NationStates Jolt Archive

Wrong wrong wrong. It's not the atheist's job to prove there is no god. That is the starting point for any rational discussion--and we've been through this before. The beginning point for any empirical discussion is the null set--until there is proof of something, it is assumed that there is nothing there. But for some reason, believers refuse to accept this as a starting point (wonder why?), even though it's the starting point for practically any other discussion of that type. It is the believer's job ot provide proof of an existent god or gods--until that happens, the starting point of the discussion remains unchallenged.

Then again, what's often overloked in discussions of this type is that it's certainly not the believer's job to scientifically prove that there IS a God. Why? Because faith and science are two different issues. In scientific matters, we would use the scientific method to figure out whatever it is we're trying to figure out. In the case of God though (in this instance, the God of the Bible), He created the universe and as such is outside of its bounds, and therefore outside the arena of the scientific method.

Then again, what's often overloked in discussions of this type is that it's certainly not the believer's job to scientifically prove that there IS a God. Why? Because faith and science are two different issues. In scientific matters, we would use the scientific method to figure out whatever it is we're trying to figure out. In the case of God though (in this instance, the God of the Bible), He created the universe and as such is outside of its bounds, and therefore outside the arena of the scientific method.
Then how are we to ever know if there is a god or not?

Then again, what's often overloked in discussions of this type is that it's certainly not the believer's job to scientifically prove that there IS a God. Why? Because faith and science are two different issues. In scientific matters, we would use the scientific method to figure out whatever it is we're trying to figure out. In the case of God though (in this instance, the God of the Bible), He created the universe and as such is outside of its bounds, and therefore outside the arena of the scientific method.

Which is awfully convenient for believers. "Oh, we believe, and we believe for a reason, but we can't prove in any repeatable way what we believe in because it exists outside the realm of provability." That argument is so circular you could do trig on it.

Do you pray? Do you feel that praying actually helps? I think my sig sums up my opinion on the matter, but I'd like to hear people's justifications for prayer.

Nope. Nope. Cause it makes no sense.

That's my answers in a nutshell.

Sorry, but the truly arrogant position is the one that says, despite any evidence whatsoever, that there is a God or gods, and that a person knows exactly what that God or gods desires of humans, and what punishment will be meted out for failure to comply. All I do is say "there's no proof, and everything you're putting out there as proof is ludicrous." And yet I'm the arrogant one?

I suppose there should be some background to the position of the believer:

1. For MOST believers, faith isn't a scientific issue. You cannot prove right and wrong exist. But for most of humanity, the idea of right and wrong flows throughout. Simply because you cannot prove something a) doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and b) doesn't mean it doesn't have real-world applications.

2. Science is only concerned with the natural world. For MOST believers though (panthiests excluded), God is a supernatural being/entity. Therefore, any scientist worth his salt would know that the scientific method would be useless in "testing for God".

3. In regards to "evidence" regarding God's apparent non-existence, most of it is based on the logic of "there's no evidence FOR God, so that must mean that He doesn't exist." But that's a strawman. The best you could possibly do is say "there's not much evidence for God in the natural universe" because of course, the natural universe is all that humanity has the capacity to test for evidence. I suppose one could just as easily say "there's not evidence for a supernatural world, so it must not exist" but then again, that's another strawman: if there was a supernatural world, how could you test for it in the natural one? It'd be impossible.

With that said, the argument that God doesn't exist because He can't be scientifically proven is a non-issue, simply because - like I said - a method used to test the natural world and natural entities cannot be used to test for supernatural worlds or supernatural entities.

And, then again, this whole thing is based on the assumption that the scientific method is the only way to acquire knowledge.

Then how are we to ever know if there is a god or not?

Such are the questions that have given religions their alternate name: "faiths".

I don't know, really. Perhaps they feel that more people praying means a stronger chance of it being answered?


See, that's exactly why it doesn't make any sense at all to me. If it was really the case that god reacted to your prayers, that begs the question why. Assuming he's omnicient, omnipotent and benevolent, he would have cured her anyway. Why would such a god want people grovel in prayer before him before he springs into action?

Such are the questions that have given religions their alternate name: "faiths".

What if I have faith in the scientific method?

3. In regards to "evidence" regarding God's apparent non-existence, most of it is based on the logic of "there's no evidence FOR God, so that must mean that He doesn't exist." But that's a strawman. The best you could possibly do is say "there's not much evidence for God in the natural universe" because of course, the natural universe is all that humanity has the capacity to test for evidence. I suppose one could just as easily say "there's not evidence for a supernatural world, so it must not exist" but then again, that's another strawman: if there was a supernatural world, how could you test for it in the natural one? It'd be impossible.
I'm going to lock in on this because it's a classic case of claiming a straw man exists when one doesn't. I never said "there's no evidence FOR God, so that must mean that He doesn't exist." I said, "there's no evidence FOR God, and until there is, I don't believe there is one." There's a significant difference in those two statements, and the difference is that I am open to proof that said God exists, and would be willing to change my opinion if offered legitimate, empirical proof.

And then the other shoe drops--you can't provide proof because your god exists outside the natural universe, and we're back to where we started with the circular argument.

And, then again, this whole thing is based on the assumption that the scientific method is the only way to acquire knowledge.Is there another demonstrable method?

What if I have faith in the scientific method?

Then you would be an intelligent person.

But having faith in the scientific method doesn't mean a person can't have faith in God, and vice versa - simply because the scientific method is solely concerned with the natural world, whereas God is a supernatural being.

And personally, I think that's where a lot of the science vs. religion debate stems from: the belief that if science is true, then God must be false, or if God is true then science must be false.

Add to that that many people synonymize "science" with "reason" and then you have a mess, because if a person believes that if science (reason) is true and therefore God must be false, then thrown in with it you also get the belief that if anyone DOES believe in God, then they by definition are being "unreasonable" or "illogical". But the fact of the matter is, a belief in God can never be reached by scientific reasoning, simply because God is outside the bounds of science.

No one asks a plumber to give a lecture about quantum physics; you get a physicist to do that. So why people would ask scientists to study something that falls outside their area of expertise, I don't know. More importantly, even if God WAS within the bounds of the scientific method, I don't know why forumgoers would ask non-scientists to prove something scientifically. I am a business professor. Proving things scientifically is not my area of expertise. Trying to prove Someone (or something) scientifically who (which) falls outside the bounds of science is CERTAINLY outside m expertise.

Is there another demonstrable method?

Well, there's prophecy, and also visions, but I doubt a) that many want to open those cans of worms, and b) that any non-believer (and many believers as well) would even take that option seriously. I personally believe it happens, but I wouldn't blame you if you didn't.

The problem with the "favorite color" analogy is this. God either is or is not. Whether or not we know it, he does or does not exist. It's not a subjective preference.

Now, while we cannot prove that God doesn't exist in the supernatural, he supposedly does and has done things that would leave evidence in the natural world. If he created the world 6,000 years ago, there would be evidence that the world is that old. If he flooded the world 4,400 years ago, there would be evidence of a global flood 4,400 years ago. If he parted the Red Sea, there'd be evidence.

See where I'm going?

Now, let's look at the evidence. I've only looked into the Creation Myth and the Flood Myth, but those two have no evidence to support them, but plenty against them, suggesting that they did not happen, and, I predict that if I did the research, I'd find the same is true of the Red Sea Myth.

Because of the evidence against the God of the Bible, I do not believe in him. Further, I don't think that there is any sort of interfering God, because the evidence is, if to a lesser extent, against Him, too. Prayer has no demonstrated effect. People who pray and people who do not pray recover from disease at the same rate(once you account for the placebo effect, that is), believers are no less likely than non-believers to get sick. I acknowledge that some sort of Deist clockmaker God could exist, but as I have yet to see any evidence for him, I remain an atheist. After all, Russell's teapot or the FSM or the Invisible Pink Unicorn could exist, yet nobody accepts belief in them as being just as rational as disbelief.

I'm going to lock in on this because it's a classic case of claiming a straw man exists when one doesn't. I never said "there's no evidence FOR God, so that must mean that He doesn't exist." I said, "there's no evidence FOR God, and until there is, I don't believe there is one." There's a significant difference in those two statements, and the difference is that I am open to proof that said God exists, and would be willing to change my opinion if offered legitimate, empirical proof.

I never said that you yourself ascribed to the logic of "if there's no evidence for God, the He mustn't exist"; I merely said that most of the arguments against the existence of God are based on that logic. I for one applaud your open-mindedness regarding the matter; there are many who wouldn't change their minds even if evidence was offered.

The problem with the "favorite color" analogy is this. God either is or is not. Whether or not we know it, he does or does not exist. It's not a subjective preference.

Now, while we cannot prove that God doesn't exist in the supernatural, he supposedly does and has done things that would leave evidence in the natural world. If he created the world 6,000 years ago, there would be evidence that the world is that old. If he flooded the world 4,400 years ago, there would be evidence of a global flood 4,400 years ago. If he parted the Red Sea, there'd be evidence.

See where I'm going?

Now, let's look at the evidence. I've only looked into the Creation Myth and the Flood Myth, but those two have no evidence to support them, but plenty against them, suggesting that they did not happen, and, I predict that if I did the research, I'd find the same is true of the Red Sea Myth.

Because of the evidence against the God of the Bible, I do not believe in him. Further, I don't think that there is any sort of interfering God, because the evidence is, if to a lesser extent, against Him, too. Prayer has no demonstrated effect. People who pray and people who do not pray recover from disease at the same rate(once you account for the placebo effect, that is), believers are no less likely than non-believers to get sick. I acknowledge that some sort of Deist clockmaker God could exist, but as I have yet to see any evidence for him, I remain an atheist. After all, Russell's teapot or the FSM or the Invisible Pink Unicorn could exist, yet nobody accepts belief in them as being just as rational as disbelief.

I gave testimony to two separate faith-healings on (I think) page 11 of this thread, although two points should be brought up:

1. Depending on your belief system, both of those healings could be attributed either to God, or to "some natural phenomenon that science hasn't discovered yet". But I should point out that it would take the same amount of faith to take either position.

2. You have no reason to believe me. Although, by that same token, you have no reason to disbelieve me either. Regardless of how trustworthy anyone thinks I am, I'm telling you those instances happened.

Well, there's prophecy, and also visions, but I doubt a) that many want to open those cans of worms, and b) that any non-believer (and many believers as well) would even take that option seriously. I personally believe it happens, but I wouldn't blame you if you didn't.

I wouldn't call them "demonstrable", sorry. They are highly individual, single events. They can't be demonstrated and in most cases can't be reproduced.

I gave testimony to two separate faith-healings on (I think) page 11 of this thread, although two points should be brought up:

1. Depending on your belief system, both of those healings could be attributed either to God, or to "some natural phenomenon that science hasn't discovered yet". But I should point out that it would take the same amount of faith to take either position.

2. You have no reason to believe me. Although, by that same token, you have no reason to disbelieve me either. Regardless of how trustworthy anyone thinks I am, I'm telling you those instances happened.

I think you completely overlook the fact that almost anything could be used as explanation for those two healings, could be the Judeo-Christian god, could be the invisible pink unicorn, could be aliens, could be some natural occurence. Any of them is as plausible as the other as long as we don't have further evidence.

Many of you who say you dont pray because you dont believe it works have an incomplete view of prayer. Prayers is the raiseing up off the heart and mind to God it is not a spiritual slot machine, indeed praying for things is a type of prayer the lowest fom of prayer that concentrates merely on the material things and situations these are called prayers of petition. Note that just cause they dont work does not mean that God does not have the power to grant your request he just is saying No.

Two types of prayer that are higher are praers of thanksgiveing and prayers of Adoration. Prayers of thanksgiveing are prayers of gratitude for the things that God has given us and done for us such as being crucified for our sins. Prayers of Adoration are where we adore the greatness and benevolence of God.

Remember God wants three things from us chiefly to know him, love him and serve him so that we may be happy with him in heaven.

God Bless.

I wouldn't call them "demonstrable", sorry. They are highly individual, single events. They can't be demonstrated and in most cases can't be reproduced.

Then again, many would place the origins of prophecy and visions squarely in the supernatural, so of course they can't be demonstrated/reproduced in the manner the scientific method calls for.

I never said that you yourself ascribed to the logic of "if there's no evidence for God, the He mustn't exist"; I merely said that most of the arguments against the existence of God are based on that logic. I for one applaud your open-mindedness regarding the matter; there are many who wouldn't change their minds even if evidence was offered.

