossible to avoid.

Who are you and what have you done with LG?

For the same reason that people aren't. It's what they believe.

What do you mean by the second question?

I echo that ^^^^

Who are you and what have you done with LG?

oh, that's serious LG, it's to be avoided by those who can't reconcile it with non-serious LG.

He is very wise........hence all the hilarity.

... The experiences of others are certainly evidence of the existance of God...How? These experiences, if they cannot be shared, are only evidence for the existence of these folks' imagination. They lack all reliability.

Kindly show an instance in the Bible where something quite explainable happened and it was atrubited to God in such a way that would mean that God and the explanation were ireconsiable.

Let me save your time by telling you in the first instance that Genesis does not explain the mechanics of creation, only that he created it. And don't take anything from Psalms as it is poetry.

Fair enough, but how do you decide which bits should be taken literally and which bits are allegory and metaphor? Also, if the only important point in Genesis is that God created the Universe then why did the author have to take so long and put so much detail into it? They could have just written:

"The world? That was me, lol. 'Nuff said.
God"

;)

Who are you and what have you done with LG?

If you want to see a completely different side to LG, try telling him that the Apollo landings were faked and that we never went to the moon. That's the only thing I've ever seen him getting worked up about. :p

Link [Article] (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874)

Well, unless you want to stick to Atheism not being a Religion then it does mean I can bash you by all means and not be at fault. Yet, if it is a Religion then I get a choice to respect your own beliefe. I mean, not that I would bash you regardless, just stating a very loose example. So, until a court like this one rules God illogical and non-existant and Atheism not a Religion but just an Anti-Religion/Way of life, I'm sticking to my personal beliefe that God is there and that Atheism is a form of Religion..be it not a traditional-styled Religion, but by definition and jurisdiction...a Religion none the less.

1. If you base your beliefs on the rulings of a court then that's rather sad to be honest.

2. Atheism tends to be treated as a religion for legal purposes but that doesn't make it a religion.

2. Atheism tends to be treated as a religion for legal purposes but that doesn't make it a religion.

Indeed, it is often pigeonholed as 'religious' for the sake of argument - especially with regard to 'freedom of religion' issues.

The example of the facilities for atheists... the discussion probably wouldn't even come up any more for 'believers'... already answered by the whole 'freedom of religion' debate. Atheism is 'legally' religious, because 'freedom from religion' should have the same standing as 'freedom of religion'.