Again, I think you misunderstand some people.
If you take me, for example, I simply don't care if god exists or not. It doesn't make the slightest difference to my life.
Currently, there's more evidence against him than for him, so I for one sincerly doubt his existance. If you proved he exists, I'd take that as a fact. But nothing else would change for me.

I think you completely overlook the fact that almost anything could be used as explanation for those two healings, could be the Judeo-Christian god, could be the invisible pink unicorn, could be aliens, could be some natural occurence. Any of them is as plausible as the other as long as we don't have further evidence.

I thought I touched on the topic of "it could be something else other than God" in point #1. I used science as an example, but like you said, it could be anyone or anything.

However, my beliefs lead me to think that it was God.

Then again, many would place the origins of prophecy and visions squarely in the supernatural, so of course they can't be demonstrated/reproduced in the manner the scientific method calls for.

Leaving scientific method aside, they can't be demonstrated at all. You either believe them, or you don't. As is the case with everything supernatural.

Many of you who say you dont pray because you dont believe it works have an incomplete view of prayer. Prayers is the raiseing up off the heart and mind to God it is not a spiritual slot machine, indeed praying for things is a type of prayer the lowest fom of prayer that concentrates merely on the material things and situations these are called prayers of petition. Note that just cause they dont work does not mean that God does not have the power to grant your request he just is saying No.

Two types of prayer that are higher are praers of thanksgiveing and prayers of Adoration. Prayers of thanksgiveing are prayers of gratitude for the things that God has given us and done for us such as being crucified for our sins. Prayers of Adoration are where we adore the greatness and benevolence of God.

Remember God wants three things from us chiefly to know him, love him and serve him so that we may be happy with him in heaven.

God Bless.

Ouch... this post made me snort tea out my nose. But I'm still giggling.

Again, I think you misunderstand some people.
If you take me, for example, I simply don't care if god exists or not. It doesn't make the slightest difference to my life.
Currently, there's more evidence against him than for him, so I for one sincerely doubt his existence. If you proved he exists, I'd take that as a fact. But nothing else would change for me.

But with that said, here's something to chew on:

If the existence of God would make absolutely no impact on your life other than your acknowledgment that He (or it, or whatever) does in fact exist, why spend all this time debating it on a forum?

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, people don't learn about math or English or science just to learn it and be done with it, they learn it because they use it in life. So why should knowledge of God be any different?

But with that said, here's something to chew on:

If the existence of God would make absolutely no impact on your life other than your acknowledgment that He (or it, or whatever) does in fact exist, why spend all this time debating it on a forum?

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, people don't learn about math or English or science just to learn it and be done with it, they learn it because they use it in life. So why should knowledge of God be any different?

Actually, what fascinates me about religion is the psyche of religious people.
I'm trying to understand why people would become religious. Not what particular event made them religious, but what mental condition they were (and are) in to accept religious doctrines and stories as truth. I find it highly fascinating.

Leaving scientific method aside, they can't be demonstrated at all. You either believe them, or you don't. As is the case with everything supernatural.

But then again, you have testimonials from people to whom it happened. Obviously there are some quacks out there who aren't telling the truth, just as in the court system there are some who despite swearing an oath to tell the truth, still commit perjury. It happens.

But that shouldn't trivialize the testimonies of those who ARE telling the truth, just as Perjuror A's false testimony in court doesn't affect the truthfulness of Witness B's faithful account of events that have transpired.

Obviously scientists can't sit in a lab and expect to get repeatable, demonstrable prophetic visions, but then again, testimonials from people to whom it's happened has to count as some sort of evidence. And I would say the same thing for testimonials regarding miracles.

Ouch... this post made me snort tea out my nose. But I'm still giggling.

????

Actually, what fascinates me about religion is the psyche of religious people.
I'm trying to understand why people would become religious. Not what particular event made them religious, but what mental condition they were (and are) in to accept religious doctrines and stories as truth. I find it highly fascinating.

I suppose the fervor with which a person believes in religion is directly proportional to the fervor with which a person DISbelieves in nihilism.

But then again, you have testimonials from people to whom it happened. Obviously there are some quacks out there who aren't telling the truth, just as in the court system there are some who despite swearing an oath to tell the truth, still commit perjury. It happens.

But that shouldn't trivialize the testimonies of those who ARE telling the truth, just as Perjuror A's false testimony in court doesn't affect the truthfulness of Witness B's faithful account of events that have transpired.

Obviously scientists can't sit in a lab and expect to get repeatable, demonstrable prophetic visions, but then again, testimonials from people to whom it's happened has to count as some sort of evidence. And I would say the same thing for testimonials regarding miracles.

There are also testimonies of people swearing they've seen Elvis lately. There are testimonies of people claiming to have been abducted by aliens. There are testimonies to divine intervention from Allah, god, Jehova, Vishnu, amd Vitzliputzli. There are testimonies of people who claim the British royal family are actually shape-changing reptiles (no, I'm not making that up : ) ... There are testimonies for just about anything imaginable on the planet.

On what basis do you filter them? Or do you just believe those that happen to be in line with what you already believe anyway?

I suppose the fervor with which a person believes in religion is directly proportional to the fervor with which a person DISbelieves in nihilism.

Yep, to some extend. I noticed that many people cling to religion as some sort of moral lifeboat. For some it's a certain incapability to face the world without any form of security. The idea that "there has to be more to life, there has to be a greater meaning" seems very prevalent, too.

There are also testimonies of people swearing they've seen Elvis lately. There are testimonies of people claiming to have been abducted by aliens. There are testimonies to divine intervention from Allah, god, Jehova, Vishnu, amd Vitzliputzli. There are testimonies of people who claim the British royal family are actually shape-changing reptiles (no, I'm not making that up : ) ... There are testimonies for just about anything imaginable on the planet.

On what basis do you filter them? Or do you just believe those that happen to be in line with what you already believe anyway?

Well, I suppose in regards to the topic of prophecy, you could just check the words of the prophecy against what's happened in real life. Although I suppose that only works for those prophecies in which a time frame is explicitly stated - because if one isn't, it might not be the case that the prophecy isn't true...it could be that it just hasn't happened yet. Not necessarily a GREAT filter, but it'd be a filter nonetheless.

Well, I suppose in regards to the topic of prophecy, you could just check the words of the prophecy against what's happened in real life. Although I suppose that only works for those prophecies in which a time frame is explicitly stated - because if one isn't, it might not be the case that the prophecy isn't true...it could be that it just hasn't happened yet. Not necessarily a GREAT filter, but it'd be a filter nonetheless.

The thing about most prophecies is that people can only ever hope to make sense of them after the supposedly prophesied event took place. And even then it's still open for discussion. Just look at Nostradamus and his prophecies.

Yep, to some extend. I noticed that many people cling to religion as some sort of moral lifeboat. For some it's a certain incapability to face the world without any form of security. The idea that "there has to be more to life, there has to be a greater meaning" seems very prevalent, too.

I know for myself, I think of it this way: if there's no inherent purpose to life, no moral absolutes, and nothing beyond death, then why shouldn't I live m life however I feel like it? And if that involves murder, rape, theft, and everything else, then I should be able to live my life like that. Someone might say "well, there are laws against that", but if there's no right or wrong, who are they to say their version of right is better than mine? And if everyone knows there's no moral absolutes, why would they fault me for living life the way I feel is right for me?

But then comes the deeper question: if I knew there was nothing after death, what's the point of this life? To have as much fun as I can while I'm alive? Why should that matter? To build up a good future for my kids? Why should I care about them? They're going to fade into oblivion same as me, so why should I bother ensuring they have a good life, if this life is so meaningless?

What I never understood about pure nihilists is this: if life has no purpose or meaning, then as soon as they became a nihilist, why didn't they commit suicide? Seems that would be the logical conclusion to that belief.

I know for myself, I think of it this way: if there's no inherent purpose to life, no moral absolutes, and nothing beyond death, then why shouldn't I live m life however I feel like it? And if that involves murder, rape, theft, and everything else, then I should be able to live my life like that. Someone might say "well, there are laws against that", but if there's no right or wrong, who are they to say their version of right is better than mine? And if everyone knows there's no moral absolutes, why would they fault me for living life the way I feel is right for me?

Because I wouldn't enjoy the consequences of that.
I don't want to be harmed, so I don't harm others. There's something called the Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity), which had been the basis for human moral behaviour long before religion was invented to provide and easy explanation. It makes sense to me, that's why I follow it.


But then comes the deeper question: if I knew there was nothing after death, what's the point of this life? To have as much fun as I can while I'm alive? Why should that matter? To build up a good future for my kids? Why should I care about them? They're going to fade into oblivion same as me, so why should I bother ensuring they have a good life, if this life is so meaningless?

What I never understood about pure nihilists is this: if life has no purpose or meaning, then as soon as they became a nihilist, why didn't they commit suicide? Seems that would be the logical conclusion to that belief.

So you don't enjoy life, then? You just suffer it in the hopes that something better might come after it?
I enjoy life. I love, I have fun, I enjoy my body to the fullest, I enjoy all my senses, I plan my future and look forward to see what comes next. I enjoy the big andthe little challenges. That's more than enough meaning for me. I don't need any bigger purpose, I don't need to feel I serve anything or anybody, I don't need additional justification for my existence or my actions.
I am, that's quite enough.

I suppose for me, I think of the difference between days when I actually do something for someone else, and days when I just sit on my arse and don't do anything except sleep or watch TV.

If I helped someone that day, I feel like I've accomplished something worthwhile. If I've sat on my arse, when bedtime rolls around, I lie on my bed and think to myself "that was such a waste of a day".

That's why I'd RATHER live my life for someone else other than myself. My conscience tells me that anything else would be a waste of my life.

I suppose for me, I think of the difference between days when I actually do something for someone else, and days when I just sit on my arse and don't do anything except sleep or watch TV.

If I helped someone that day, I feel like I've accomplished something worthwhile. If I've sat on my arse, when bedtime rolls around, I lie on my bed and think to myself "that was such a waste of a day".

That's why I'd RATHER live my life for someone else other than myself. My conscience tells me that anything else would be a waste of my life.

That's you choice. My "conscience" tells me it's best to be happy and to make others around me happy, so that's what I do.
I can't be happy with everyone else being sad, that brings me down.

Seems to me for the last few pages the debate has focused more on the existence of a God period, as opposed to what I was originally referring (not sure if I made that clear): organised religions and their Gods. I doubt we'll ever be able to prove God does or doesn't exist, but what we can do is scrutinise things like the Bible to eliminate all false religious concepts. And I believe that most major religions have already been shown to be a load of bollocks, so I am interested in why (seemingly) intelligent people continue to follow them.

As much as I would currently like to continue this, I have papers to finish for my classes, and thus cannot.

BUT

I'll certainly be back whenever I get the time...it's really been great talking with people on here. Have a great night, everyone - catch you all a little later on. :)

Seems to me for the last few pages the debate has focused more on the existence of a God period, as opposed to what I was originally referring (not sure if I made that clear): organised religions and their Gods. I doubt we'll ever be able to prove God does or doesn't exist, but what we can do is scrutinise things like the Bible to eliminate all false religious concepts. And I believe that most major religions have already been shown to be a load of bollocks, so I am interested in why (seemingly) intelligent people continue to follow them.

Convenience.
I think that some people have personalities that are pre-defined to be religious, or that are easier to convince of religion.
The big religions each shaped their own sphere of cultural identities, Europe and America were culturally shaped to some extend by Christianity, Africa and the Middle East by Islam, Asia by Hinduism and Buddhism for the most part.
People need cultural identities, so whichever religion is prevalent in a culture is accepted most easily. It can be as contradictory as it likes, as long as it fits in with the culture, it will find followers.

Convenience.
I think that some people have personalities that are pre-defined to be religious, or that are easier to convince of religion.
The big religions each shaped their own sphere of cultural identities, Europe and America were culturally shaped to some extend by Christianity, Africa and the Middle East by Islam, Asia by Hinduism and Buddhism for the most part.
People need cultural identities, so whichever religion is prevalent in a culture is accepted most easily. It can be as contradictory as it likes, as long as it fits in with the culture, it will find followers.

Hmm... Never heard it put like that. I've always assumed the major reason was indoctrination by the parents, and the child doesn't have access to alternative view points (I guess that is related to what you're saying though).

When I was younger I just assumed most people were in religion because it alleviated their fears about what came after death. Since I was horrified of the idea I guessed everybody else wasn't because they believed they'd go to heaven. Even when I was in grade three but, with no athesitic influence, I realised that when you die, you die, though. How big an influence do you think it plays on drawing people to religion?

Hmm... Never heard it put like that. I've always assumed the major reason was indoctrination by the parents, and the child doesn't have access to alternative view points (I guess that is related to what you're saying though).

When I was younger I just assumed most people were in religion because it alleviated their fears about what came after death. Since I was horrified of the idea I guessed everybody else wasn't because they believed they'd go to heaven. Even when I was in grade three but, with no athesitic influence, I realised that when you die, you die, though. How big an influence do you think it plays on drawing people to religion?

I think there are many different reasons for becoming religious. Indoctrination plays a role inasmuch as it can influence a person's understanding of the world. It doesn't necessarily make them religious, though.

I think fear plays a big part. Most religions threaten unbelievers with hell, and there's good reason. I think you don't gain a lot of followers by preaching hellfire, but you sure do keep the followers you already have in line like that.

Wrong wrong wrong. It's not the atheist's job to prove there is no god. That is the starting point for any rational discussion--and we've been through this before. The beginning point for any empirical discussion is the null set--until there is proof of something, it is assumed that there is nothing there. But for some reason, believers refuse to accept this as a starting point (wonder why?), even though it's the starting point for practically any other discussion of that type. It is the believer's job ot provide proof of an existent god or gods--until that happens, the starting point of the discussion remains unchallenged.

I agree with this. However, it has nothing to do with whether or not said belief is a delusion; you can believe something without empirical evidence to support it, but it is not a delusion unless demonstrably untrue. In order for something to be delusional, you have to prove that a given belief is in direct contradiction with the evidence.

As far as calling someone's beliefs delusional is concerned, I'd say that it's entirely fair to say that someone who believes an unseen force parted the Red Sea at the command of a man with a big stick (and which is contradicted by available archaeological evidence) so that a chosen people could cross on dry land is indeed delusional. I'd say its entirely fair to say that a person who believes that humans gained fire because a god defied the King of the gods and brought it to them, and as a punishment he was chained to a rock and a bird eats his liver every day as punishment. Both are religious beliefs, both based on largely the same amount of evidence, both equally delusional.

Well, for the Red Sea one, yeah. If the evidence contradicts the literal interpretation of the story, a person who believes it literally is likely to be delusional barring some miraculous discovery that challenges available evidence in favor of the story.

And the story of Prometheus is not a religious belief, so it's not a valid criticism. Myths are not, and were never intended to be literal histories of the world but are allegories meant to tell a moral truth. The ancient Greeks didn't even view myths as historical fact; they believed in the Gods wholeheartedly but they didn't take all of the stories associated with them to be completely factual or historical. They understood the concept of myth and its religious significance, and applied it to their beliefs accordingly.

Even so, it still has little to do with belief in God, only particular interpretations.

Wait, so no Golden Rule at all? WTF Smunk! (and it does lend itself to the Spanish Inquisition sketch quite well ;))

those are the basic (fundamental) beliefs, other than that I believe other things as well. I think the Golden Rule would fall under the inerrancy of the Bible.

those are the basic (fundamental) beliefs, other than that I believe other things as well. I think the Golden Rule would fall under the inerrancy of the Bible.

Ah, I see. Okay, sounds like it's covered then. Thanks for being patient with me :fluffle:

Ah, I see. Okay, sounds like it's covered then. Thanks for being patient with me :fluffle:
only because you weren't an asshat.

I don't suppose they HAVE to justify their convictions, but most folks want them to. It's human nature to argue and ask people to back up what they believe. The fact that we are all here in this forum is proof of that.
Thing is, though - we're talking about beliefs. Asking for facts when it comes to religious beliefs does not make much sense.
You either chose to believe or you don't.
I don't tolerate intentional ignorance, and for that I don't apologise. I don't tolerate people who belief the moon landing was a hoax. Though, in general, I am always very polite and tolerant.
Wich you've shown in abundance so far. :rolleyes:
Well I imagine they'd like to be able to justify them to themself, but if you mean to me then they don't. But this is a discussion form after all so I thought I'd ask.
Again, I don't feel why I would have to justify that to myself or to others. Beliefs, just like feelings, are not something you can grasp as easily.
I have come to the conclusion that I believe in God and that's that.

And yes, this is a discussion, but it seems you've forgotten that a discussion - not matter how heated the argument - can still be civil. You've shown that you're not capable of a civilized discussion time and again.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure you'd be able to understand my beliefs and why I have them.
Actually, no - I don't. But what's even more important - I don't care for your beliefs.
There is a quite apparent reason, as I've stated numerous times.
It's not the what but the how which is the problem with your style of arguing.
:p why do boys name them? it's not like they can answer when you call (believe me I tried)
Maybe they only talk to us. *nods*
They may not answer when you call...
Or they use body language!
Perhaps, like snakes, they feel vibrations.
Oh, maybe that's why they are called trouser snakes?
Maybe so. :p
Yes, but there is clear evidence to the contrary for those things. There are no arguments against God based in clear evidence to the contrary, so to call someone "delusional" because they believe in God is not only incorrect but a cheap attempt at using an inflammatory term against religious believers.
It's entirely irrational and dishonest. Until you can demonstrate with clear, reproducible evidence to the contrary that there is no God, it is utterly incorrect to call religious belief a delusion. Just because someone believes in something without evidence doesn't make that belief a delusion; in order to be a delusion, it would have to be demonstrably untrue, and we're no closer to showing God is demonstrably untrue than we were 10,000 years ago.
I can only agree with you. Nicely worded.
The difference here being that anyone can fly around the world, thus proving it is indeed a sphere, and not a flat plane with edges. The inspectors went in, and couldn't find any WMDs, thus debunking the claim that Iraq was going to use said weapons on the States. However, when you're talking about God, to call anyone delusional for believing in Him (or her, or it, depending on the religion) then you've crossed over into the bounds of what seems to be arrogant presumption, seeing as there's no empirical method for testing whether there is a God or not. It's one thing to say "no one can prove or disprove God, therefore you may or may not be wrong"; it's quite another thing to flat out say "there is no possibility of there being a God; all you idiots are delusional". The former sentence is stating truth, while the latter just makes anyone who says it look incredibly arrogant.
Again, I can only agree. Besides - it's up to every person to make the decision whether they want to believe or not.
That's why it's called a belief and not knowledge.
Wrong wrong wrong. It's not the atheist's job to prove there is no god.
And neither is it the believers job to prove that God exists.
If I chose to believe that He is indeed real - that's my choice and my choice alone.
I don't need to prove it. I believe. And that does not have to be rational - nor does believing make one completely irrational.
I'm going to lock in on this because it's a classic case of claiming a straw man exists when one doesn't. I never said "there's no evidence FOR God, so that must mean that He doesn't exist." I said, "there's no evidence FOR God, and until there is, I don't believe there is one." There's a significant difference in those two statements, and the difference is that I am open to proof that said God exists, and would be willing to change my opinion if offered legitimate, empirical proof.
And then the other shoe drops--you can't provide proof because your god exists outside the natural universe, and we're back to where we started with the circular argument.
And you know, that's fine and dandy. Doesn't mean that others need proof of His existence to believe in Him.
Then you would be an intelligent person. But having faith in the scientific method doesn't mean a person can't have faith in God, and vice versa - simply because the scientific method is solely concerned with the natural world, whereas God is a supernatural being. And personally, I think that's where a lot of the science vs. religion debate stems from: the belief that if science is true, then God must be false, or if God is true then science must be false. Add to that that many people synonymize "science" with "reason" and then you have a mess, because if a person believes that if science (reason) is true and therefore God must be false, then thrown in with it you also get the belief that if anyone DOES believe in God, then they by definition are being "unreasonable" or "illogical". But the fact of the matter is, a belief in God can never be reached by scientific reasoning, simply because God is outside the bounds of science. No one asks a plumber to give a lecture about quantum physics; you get a physicist to do that. So why people would ask scientists to study something that falls outside their area of expertise, I don't know. More importantly, even if God WAS within the bounds of the scientific method, I don't know why forumgoers would ask non-scientists to prove something scientifically. I am a business professor. Proving things scientifically is not my area of expertise. Trying to prove Someone (or something) scientifically who (which) falls outside the bounds of science is CERTAINLY outside m expertise.
Nice. I can't remember which scientist said something along the lines "Where my knowledge ends, my belief sets in". I consider myself scientifically well educated in the field of Biology. And at the same time, I have a strong belief in God.
Those two things don't exclude each other, for they are two completely different things.
Many of you who say you dont pray because you dont believe it works have an incomplete view of prayer. Prayers is the raiseing up off the heart and mind to God it is not a spiritual slot machine, indeed praying for things is a type of prayer the lowest fom of prayer that concentrates merely on the material things and situations these are called prayers of petition. Note that just cause they dont work does not mean that God does not have the power to grant your request he just is saying No.
Two types of prayer that are higher are praers of thanksgiveing and prayers of Adoration. Prayers of thanksgiveing are prayers of gratitude for the things that God has given us and done for us such as being crucified for our sins. Prayers of Adoration are where we adore the greatness and benevolence of God.
Remember God wants three things from us chiefly to know him, love him and serve him so that we may be happy with him in heaven.
God Bless.
When I feel the need to pray, it often is when I feel the need to thank Him and to acknowledge His beautiful creation.
Ouch... this post made me snort tea out my nose. But I'm still giggling.
First off - you really should know better than to eat or drink while spending time on NSG.
Secondly - and I don't know how to put that into English:
"Die kleinen Dinge bestraft der liebe Gott sofort." (and what I usually add: "Für die größeren läßt er sich 9 Monate Zeit." :D)
Convenience. I think that some people have personalities that are pre-defined to be religious, or that are easier to convince of religion. The big religions each shaped their own sphere of cultural identities, Europe and America were culturally shaped to some extend by Christianity, Africa and the Middle East by Islam, Asia by Hinduism and Buddhism for the most part. People need cultural identities, so whichever religion is prevalent in a culture is accepted most easily. It can be as contradictory as it likes, as long as it fits in with the culture, it will find followers.
I can agree with this. (I might want to add that Africa in part also is also within the Christian region of influence.)
I think there are many different reasons for becoming religious. Indoctrination plays a role inasmuch as it can influence a person's understanding of the world. It doesn't necessarily make them religious, though. I think fear plays a big part. Most religions threaten unbelievers with hell, and there's good reason. I think you don't gain a lot of followers by preaching hellfire, but you sure do keep the followers you already have in line like that.
I have chosen to believe in God not out of fear but out of love for Him and His creation.
I can see what you're saying - but it's not necessarily true for everyone. It's not for me, anyway. ;)

But who gets to make that determination? You? You're going to be the one who judges who are true christians and who aren't? The idea of the "true christian" is an abstract--there's no solid, concrete definition that can be agreed upon by all involved. You might like to say that Phelps isn't a true christian, but you have no objective standard by which to make that determination, and that's the problem with all discussions of this kind. There is no objective standard. The best you can hope to do is say "I think that person is not a good christian," but if you're on the receiving of the spittle, that's little comfort.

It's actually spelled out quite clearly in the New Testament. It's not abstract at all. A true Christian believes that Jesus Christ was the son of God and died for our sins. A true Christian follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

One of the things Jesus taught was not to judge anyone. He actually spoke quite harshly of people who judged others. So no; Phelps, Falwell, ect are not true Christians. You don't get to pick and choose what of the New Testament you follow if you are Christian.

"I promise if you let me pass this test, I won't ever masturbate while thinking of puppies again"

:p

:eek:

*tries to scrub mental images out of mind*

I think Christianity is a bigoted woman-hating gay-bashing sect. Every story I read about them is them raving about gays or sex or Harry Potter. The world would be a lot better off if Christianity was gotten rid of.

I think Christianity is a bigoted woman-hating gay-bashing sect. Every story I read about them is them raving about gays or sex or Harry Potter. The world would be a lot better off if Christianity was gotten rid of.

Here, lemme round out your post a bit:

:sniper::sniper::sniper::gundge::gundge::gundge:

I think Christianity is a bigoted woman-hating gay-bashing sect.

Succinct.

Not being religious, no. However, I do find approaching any enterprise anticipating only the very worst invariably leads to better results.

1. Depending on your belief system, both of those healings could be attributed either to God, or to "some natural phenomenon that science hasn't discovered yet". But I should point out that it would take the same amount of faith to take either position.

What makes you say that? It's been show many times in the past that there are natural phenomena which can lead to healings, but a supernatural or divine cause has yet to be demonstrated.

Suppose we were talking about Dark Matter: as yet we don't know what it is, but that doesn't mean that the two explanations "it's made up of some kind of physical matter which we can't currently observe directly", and "it's made of invisible (but heavy) angels" are equally valid.

2. You have no reason to believe me. Although, by that same token, you have no reason to disbelieve me either. Regardless of how trustworthy anyone thinks I am, I'm telling you those instances happened.

Well, David Hume would disagree. Sure, it's possible that the healings had a divine cause, but it's also possible that you're mistaken, deluded, lying, or mad (please don't take offense, I'm not suggesting that you really are insane or a liar, simply that these are possible explanations). There's also more generic evidence against supernatural healing: if prayer healing works, then why have life expectancies been steadily increasing in the last few centuries despite a fall in piety? Why has no amputee ever been healed? Why do groups who believe in the healing power of prayer to the exclusion of modern medicine lose so many children to easily curable diseases? If prayer works so well, why do we even have hospitals? Why have large scale tests consistently shown that prayer has no more effect than a placebo?

I'm afraid your word isn't sufficient evidence to counterbalance the huge ammount of inductive evidence against your claims.

Here, lemme round out your post a bit:

:sniper::sniper::sniper::gundge::gundge::gundge:

You forgot: :upyours::upyours::mp5::mp5:

Succinct.

Given that about 2.1 billion people on the planet describe themselves as 'Christian', don't you think it's rather ridiculous to generalise to that extent?

Cause and effect.

X is happening.
I and 20 friends pray for Y.
Y happens, with no scientific explanation possible.

Had a friend with Lupus whose immune system was killing her -- her kidneys, liver, etc. were affected with a very severe flare-up and the doctors did not hold out much hope for her surviving.

We prayed, often, and hard, and with rather a large group spread out across the country. On her next visit when they did the tests on her, they said that not only was the flare-up over with, the damage they had seen previously a few weeks earlier was completely healed. "Impossible" was what they called it.

I know people are going to discount it and say a million things about what "really" happened, but that's fine.

Yes, it is rather amazing what humans can do through sheer will. As has been said before, prayer does nothing. If solving problems were as easy as saying a few words, war would be a thing of the past. You Christians sicken me.

Yes, it is rather amazing what humans can do through sheer will. As has been said before, prayer does nothing. If solving problems were as easy as saying a few words, war would be a thing of the past. You Christians sicken me.

Thats needlessly mean ...

Given that about 2.1 billion people on the planet describe themselves as 'Christian', don't you think it's rather ridiculous to generalise to that extent?

2.1 billion people believe in an invisible sky wizard (invisible because he is apparently so hideous that his countenance conveniently kills you) that they should worship because some naked people, including a rib-woman, in a garden ate an apple after a talking snake convinced them to, leading to a worldwide flood that left no evidence and was only survived by a man fond of talking to himself who somehow managed to fit two of every species on a boat of very finite space, some time after which a demigod Jew, begotten by a poltergeist and a "virgin", got nailed to some planks and became a zombie and promised to come back to kill them all.

Honey, we left ridiculous behind us a long time ago.

2.1 billion people believe in an invisible sky wizard (invisible because he is apparently so hideous that his countenance conveniently kills you) that they should worship because some naked people, including a rib-woman, in a garden ate an apple after a talking snake convinced them to, leading to a worldwide flood that left no evidence and was only survived by a man fond of talking to himself who somehow managed to fit two of every species on a boat of very finite space, some time after which a demigod Jew, begotten by a poltergeist and a "virgin", got nailed to some planks and became a zombie and promised to come back to kill them all.

Honey, we left ridiculous behind us a long time ago.

...and that justifies accusing all Christians of bigotry, how exactly?

It's actually spelled out quite clearly in the New Testament. It's not abstract at all. A true Christian believes that Jesus Christ was the son of God and died for our sins. A true Christian follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

One of the things Jesus taught was not to judge anyone. He actually spoke quite harshly of people who judged others. So no; Phelps, Falwell, ect are not true Christians. You don't get to pick and choose what of the New Testament you follow if you are Christian.

1 Corinthians 7 I believe

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.[...] Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

All parts of the new Testament huh?

...and that justifies accusing all Christians of bigotry, how exactly?

Read up on the religion, "woman-hating and gay-bashing" are built in. The only way Christians can avoid that is by ignoring it, and do they then count as Christians? Read the thread, I have been proclaiming that, no, they can't be seen as real Christians if they ignore the bad sides of their religion and only choose the fluff they can stomach.

Read up on the religion, "woman-hating and gay-bashing" are built in. The only way Christians can avoid that is by ignoring it, and do they then count as Christians? Read the thread, I have been proclaiming that, no, they can't be seen as real Christians if they ignore the bad sides of their religion and only choose the fluff they can stomach.

If any of you have the time, I'd like to do an experiment.

Pull out a bible (and include what version it is, because it matters) and list off the bad parts of it (slavery, bigotry, women-bashing, children-stoning, etc) and quote it word for word, including the part where it says what part of the bible it's in.

Then, we need to get a christian (Kat or Smunk would do nicely as they are logical and friendly) and ask them to explain away each of these individual bad things in their faith.

We won't be insulting, we won't be agressive, we won't be angry - we'll simply see how long they're able to last before they give up (and I'm fairly certain that, before it's over, they will) and be content with a simple "I don't have the answers, but I still have faith in god".

I'd really like to see the results of something like that.

Remember God wants three things from us chiefly to know him, love him and serve him so that we may be happy with him in heaven.


Naw sorry...

Being someone's slave won't make me happy.

We won't be insulting, we won't be agressive, we won't be angry - we'll simply see how long they're able to last before they give up (and I'm fairly certain that, before it's over, they will) and be content with a simple "I don't have the answers, but I still have faith in god".

I'd really like to see the results of something like that.

Good luck, and it would be nice if there were a Christian apologetic or theologian really skilled in their theology that could answer these questions.

This thread's already filled with a disgusting amount of hatred and anger against Christians that is almost frightening at times in its intensity; if this is what we'd get if we got rid of religion, Gods have mercy on us because it actually manages to be worse than contemporary religion. It's far beyond criticism, it's downright cruel. Honestly, it's not painting a very nice picture of the "tolerance" that so many people here supposedly possess.

1 Corinthians 7 I believe
It's also mentioned in Matthew and I think Romans too.
All parts of the new Testament huh?
All parts of the New Testament that line up with Jesus's teachings in the Gospels.

All parts of the New Testament that line up with Jesus's teachings in the Gospels.

"You don't get to pick and choose what of the New Testament you follow if you are Christian." Now, who said that?

Thats needlessly mean ...

Doesn't make it any less true.

It's also mentioned in Matthew and I think Romans too.

All parts of the New Testament that line up with Jesus's teachings in the Gospels.

Ahhh so you do get to pick and choose from the new testament ...

Doesn't make it any less true.

I did not say it did

Doesn't make it any less true.

No, actually, it's not really true. It makes the naive assumption that God is obligated to answer prayers and that all of those prayers could realistically be answered by God without interfering in free will or causing significantly more damage than if the prayers were not answered.

Maybe God only answers prayers when there is a good reason for him to do so.

No, actually, it's not really true. It makes the naive assumption that God is obligated to answer prayers and that all of those prayers could realistically be answered by God without interfering in free will or causing significantly more damage than if the prayers were not answered.

Maybe God only answers prayers when there is a good reason for him to do so.

What reason could there be that he would not have been aware of before the prayers?

Maybe God only answers prayers when there is a good reason for him to do so.

Ah, the old "our deity's a bastard, but he knows best because we say he does and don't want to think of him as a bastard, more of someone who 'works in mysterious way'" cop-out.

Ahhh so you do get to pick and choose from the new testament ...

It depends on if you consider Paul's teachings to be in line with the teachings of Jesus; technically, most of the stuff he says has no direct support in the Gospels, so it's pretty up in the air how much you want to include him in the New Testament.

It depends on if you consider Paul's teachings to be in line with the teachings of Jesus; technically, most of the stuff he says has no direct support in the Gospels, so it's pretty up in the air how much you want to include him in the New Testament.

So, now you're claiming Paul and Matthew are not in the New Testament? Because funnily enough, the version I got from the Gideons sort of, kind of, has them there.

It depends on if you consider Paul's teachings to be in line with the teachings of Jesus; technically, most of the stuff he says has no direct support in the Gospels, so it's pretty up in the air how much you want to include him in the New Testament.

What an arbitrary belief system ... All kinds of crap apparently included into the origional work that is the basis of the belief, all the filtering according people based on if you feel they should be included or parts you think dont fit with other parts

What a horrible moral guide

"You don't get to pick and choose what of the New Testament you follow if you are Christian." Now, who said that?
I'm sorry, I over simplified. I'm responding to this thread through piles of work.:P


Basically, everything in the NT will line up with Jesus's teachings. Here's the caveat. You have to take the NT (all of it) in it's historical context. You can't fully understand the NT (or the OT for that matter) without taking into account the audience it was written for.

You also have to make allowances for words that have no modern literal translation or multiple translations.

No, actually, it's not really true. It makes the naive assumption that God is obligated to answer prayers and that all of those prayers could realistically be answered by God without interfering in free will or causing significantly more damage than if the prayers were not answered.

Maybe God only answers prayers when there is a good reason for him to do so.

Sounds like a cop-out when someone doesn't really know the answer. The old "God has a plan" or "it's His will" or "have faith" are just synonyms for "I don't know".

What reason could there be that he would not have been aware of before the prayers?

That's not exactly what I mean. All I mean is that God grants prayers based on if it would be good to do so; if he's truly benevolent, he probably can't or won't grant prayers that could have a significant negative effect down the line. It would be terrible to do a good deed for one person that would lead to an evil act; he may be able to only grant prayers that will not have that outcome.

But then again, who knows? Any God's thought processes will be radically different from our own.

Ahhh so you do get to pick and choose from the new testament ...

I believe Fass beat you to that....:D

I believe Fass beat you to that....:D

I am at work and we just pushed office 07 out to 1400 staff fac computers ... I am sometimes a bit slow between questions :)

Sounds like a cop-out when someone doesn't really know the answer. The old "God has a plan" or "it's His will" or "have faith" are just synonyms for "I don't know".

I don't know the answer. It's as simple as that; I can't claim to know the mind of any God, so I just don't know why they do what they do.

What an arbitrary belief system ... All kinds of crap apparently included into the origional work that is the basis of the belief, all the filtering according people based on if you feel they should be included or parts you think dont fit with other parts

What a horrible moral guide

Yeah, but that's the way it was. When the Church was formed from the disparate chruches of the first years of Christianity, the early Christians had to go through and sort out what was and what wasn't consistent with the four canon Gospels and the theology of the early churches, and that's what produced the New Testament as it is today.

I've got my own beliefs that have nothing to do with Christianity, so it doesn't bother me too much what that text is or isn't.

I am at work and we just pushed office 07 out to 1400 staff fac computers ... I am sometimes a bit slow between questions :)
Oh, sounds like your work day is going to be all kinds of fun.

I hope you are planning a relaxing evening of drinking after.:D

First off - you really should know better than to eat or drink while spending time on NSG.
Secondly - and I don't know how to put that into English:
"Die kleinen Dinge bestraft der liebe Gott sofort." (and what I usually add: "Für die größeren läßt er sich 9 Monate Zeit." :D)

Oh, bloss nicht.... hast du den direkten Draht, oder woher weisst, du dass ich deswegen grad meine Fingernaegel abkaue???


I can agree with this. (I might want to add that Africa in part also is also within the Christian region of influence.)

Well, and indigenous religions. Africa's rather colourful that way.


I have chosen to believe in God not out of fear but out of love for Him and His creation.
I can see what you're saying - but it's not necessarily true for everyone. It's not for me, anyway. ;)

True, but as I said, fear doesn't win new followers. So if you made the conscious decision to believe, one could argue that you are in fact a new follower.
If you were to talk to my grandmother, she would tell you that she never even considered thinking about the possibility that other religions might have some merit, because the priest told her she'd go to hell if she left the Christian (or in her case, the Catholic) church. It's the difference between regarding religion as part of your cultural identity, and actually giving it some thought.

Yes I pray and yes it does help for one reason or another. It is a scientific fact that fate helps even if it would be misplaced in sugar pills or a non-existent God due to the placebo effect.

I believe God hears but most of the time it would be a bad idea to answer the prayers. We humans often pray for things we should sort out for ourselves or things we don't need even though we think we think we do. Too often it's even something unfair like "please God cheat to let me win the lottery" or something misguided like both Christians and Muslims praying to Abraham's God asking for victory in battle against each other. But it does help mentally to pray even though I realize God knows better then to answer all my stupid prayers.

I don't know the answer. It's as simple as that; I can't claim to know the mind of any God, so I just don't know why they do what they do.

Many other people would claim to know exactly what God wants though which is the problem. I think we should use common sense. Does saying a prayer or a spell produce some effect or is it just random chance? People say a person recovers from a medical condition and doctors don't know how so it means that God intervened. Or maybe it is just an example of doctors still having a long way to go in really understanding the human body. Of these two is seems the latter is certainly more logical.

Religion was invented to try to explain the unknown but now we have science that gives solid answers to those questions instead of saying a deity is responsible. Of course if there actually is some higher force he/she/it/they (whatever) must be psychos to allow the world to continue the way it is. One would have to get enjoyment out of watching all the suffering going on to not step in.

Basically, everything in the NT will line up with Jesus's teachings.

So, Jesus wants faggots dead? Well, tell me something I don't already know.

I pray every day. It really works.

I pray every day. It really works.

I don't. It really works, too.

I don't. It really works, too.

for you. That wouldn't work for me just as prayer wouldn't help someone like you.

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/

should prove an interesting read for those interested in prayer issues.

Good luck, and it would be nice if there were a Christian apologetic or theologian really skilled in their theology that could answer these questions.
This thread's already filled with a disgusting amount of hatred and anger against Christians that is almost frightening at times in its intensity; if this is what we'd get if we got rid of religion, Gods have mercy on us because it actually manages to be worse than contemporary religion. It's far beyond criticism, it's downright cruel. Honestly, it's not painting a very nice picture of the "tolerance" that so many people here supposedly possess.
And that is the really sad part. Those accusing Christians of hatred here are those that show the greatest anger and contempt.
"You don't get to pick and choose what of the New Testament you follow if you are Christian." Now, who said that?
Oh, and now you get to decide who's a (real) Christian?
Pfft. Right.
Basically, everything in the NT will line up with Jesus's teachings. Here's the caveat. You have to take the NT (all of it) in it's historical context. You can't fully understand the NT (or the OT for that matter) without taking into account the audience it was written for.
You also have to make allowances for words that have no modern literal translation or multiple translations.
Exactly.
But why make that conscious effort if one doesn't believe in God and only wants to ridicule those who do?
It's so much more convenient to just chuck everyone who calls themselves a Christian into the same lot. :rolleyes:
Sounds like a cop-out when someone doesn't really know the answer. The old "God has a plan" or "it's His will" or "have faith" are just synonyms for "I don't know".
I don't see what's so bad about that.
Oh, bloss nicht.... hast du den direkten Draht, oder woher weisst, du dass ich deswegen grad meine Fingernaegel abkaue???
Würdest Du denn glauben, wenn ich Dir sagte, daß ich ihn hätte? :p
Well, and indigenous religions. Africa's rather colourful that way.
Which is great. For me, there is no right or wrong religion - I have found what I was looking for, but I surely will not force my beliefs onto others.
And I don't like being preached to, either, unless I make that choice as well.
True, but as I said, fear doesn't win new followers. So if you made the conscious decision to believe, one could argue that you are in fact a new follower.
Yeah, maybe so. ;)
If you were to talk to my grandmother, she would tell you that she never even considered thinking about the possibility that other religions might have some merit, because the priest told her she'd go to hell if she left the Christian (or in her case, the Catholic) church. It's the difference between regarding religion as part of your cultural identity, and actually giving it some thought.
I have spent much time and thought on that, and like I said - I have chosen what I feel best for me. That's pretty much all.
Yes I pray and yes it does help for one reason or another. It is a scientific fact that fate helps even if it would be misplaced in sugar pills or a non-existent God due to the placebo effect.

I believe God hears but most of the time it would be a bad idea to answer the prayers. We humans often pray for things we should sort out for ourselves or things we don't need even though we think we think we do. Too often it's even something unfair like "please God cheat to let me win the lottery" or something misguided like both Christians and Muslims praying to Abraham's God asking for victory in battle against each other. But it does help mentally to pray even though I realize God knows better then to answer all my stupid prayers.
Now why do I think of Bruce Almighty all of the sudden? :p
So, Jesus wants faggots dead? Well, tell me something I don't already know.
Fass, be as ignorant as you want to be.

The Jesus Christ I know and accepted into my heart would most definitely tell you differently - even if you behaved like an arrogant asshole. He still loves you. :D

I don't see what's so bad about that.

They are just encouraging the continuing of such ignorance that things happen because of some higher "power". I suppose though that some people need to believe that there is a "reason" for why things happen and not just because the universe is made up of a cold indifference.

So, Jesus wants faggots dead? Well, tell me something I don't already know.

I knew that's where this was going. No. It's an intentional mistranslation of a couple of very obscure passages.

Here's the two places it's supposedly mentioned in the NT:

Romans 1:26-27- This is where we need to take into account the historical context of the passage. Paul was writing this after returning from missionary work in the Mediterranean. He was commenting on behavior he saw in the temples dedicated to Greek gods. He wasn't condemning the acts, he was condemning the irreverent nature of the acts. Sexuality is a God given gift, but God sees a problem when it rules our lives. That's why God abandoned those people, not because they had male/male female/female relations.

If you follow the bigots line of logic when reading that passage, homosexuality becomes a punishment for failure to acknowledge God. There's many LGBQT people who believe in God, so that's hardly rational.

1 Corinthians 6:9 + 1 Timothy 1:10- This is where translations come into play. Namely, how the words "malokois" and "arsenokoitai" are translated. The common scholarly consensus is malokois means "call boys" or "male prostitutes."


There is no agreed translation to arsenokoitai. It's been translated as "the customers of the prostitutes". Some translated it as Sodomites, but don't offer justification. It wasn't until the 1950's that someone decided it meant "homosexuals" for no real reason.

When you look at the passage as a whole it's referring to married me who hire young boys and young girls for sex, which is immoral on several levels.

Paul's letters have been used over the years to justify all kinds of bigotry, which is funny considering the message of this text. The message is to follow God's new laws (the NT), specifically to love one another and not to judge one another. It's kind of ironic how much that got turned around.

They are just encouraging the continuing of such ignorance that things happen because of some higher "power". I suppose though that some people need to believe that there is a "reason" for why things happen and not just because the universe is made up of a cold indifference.
Right. And why not just let them?
I like to believe differently. Doesn't cause those who don't any harm.

I knew that's where this was going. No. It's an intentional mistranslation of a couple of very obscure passages.

Here's the two places it's supposedly mentioned in the NT:

Romans 1:26-27- This is where we need to take into account the historical context of the passage. Paul was writing this after returning from missionary work in the Mediterranean. He was commenting on behavior he saw in the temples dedicated to Greek gods. He wasn't condemning the acts, he was condemning the irreverent nature of the acts. Sexuality is a God given gift, but God sees a problem when it rules our lives. That's why God abandoned those people, not because they had male/male female/female relations.

If you follow the bigots line of logic when reading that passage, homosexuality becomes a punishment for failure to acknowledge God. There's many LGBQT people who believe in God, so that's hardly rational.

1 Corinthians 6:9 + 1 Timothy 1:10- This is where translations come into play. Namely, how the words "malokois" and "arsenokoitai" are translated. The common scholarly consensus is malokois means "call boys" or "male prostitutes."


There is no agreed translation to arsenokoitai. It's been translated as "the customers of the prostitutes". Some translated it as Sodomites, but don't offer justification. It wasn't until the 1950's that someone decided it meant "homosexuals" for no real reason.

When you look at the passage as a whole it's referring to married me who hire young boys and young girls for sex, which is immoral on several levels.

Paul's letters have been used over the years to justify all kinds of bigotry, which is funny considering the message of this text. The message is to follow God's new laws (the NT), specifically to love one another and not to judge one another. It's kind of ironic how much that got turned around.

And the Leviticus passage?

Right. And why not just let them?
I like to believe differently. Doesn't cause those who don't any harm.

Well, ignorance tends to create stupid people. I'd prefer if people didn't encourage ignorance. Teaching people to not be curious about the reason behind things isn't something I'm enthusastic about.

And the Leviticus passage?

It's OT not NT last time I checked.

Edit: And if you are going to observe part of it, you must observe the rest. So if you are going to use it as a justification for bigotry, then you need to throw out your poly/cotton blends and lay down the football.

I knew that's where this was going. No. It's an intentional mistranslation of a couple of very obscure passages.

Here's the two places it's supposedly mentioned in the NT:

Romans 1:26-27- This is where we need to take into account the historical context of the passage. Paul was writing this after returning from missionary work in the Mediterranean. He was commenting on behavior he saw in the temples dedicated to Greek gods. He wasn't condemning the acts, he was condemning the irreverent nature of the acts. Sexuality is a God given gift, but God sees a problem when it rules our lives. That's why God abandoned those people, not because they had male/male female/female relations.

If you follow the bigots line of logic when reading that passage, homosexuality becomes a punishment for failure to acknowledge God. There's many LGBQT people who believe in God, so that's hardly rational.

1 Corinthians 6:9 + 1 Timothy 1:10- This is where translations come into play. Namely, how the words "malokois" and "arsenokoitai" are translated. The common scholarly consensus is malokois means "call boys" or "male prostitutes."


There is no agreed translation to arsenokoitai. It's been translated as "the customers of the prostitutes". Some translated it as Sodomites, but don't offer justification. It wasn't until the 1950's that someone decided it meant "homosexuals" for no real reason.

When you look at the passage as a whole it's referring to married me who hire young boys and young girls for sex, which is immoral on several levels.

Paul's letters have been used over the years to justify all kinds of bigotry, which is funny considering the message of this text. The message is to follow God's new laws (the NT), specifically to love one another and not to judge one another. It's kind of ironic how much that got turned around.

What a bunch of apologist crap. This is what you need to resort to to stomach Christianity? Imagine that it says something more palatable to you - something going against an already established "kill the faggots" theme - than what it actually says? Haha, it's hilarious the amount of contorting you have to stoop to to be able to live with your choice of religion, and that's been my entire point. The Phelpses and their lot love their deity for what it says, you love it for what you'd like to ignore and/or rewrite certain passages of it to say. The former have much more integrity in my eyes. Sure, they're bastards, but they're not deluding themselves.

It's OT not NT last time I checked.

Edit: And if you are going to observe part of it, you must observe the rest. So much for the poly/cotton blend.

*shrugs* It's still in the bible - they put it there for a reason. Unless you can say the OT is obsolete and doesn't have to be followed while explaining why they put it in the bible at all.

What a bunch of apologist crap. This is what you need to resort to to stomach Christianity? Imagine that it says something more palatable to you - something going against an already established "kill the faggots" theme - than what it actually says? Haha, it's hilarious the amount of contorting you have to stoop to to be able to live with your choice of religion, and that's been my entire point. The Phelpses and their lot love their deity for what it says, you love it for what you'd like to ignore and/or rewrite certain passages of it to say. The former have much more integrity in my eyes. Sure, they're bastards, but they're not deluding themselves.

So, which translation of the bible are you reading that says "kill the faggots" because it's not in mine.

*shrugs* It's still in the bible - they put it there for a reason. Unless you can say the OT is obsolete and doesn't have to be followed while explaining why they put it in the bible at all.

NT = a new covenant with God. Christians are supposed to read the OT through the lens of the NT.

You are misunderstanding the basic principals of Christianity. Christians follow the NT. The OT is included for various reasons, mainly as a history lesson.

*shrugs* It's still in the bible - they put it there for a reason. Unless you can say the OT is obsolete and doesn't have to be followed while explaining why they put it in the bible at all.

the ot IS obsolete for a christian.

take a look at leviticus sometime. it goes on and on and on about things that no (mainstream) christian bothers with, everything from eating shrimp to circumcision.

Here's the thing. If something in the Bible doesn't line up with Jesus's words in the Gospels, then you are reading it wrong. End of story.

NT = a new covenant with God. Christians are supposed to read the OT through the lens of the NT.

You are misunderstanding the basic principals of Christianity. Christians follow the NT. The OT is included for various reasons, mainly as a history lesson.

the ot IS obsolete for a christian.

take a look at leviticus sometime. it goes on and on and on about things that no (mainstream) christian bothers with, everything from eating shrimp to circumcision.

So... before Jesus died for your sins, god did care about if you ate shrimp and got circumsized, but after that he was cool with it?

You do realize this makes no sense, right?

So, which translation of the bible are you reading that says "kill the faggots" because it's not in mine.

"Om en man ligger med en annan man som med en kvinna, har de båda gjort något avskyvärt. De skall straffas med döden, skulden för deras död är deras egen."

Därför utlämnade Gud dem åt förnedrande lidelser. Kvinnorna bytte ut det naturliga umgänget mot ett onaturligt, likaså övergav männen det naturliga umgänget med kvinnorna och upptändes av begär till varandra, så att män bedrev otukt med män. Därmed drog de själva på sig det rätta straffet för sin villfarelse. [...]De vet vad Gud har bestämt: att alla som lever så förtjänar döden.

This is the latest, and considered the most accurate, Swedish translation from around the year 2000 (http://bibeln.se/). The bold bits mean, in turn: "If a man lies with another man as he lies with a woman, they have both done something detestable. They shall be punished with death, the fault for their deaths are their own"; "Men fornicated with men. Thus they brought on themselves the correct punishment for their delusion." [...] "They know what God has decided: that all who live that way deserve death".

This new, modern, official Swedish translation doesn't mince its words and its translators don't seem to have bought your nonsense, probably because they saw it as such.

So... before Jesus died for your sins, god did care about if you ate shrimp and got circumsized, but after that he was cool with it?

You do realize this makes no sense, right?

They were different rules for a different time. There's reasons for all of the rules if you care to look them up. Since they don't apply to my life, I only know the why's that I've run across randomly. If you really care so much, ask a Rabbi. Those rules are still relevant to Jews.

"Om en man ligger med en annan man som med en kvinna, har de båda gjort något avskyvärt. De skall straffas med döden, skulden för deras död är deras egen."

Därför utlämnade Gud dem åt förnedrande lidelser. Kvinnorna bytte ut det naturliga umgänget mot ett onaturligt, likaså övergav männen det naturliga umgänget med kvinnorna och upptändes av begär till varandra, så att män bedrev otukt med män. Därmed drog de själva på sig det rätta straffet för sin villfarelse. [...]De vet vad Gud har bestämt: att alla som lever så förtjänar döden.

This is the latest, and considered the most accurate, Swedish translation from around the year 2000. The bold bits mean, in turn: "If a man lies with another man as he lies with a woman, they have both done something detestable. They shall be punished with death, the fault for their deaths are their own"; "Men fornicated with men. Thus they brought on themselves the correct punishment for their delusion." [...] "They know what God has decided: that all who live that way deserve death".

This new, modern, official Swedish translation doesn't mince its words and its translators don't seem to have bought your nonsense, probably because they saw it as such.

Fass, you are reading the OT. If you have issues with the OT take it up with the Jews. Christians follow the NT.

Well, ignorance tends to create stupid people. I'd prefer if people didn't encourage ignorance. Teaching people to not be curious about the reason behind things isn't something I'm enthusastic about.
Right. And without religion, people will suddenly cease to be stupid. :rolleyes:

This thread is a prime example that this would not be the case. There's people who are hateful, stupid, ignorant, plain weird - no matter whether they believe or not.

And mind you, I don't advocate people to not be curious. Let them. I, for my part, have found what I am content with. I draw strength and positivity from my faith. I do not use it as an excuse to hurt others or to put others who might think differently down, nor do I consider my position better.

Sadly, this cannot be said for many who "contributed" to this "discussion".

Here's the thing. If something in the Bible doesn't line up with Jesus's words in the Gospels, then you are reading it wrong. End of story.

How convenient for you; decide for yourself what it says and then ignore whatever it says that is contrary to that.

So... before Jesus died for your sins, god did care about if you ate shrimp and got circumsized, but after that he was cool with it?

You do realize this makes no sense, right?

*shrug*

its been that way since the beginning of christianity. its even in the bible.

That's not exactly what I mean. All I mean is that God grants prayers based on if it would be good to do so; if he's truly benevolent, he probably can't or won't grant prayers that could have a significant negative effect down the line. It would be terrible to do a good deed for one person that would lead to an evil act; he may be able to only grant prayers that will not have that outcome.

But then again, who knows? Any God's thought processes will be radically different from our own.

Why would someone have to ask? If granting the persons prayers were asking for what was truly the best in the end why did god not do it already?

I pray often; it brings a sense of focus and peace, and I have actually seen examples of shared prayer working for a third party.

Of course, those who think it worthless get exactly what they put into it.

But, wait, the mods are anti-Christian, aren't they? Have I mentioned I love how vocally Christian you are, lately, Kat?

I agre with the first part. It brings a sense of focus. I've never prayed for anything specifically. I personally don't believe it works that way. God knows us and what we need. I find the idea that we would need to babble about such things to be ludicrous. However, as a means for us working out what we need or think, I find it's a valuable tool. As such, I tend to think in the same way many people pray (sit in a quiet place and contemplate) and when I pray it's brief and simply expresses my gratitude, though I really could settle with anything that simply reminds me of my relationship with God.

They were different rules for a different time. There's reasons for all of the rules if you care to look them up. Since they don't apply to my life, I only know the why's that I've run across randomly. If you really care so much, ask a Rabbi. Those rules are still relevant to Jews.

Well, seems like now is a different time than 2000 years ago. How bout we get to work on another version of that infallable holy scripture, hm? Chop chop.

for you. That wouldn't work for me just as prayer wouldn't help someone like you.

Then the causal factor is not prayer it is mentality

But, wait, the mods are anti-Christian, aren't they? Have I mentioned I love how vocally Christian you are, lately, Kat?

I agre with the first part. It brings a sense of focus. I've never prayed for anything specifically. I personally don't believe it works that way. God knows us and what we need. I find the idea that we would need to babble about such things to be ludicrous. However, as a means for us working out what we need or think, I find it's a valuable tool. As such, I tend to think in the same way many people pray (sit in a quiet place and contemplate) and when I pray it's brief and simply expresses my gratitude, though I really could settle with anything that simply reminds me of my relationship with God.

A much more reasonable view (to me) then the view some take.

Well, seems like now is a different time than 2000 years ago. How bout we get to work on another version of that infallable holy scripture, hm? Chop chop.

do you have anything intelligent to say?

How convenient for you; decide for yourself what it says and then ignore whatever it says that is contrary to that.

No. I will be more than happy to debate you anything in the NT. The NT according to God Himself is what Christians are to follow. The OT is obsolete. You are being just as dense as the people that use Leviticus to denounce homosexuality.

Well, seems like now is a different time than 2000 years ago. How bout we get to work on another version of that infallable holy scripture, hm? Chop chop.

theres something you might pray for!

Well, seems like now is a different time than 2000 years ago. How bout we get to work on another version of that infallable holy scripture, hm? Chop chop.

I believe that's covered in the NT already.

So... before Jesus died for your sins, god did care about if you ate shrimp and got circumsized, but after that he was cool with it?

You do realize this makes no sense, right?
It might make no sense to you since you don't care about the significance that Jesus' life and death had for those who follow his teachings.

Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, thus it really is different.

Fass, you are reading the OT. If you have issues with the OT take it up with the Jews. Christians follow the NT.

Apparently you haven't the read the Bible well enough to recognise where the second quotation comes from: "Men fornicated with men. Thus they brought on themselves the correct punishment for their delusion." [...] "They know what God has decided: that all who live that way deserve death." is from the NT (http://www.bibeln.se/framemaker.jsp?visakap=Rom+1&addit=true&markvers=32529).

And don't for a second think I buy your crap about Christians not having to care about the OT, for:

"Tro inte att jag har kommit för att upphäva lagen eller profeterna. Jag har inte kommit för att upphäva utan för att uppfylla. Sannerligen, innan himlen och jorden förgår skall inte en enda bokstav, inte minsta prick i lagen förgå; inte förrän allt har skett. Den som upphäver ett enda av buden, om så det allra minsta, och undervisar människorna så, han skall räknas som den minste i himmelriket."

"Believe not that I have come to reverse the law or the prophets. I have not come to reverse but to fulfill. Verily, before heaven and Earth perish not a single letter, not a single dot of the law shall perish; not until all has come to pass. He who reverses a single of the commands, even if it be the tiniest, and teaches men thusly, he shall count as the smallest in the kingdom of heaven."

But, I guess something as unequivocal as "not a single letter, not a single dot of the law shall perish" can be ignored by you as well. You certainly have a capacity for turning a blind eye, and for that you will be the "smallest in the kingdom of heaven".

Praying definatly works and helps me.

I seem to have a tendency to become depressed over small things and I usually pray to Gods to get me out of it. Now, according to my parents and my priest you are supposed to think about the good things in life and thank God for them before asking for something. When I start to pray I remember this and go over all the good things in my life and it get me out of my deep and increasingly frequent depressions even before i ask for anything. Praying seems to be the only way I would ever get myself to think about the good things during my depressions.

I think people need to realize that praying while to the them it may be useless is not useless to other people and they should stop going on a bout.

on the subject of prayer and spiderman 3....

did any of y'all who saw the movie think at the time that if the reporter had known that god was going to grant his prayer right then and there that he would have asked for a pony instead?

thats what *I* was thinking. it wasnt a great movie.

No. I will be more than happy to debate you anything in the NT. The NT according to God Himself is what Christians are to follow. The OT is obsolete. You are being just as dense as the people that use Leviticus to denounce homosexuality.

The NT does say that gay people should be killed. But, with your rule, we're supposed to go: "Snafturi doesn't like that it says that, so turn a blind eye to it."

do you have anything intelligent to say?

While not in the best format the question (I think) is not necessarily an un-intelligent one

For something that you are betting on being divinely inspired it sure has a lot of parts that have changed or you are supposed to ignore.

While not in the best format the question (I think) is not necessarily an un-intelligent one

For something that you are betting on being divinely inspired it sure has a lot of parts that have changed or you are supposed to ignore.

Szanth has a style I can not stand and I doubt he has any real interest in anything other than trying to snipe at others.

Maybe you can teach him how to intelligently pull information from others.

I believe that's covered in the NT already.

yeah god 2.0 ... much fluffier but still got the putting gays to death thing apparently

Szanth has a style I can not stand and I doubt he has any real interest in anything other than trying to snipe at others.

Maybe you can teach him how to intelligently pull information from others.

I can try ... though my luck in this debate is not so great ... I don't seem to be outrageous enough or quick enough to draw lots of attention

At least it seems like I am doing something right :)

A much more reasonable view (to me) then the view some take.

Well, there is that whole bit about "babbling like the pagans" to worry about and all. I also don't pray in public. At all. Ever. My prayer is mine.

I can try ... though my luck in this debate is not so great ... I don't seem to be outrageous enough or quick enough to draw lots of attention

At least it seems like I am doing something right :)

you don't annoy me. ;) (and these days that it quite an accomplishment.)

Apparently you haven't the read the Bible well enough to recognise where the second quotation comes from: "Men fornicated with men. Thus they brought on themselves the correct punishment for their delusion." [...] "They know what God has decided: that all who live that way deserve death." is from the NT (http://www.bibeln.se/framemaker.jsp?visakap=Rom+1&addit=true&markvers=32529).

And don't for a second think I buy your crap about Christians not having to care about the OT, for:

"Tro inte att jag har kommit för att upphäva lagen eller profeterna. Jag har inte kommit för att upphäva utan för att uppfylla. Sannerligen, innan himlen och jorden förgår skall inte en enda bokstav, inte minsta prick i lagen förgå; inte förrän allt har skett. Den som upphäver ett enda av buden, om så det allra minsta, och undervisar människorna så, han skall räknas som den minste i himmelriket."

"Believe not that I have come to reverse the law or the prophets. I have not come to reverse but to fulfill. Verily, before heaven and Earth perish not a single letter, not a single dot of the law shall perish; not until all has come to pass. He who reverses a single of the commands, even if it be the tiniest, and teaches men thusly, he shall count as the smallest in the kingdom of heaven."

But, I guess something as unequivocal as "not a single letter, not a single dot of the law shall perish" can be ignored by you as well. You certainly have a capacity for turning a blind eye, and for that you will be the "smallest in the kingdom of heaven".

The first one came from Lev which means you are intentionally being dense. You just want to go round and round so you can feed your persecution complex.

You want to hold to the same mistranslations the bigots hold to that's fine by me. It's not what the bible says, but you can hold to that if you want to.

While not in the best format the question (I think) is not necessarily an un-intelligent one

For something that you are betting on being divinely inspired it sure has a lot of parts that have changed or you are supposed to ignore.

As Grave points out, Jesus taught discernment. As such, strictly adhering to dogma wouldn't make sense. It's important to note that at the time of Jesus there were no texts and there certainly weren't Paul's texts. It's also important to note that Jesus drew a line between the Law which he summarized as love God and love each other and the rules placed on men by men.

you don't annoy me. ;) (and these days that it quite an accomplishment.)

I try to bring reasonable questions, without fervor even to outragous viewpoints ... seems a better debate style to me

The only crowd that gets me is the "gays are not discriminated against" ones or the ones that think they get what they deserve ... hospital visits too close to the surface for those :)

yeah god 2.0 ... much fluffier but still got the putting gays to death thing apparently

It doesn't. I already quoted the NT in regards to that. If you want to debate any of the points I raised, that's fine. But I'm not blanketly addressing it twice.

Edit: I don't mean to sound overly jerky BTW. I just grow weary of repeating myself. Not that it's your fault. You've got enough on your plate with the upgrade.:P

As Grave points out, Jesus taught discernment. As such, strictly adhering to dogma wouldn't make sense. It's important to note that at the time of Jesus there were no texts and there certainly weren't Paul's texts. It's also important to note that Jesus drew a line between the Law which he summarized as love God and love each other and the rules placed on men by men.
A reasonable viewpoint on the face of it but personally rather questionable when you include the idea that this text was supposed to be devinly inspired

I find it hard to believe that an all powerful god would leave the jewl buried among the trash when your eternal life hangs in the balance.

Do you pray? Do you feel that praying actually helps? I think my sig sums up my opinion on the matter, but I'd like to hear people's justifications for prayer.

No. If I want something to happen and I can make it happen, I do so. If I cannot, I get over it. At no point do I beg imaginary beings to evoke the situation.

It doesn't. I already quoted the NT in regards to that. If you want to debate any of the points I raised, that's fine. But I'm not blanketly addressing it twice.

Edit: I don't mean to sound overly jerky BTW. I just grow weary of repeating myself. Not that it's your fault. You've got enough on your plate with the upgrade.:P

Yes you have and in the end it comes down to a lot more reasonable point of view that this is a complete human piece of work then anything else ... but thats just me

The NT does say that gay people should be killed. But, with your rule, we're supposed to go: "Snafturi doesn't like that it says that, so turn a blind eye to it."

That goes againt the love one another rule now doesn't it? Like I've said before; if something doesn't line up with Jesus's own words, then you are reading it wrong. And your quote didn't include anything said by Jesus, it was said by Paul.

Jesus said the most important rule was love god, love yourself and love your neighbor. Why would a follower of Jesus violate this? I don't know but what Jesus says is way more important than what Paul said and Jesus never said anything about killing homosexuals.

A reasonable viewpoint on the face of it but personally rather questionable when you include the idea that this text was supposed to be devinly inspired

I find it hard to believe that an all powerful god would leave the jewl buried among the trash when your eternal life hangs in the balance.

Again, depends what you believe. I don't believe people are punished for being wrong. I think we're simply too fallible for such a requirement. The text was not divinely inspired, the ideas where. I don't buy the perfect Bible nonsense, mostly because if such were true then we wouldn't have five million versions of the Bible floating around all with the "jewels" buried among the "trash" as you put it. I don't believe Jesus ever intended for us to follow the Law in the way many Christians try. If you look at almost all of his teachings they can be summarized in either of the ways he summarized the Law and the Prophets (and if that's unclear, that means everything divinely inspired).

Yes you have and in the end it comes down to a lot more reasonable point of view that this is a complete human piece of work then anything else ... but thats just me

It amazes me what people find in the Bible.

People lose sight of the basic message of Jesus. He is the Son of God and He died for our sins. As humans, we just need to do the best we can.

It's a big problem I have with organized religion. They all want to add something. Or say x is more important than y. Or they want to claim infallibility. No human since Christ is infallible.

The first one came from Lev which means you are intentionally being dense.

Jesus himself said that Leviticus still applies, so don't bitch to me, bitch to him. But I guess that would require you not to turn a blind eye to what he is to have said.

You just want to go round and round so you can feed your persecution complex.

While you just want to ignore what is plainly written.

You want to hold to the same mistranslations the bigots hold to that's fine by me. It's not what the bible says, but you can hold to that if you want to.

"lalalala! I can't hear you! It doesn't say what it says! All the Swedish translators - the hundreds of them involved in the translation of the year 2000 version - are wrong because I say so because I wouldn't be able to live with Christianity if it said what it says!"

It amazes me what people find in the Bible.

People lose sight of the basic message of Jesus. He is the Son of God and He died for our sins. As humans, we just need to do the best we can.

It's a big problem I have with organized religion. They all want to add something. Or say x is more important than y. Or they want to claim infallibility. No human since Christ is infallible.

I agree but does it not bother you that your only real source of information about that Christ is so obviously flawed?

That goes againt the love one another rule now doesn't it? Like I've said before; if something doesn't line up with Jesus's own words, then you are reading it wrong. And your quote didn't include anything said by Jesus, it was said by Paul.

And I've already said how convenient that is for you, to get to decide which part is important and ignore the rest. Not that you explain why all these bits are in the NT when they're supposed to be ignored. And not that you explain how Jesus, when he says the law still applies, and the law says kill fags, and the NT repeats that the fags should be killed, somehow disagrees with that. That is, apart from the "explanation" that is "ignore it, because I don't like it".

I agree but does it not bother you that your only real source of information about that Christ is so obviously flawed?

The Bible is the on the ONLY real source of information? Says who?

And I've already said how convenient that is for you, to get to decide which part is important and ignore the rest. Not that you explain why all these bits are in the NT when they're supposed to be ignored. And not that you explain how Jesus, when he says the law still applies, and the law says kill fags, and the NT repeats that the fags should be killed, somehow disagrees with that. That is, apart from the "explanation" that is "ignore it, because I don't like it".

He says the Law still applies. The Law refers to the commandments. The Prophets refer to prophetic writings. People need to remember that neither testament was actually canonized at the time of Jesus.

And I've already said how convenient that is for you, to get to decide which part is important and ignore the rest. Not that you explain why all these bits are in the NT when they're supposed to be ignored. And not that you explain how Jesus, when he says the law still applies, and the law says kill fags, and the NT repeats that the fags should be killed, somehow disagrees with that. That is, apart from the "explanation" that is "ignore it, because I don't like it".

just as convenient it is for YOU to claim that this is the only way christianity relates to gay people.

sure there are bigots out there who proclaim that god hates fags and it seems that to them this "sin" is the only one that jesus didnt redeem.

there are however many other christian points of view that do not pick out a few passages from the bible and interpret them in the harshest possible way but instead understand that the bible is not condemning those who are in loving same sex relationships.

you choose to focus on the bigots and to claim that the rest are not really christians.

I agree but does it not bother you that your only real source of information about that Christ is so obviously flawed?

But you can paint a general picture by looking at the things that are present in all four gospels that don't contradict each other but support eachother, suggesting some truth (since the gospels were not written by the same people).

He says the Law still applies. The Law refers to the commandments.

Not from what I can read in the Swedish version.

The Prophets refer to prophetic writings. People need to remember that neither testament was actually canonized at the time of Jesus.

So, even the things he is to have said are to be ignored since he didn't say them? Or, what? Only the accounts of what he is to have said are credible, but the parts you don't like aren't? How convenient, yet again.

just as convenient it is for YOU to claim that this is the only way christianity relates to gay people.

There is only one way. "Deserve death". Anything else is just ignoring what is written...

... ah, but I forget! For some reason all these awful things are in the Bible for the purpose of being ignored, not read, ignored.

sure there are bigots out there who proclaim that god hates fags and it seems that to them this "sin" is the only one that jesus didnt redeem.

I have to agree with them.

there are however many other christian points of view that do not pick out a few passages from the bible and interpret them in the harshest possible way but instead understand that the bible is not condemning those who are in loving same sex relationships.

Yes, all these "Christians" who don't read what's written in the Bible, but apparently ignore it.

you choose to focus on the bigots and to claim that the rest are not really christians.

They follow what it says, not what they'd like it to say once bits and pieces of it are hushed away because they're unpleasant and expose Christianity for what it is, and that ain't the "religion of love".

This is the latest, and considered the most accurate, Swedish translation from around the year 2000 (http://bibeln.se/).
I don't know about that, most of my Christian friends and relatives use Svenska Folkbibeln (www.folkbibeln.com) from 1998 because their churches consider it to be a more accurate translation then Bibel 2000.

As for "The Bible says kill gays"...

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
If you see it as your duty to kill those who deserve death according to the Bible then you will have to kill everyone who has not accepted Jesus as Lord.

John 8:4-7 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They where using this question question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her"
So no you have no right to execute sinners even if they deserve death according to the scriptures because you're not perfect either. Sins against religion should be punished as such, by God on judgment day. So stop this nonsense about killing people.

I agree but does it not bother you that your only real source of information about that Christ is so obviously flawed?

I don't think the actual teachings are flawed at all. I think the humans who have translated the teachings have made some poor choices based on their personal biases.

And yes, that bothers me a great deal. That's why I read the Bible in such a pains taking way. I read the history, I read multiple translations, I compare commentary others have on the same passages.

Not from what I can read in the Swedish version.



So, even the things he is to have said are to be ignored since he didn't say them? Or, what? Only the accounts of what he is to have said are credible, but the parts you don't like aren't? How convenient, yet again.

What part of what he said are ignoring, first of all? Second of all, since the entire message is one of discernment, suggesting we do so is hardly an act of convenience. In fact, it's claiming that one must be dogmatic in order to promote your own bigotry despite the entire message being to the contrary is what is not so mildly convenient.

There is only one way. "Deserve death". Anything else is just ignoring what is written...

... ah, but I forget! For some reason all these awful things are in the Bible for the purpose of being ignored, not read, ignored.

I have to agree with them.

Yes, all these "Christians" who don't read what's written in the Bible, but apparently ignore it.

They follow what it says, not what they'd like it to say once bits and pieces of it are hushed away because they're unpleasant and expose Christianity for what it is, and that ain't the "religion of love".

yeah well ya know, there was this movement that occurred about 500 years ago....what was it called?

oh yeah the protestant reformation

when they decided that the pope wasnt going to be the boss of them it meant that NO ONE is the boss of them, that every christian is free to read the bible and interpret it.

that means that i dont have to believe what YOU think the bible says or what fred fucking phelps thinks the bible says.

i can read it for myself and understand, as snafurti said, that it needs to be put in its proper cultural context and read with jesus' commandment of love in mind.

I don't think the actual teachings are flawed at all. I think the humans who have translated the teachings have made some poor choices based on their personal biases.

And yes, that bothers me a great deal. That's why I read the Bible in such a pains taking way. I read the history, I read multiple translations, I compare commentary others have on the same passages.

But in the end it still boils down to how you interpret it.

Jesus himself said that Leviticus still applies, so don't bitch to me, bitch to him. But I guess that would require you not to turn a blind eye to what he is to have said.



While you just want to ignore what is plainly written.



"lalalala! I can't hear you! It doesn't say what it says! All the Swedish translators - the hundreds of them involved in the translation of the year 2000 version - are wrong because I say so because I wouldn't be able to live with Christianity if it said what it says!"

And I've already said how convenient that is for you, to get to decide which part is important and ignore the rest. Not that you explain why all these bits are in the NT when they're supposed to be ignored. And not that you explain how Jesus, when he says the law still applies, and the law says kill fags, and the NT repeats that the fags should be killed, somehow disagrees with that. That is, apart from the "explanation" that is "ignore it, because I don't like it".

*sigh* Fass, I don't know why I'm explaining this to you. You are a very intelligent guy. I know you know this. Leviticus was written for the Leviticites. Temple priests. So unless you are one of those, those rules don't apply to you.

Also, you have to give all rules in Leviticus equal weight. So everyone in their poly/cotton shirts playing football with their close cropped hair are in the same boat as the gays.

You also haven't quoted the Gospel where Jesus Christ Himself said you were supposed to put anyone to death. Or where He said homosexuality was a sin.

And doesn't your interpretation run contrary to the "judge not" commandment that is repeated through out the NT? So basically your logic damns everyone on the planet. If you "kill the gays" you are breaking a commandment, if you don't you are breaking a commandment.

yeah well ya know, there was this movement that occurred about 500 years ago....what was it called?

oh yeah the protestant reformation

when they decided that the pope wasnt going to be the boss of them it meant that NO ONE is the boss of them, that every christian is free to read the bible and interpret it.

Bwahahaha! So that's why all those people who fled from religious persecution in the 17 and 18 hundreds didn't at all leave Europe? Because the reformation came and all of a sudden people were allowed to commit herecy? And Martin Luther was oh, so loving?

that means that i dont have to believe what YOU think the bible says or what fred fucking phelps thinks the bible says.

Apparently you don't have to read what it says, either.

i can read it for myself and understand, as snafurti said, that it needs to be put in its proper cultural context and read with jesus' commandment of love in mind.

Yup, "ignore what you don't like but pretend to be Christian anyway".

Prayer isn't only about triggering miracles or asking for divine intervention.

Sometimes prayer is no different from picking up the phone and calling your dad.

More often I pray when I need personal strength or emotional peace. Call it placebo if you will, but it works and it works well. I've seen it work enough times in enough different circumstances and scenarios to know it's not a placebo and it CAN trigger miracles.

But if you don't believe it, you're just muttering pretty prose.

But in the end it still boils down to how you interpret it.

Well, the vast majority isn't hard to interpret at all. The vast majority of the words translate easily into modern language. The vast majority of the rules are simple to understand. The overall message is very easy to understand.

It's the things that don't readily line up with Christ's teachings that take the extra effort.

*sigh* Fass, I don't know why I'm explaining this to you. You are a very intelligent guy. I know you know this. Leviticus was written for the Leviticites. Temple priests. So unless you are one of those, those rules don't apply to you.

"The Bible doesn't apply to me!" That sums up what you've been claiming all along, neatly, and why I don't consider you to be a true Christian.

Also, you have to give all rules in Leviticus equal weight.

I don't have to do jack, since I don't give them any weight. It's your claimed holy book of bits and pieces to ignore, not mine.

So everyone in their poly/cotton shirts playing football with their close cropped hair are in the same boat as the gays.

As I said, bitch to JC, not to me.

You also haven't quoted the Gospel where Jesus Christ Himself said you were supposed to put anyone to death. Or where He said homosexuality was a sin.

You haven't quoted where the Bible says it isn't, and I have quoted where it numerous times does that and where Jesus says "yeah, that still applies". All I've gotten from you so far is "I don't like those parts, they're so mean, I'd like to think Christianity isn't a mean religion, so it can't be!".

And doesn't your interpretation run contrary to the "judge not" commandment that is repeated through out the NT?

That one's never meant anything to Christians, and you know it, while kill the fags has been of utmost importance.

So basically your logic damns everyone on the planet. If you "kill the gays" you are breaking a commandment, if you don't you are breaking a commandment.

It's your kooky religion, not mine. If you can't face it, then perhaps you shouldn't claim to be a follower of it. And that's my entire point - stop denying what a horrible religion it is.

it needs to be put in its proper cultural context

Exactly ! It was written something like 2000 years ago to create rules for ignorant and impoverished shepherds... Meaning its cultural context is the lifeworld of an ignorant and impoverished shepherd.

*turns towards audience. points at audience questioningly*

Are you an ignorant and impoverished shepherd ?

The overall message is very easy to understand.

Yup: "Grovel before me, the Christian god, 'cause I'll fuck you up if you don't!"

*snip*

I'll tell you what. Why don't you point to the "Bible" that Jesus endorsed. I'd love to see this one, since it didn't exist. Jesus summed up the Law and the Prophets for you and said how a Christian should behave. The only one ignoring what He said is you and using it to claim that Christians have to be bigots so you continue with your hatred unabated.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is a fallacy for a reason. Amusingly, you're adhering to a form of Christianity that didn't form until centuries after the death of Jesus and was created by a Pagan. Forgive me, if I don't bow down to him or you or your logical fallacies.

Exactly ! It was written something like 2000 years ago to create rules for ignorant and impoverished shepherds... Meaning its cultural context is the lifeworld of an ignorant and impoverished shepherd.

*turns towards audience. points at audience questioningly*

Are you an ignorant and impoverished shepherd ?

See, now here is the post of a person attempting to have a conversation. Clearly this is a person who wants to understand, not preach, but understand. Notice all how clever it is. Clever and insightful. Let's all pray for more of these.

That one's never meant anything to Christians, and you know it, while kill the fags has been of utmost importance.
Fassigen, seriously, what are you getting that from? Kill the faqs, to me, has been important for only a short and recent time.


and The overall message of christianity is be nice, love yourself, and love others
not I'll fuck you up if you don't listen. God is rather benevolent in the NT

I'll tell you what. Why don't you point to the "Bible" that Jesus endorsed. I'd love to see this one, since it didn't exist. Jesus summed up the Law and the Prophets for you and said how a Christian should behave. The only one ignoring what He said is you and using it to claim that Christians have to be bigots so you continue with your hatred unabated.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is a fallacy for a reason. Amusingly, you're adhering to a form of Christianity that didn't form until centuries after the death of Jesus and was created by a Pagan. Forgive me, if I don't bow down to him or you or your logical fallacies.

I forgive you for ignoring what is written. You better hope that your deity does.

. The overall message is very easy to understand.

wellll... not to everybody.....
Yup: "Grovel before me, the Christian god, 'cause I'll fuck you up if you don't!"

:rolleyes: *sigh*

Sometimes prayer is no different from picking up the phone and calling your dad.



Except that your dad will talk back to you.

Not that that is a GOOD thing half the time...:p

I forgive you for ignoring what is written. You better hope that your deity does.

Jocabia wins, unless you actually refute what he said.

Jocabia wins, unless you actually refute what he said.

His nonsense isn't even worth refuting since it's just a repetition of "I ignore the parts I don't like, and go with the fluffiness I can stomach" and "How dare you show me what the Bible actually says? I'd like to pretend it doesn't say that! I'd like to pretend Christianity is nice and warm and welcoming and tolerant!" It's a bunch of crock, that's what it is, and the only one fooled by it is himself.

"The Bible doesn't apply to me!" That sums up what you've been claiming all along, neatly, and why I don't consider you to be a true Christian.
When have I said that?

I'm not gay honey.

I don't have to do jack, since I don't give them any weight. It's your claimed holy book of bits and pieces to ignore, not mine.
Stop being dense. Debate this like the intelligent person you are.


As I said, bitch to JC, not to me.
You are the one that has a problem with it not me.


You haven't quoted where the Bible says it isn't, and I have quoted where it numerous times does that and where Jesus says "yeah, that still applies". All I've gotten from you so far is "I don't like those parts, they're so mean, I'd like to think Christianity isn't a mean religion, so it can't be!".

Are you just going ignore the parts of the argument that are inconveinent to you?


That one's never meant anything to Christians, and you know it, while kill the fags has been of utmost importance.
Only to those who don't follow God's teachings.


It's your kooky religion, not mine. If you can't face it, then perhaps you shouldn't claim to be a follower of it. And that's my entire point - stop denying what a horrible religion it is.
The religion in and of itself is fine. It's the idiots that can't seem to grasp the key principals of it that suck.

I don't know why you'd choose their interpetation of it.

Yup: "Grovel before me, the Christian god, 'cause I'll fuck you up if you don't!"
Would you stop trolling already. You have to hijack every thread that has anything remotely to do with spirituality. Can you just start a thread called "why I disagree with Christianity" and get it out of your system?

I don't have to do jack, since I don't give them any weight. It's your claimed holy book of bits and pieces to ignore, not mine.
It's your kooky religion, not mine.
Wow, that is one of the biggest strawmen I have ever seen! :eek:

Could you make me one of those too, I need it to scare away trolls... or are you going to ignore bits I quoted from the holy book?

I think the mistake that many people make, including a huge amount of Christians, is that the Bible is the be all and end all of the Christian belief. As if it's some sort of infallible constitution where any verse can be taken out and be 100% true. Despite this not being supported at all, not even "biblicly". This is one of the main flaws that the people who like to pretend that true Christianity is inherently biggoted, homophobic and racist etc... like to magnify.

wellll... not to everybody.....


:rolleyes: *sigh*
*sigh*
I stand corrected.

Wow, that is one of the biggest strawmen I have ever seen! :eek:

Too bad the Bible still says what you lot would like to ignore.

Could you make me one of those too, I need it to scare away trolls... or are you going to ignore bits I quoted from the holy book?

Who the fuck are you?

Wow, that is one of the biggest strawmen I have ever seen! :eek:

Could you make me one of those too, I need it to scare away trolls... or are you going to ignore bits I quoted from the holy book?

Wasn't that answer obvious 5 pages ago?

Too bad the Bible still says what you lot would like to ignore.
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. Seems you like to ignore large chunks of it too.


Who the fuck are you?

Someone making sound points that you are catagorically ignoring.

just as convenient it is for YOU to claim that this is the only way christianity relates to gay people.
sure there are bigots out there who proclaim that god hates fags and it seems that to them this "sin" is the only one that jesus didnt redeem.
there are however many other christian points of view that do not pick out a few passages from the bible and interpret them in the harshest possible way but instead understand that the bible is not condemning those who are in loving same sex relationships.
you choose to focus on the bigots and to claim that the rest are not really christians.
:fluffle:
I don't know about that, most of my Christian friends and relatives use Svenska Folkbibeln (www.folkbibeln.com) from 1998 because their churches consider it to be a more accurate translation then Bibel 2000.
As for "The Bible says kill gays"...
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
If you see it as your duty to kill those who deserve death according to the Bible then you will have to kill everyone who has not accepted Jesus as Lord.
John 8:4-7 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They where using this question question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her"
So no you have no right to execute sinners even if they deserve death according to the scriptures because you're not perfect either. Sins against religion should be punished as such, by God on judgment day. So stop this nonsense about killing people.
:fluffle:
What part of what he said are ignoring, first of all? Second of all, since the entire message is one of discernment, suggesting we do so is hardly an act of convenience. In fact, it's claiming that one must be dogmatic in order to promote your own bigotry despite the entire message being to the contrary is what is not so mildly convenient.
:fluffle:
yeah well ya know, there was this movement that occurred about 500 years ago....what was it called?
oh yeah the protestant reformation
when they decided that the pope wasnt going to be the boss of them it meant that NO ONE is the boss of them, that every christian is free to read the bible and interpret it.
that means that i dont have to believe what YOU think the bible says or what fred fucking phelps thinks the bible says.
i can read it for myself and understand, as snafurti said, that it needs to be put in its proper cultural context and read with jesus' commandment of love in mind.
That's the spirit! And yes, I like being a protestant. ;)
Prayer isn't only about triggering miracles or asking for divine intervention. Sometimes prayer is no different from picking up the phone and calling your dad. More often I pray when I need personal strength or emotional peace. Call it placebo if you will, but it works and it works well. I've seen it work enough times in enough different circumstances and scenarios to know it's not a placebo and it CAN trigger miracles. But if you don't believe it, you're just muttering pretty prose.
Great post - and what a wonderful way to put it.
"The Bible doesn't apply to me!" That sums up what you've been claiming all along, neatly, and why I don't consider you to be a true Christian.
I don't have to do jack, since I don't give them any weight. It's your claimed holy book of bits and pieces to ignore, not mine.
As I said, bitch to JC, not to me.
You haven't quoted where the Bible says it isn't, and I have quoted where it numerous times does that and where Jesus says "yeah, that still applies". All I've gotten from you so far is "I don't like those parts, they're so mean, I'd like to think Christianity isn't a mean religion, so it can't be!".
That one's never meant anything to Christians, and you know it, while kill the fags has been of utmost importance.
It's your kooky religion, not mine. If you can't face it, then perhaps you shouldn't claim to be a follower of it. And that's my entire point - stop denying what a horrible religion it is.
Explain to me this, Fass: Why do you deem it necessary to make personal attacks on people you disagree with, yet criticize the exact same behavior in others?

Doesn't really make much sense, now does it? And it makes a piss-poor position for a civilized argument, to say the least.

Really, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning? Why so angry?

Agree or disagree - but insulting won't get you anything nor anywhere.
I forgive you for ignoring what is written. You better hope that your deity does.
I am on very good terms with Him. God loves me and Jesus died for my sins long before my time. That's all I need to know, really.

It does, however, seem very likely that you are very angry for some reason.
I wonder where that will get you?
wellll... not to everybody.....
:rolleyes: *sigh*
Only those who chose to hear that message will understand it.
Those who don't surely won't.

Who the fuck are you?
Somebody with more manners than you have shown in the whole thread.

Then I apologise unreservedly for that.

Sigh, this got out of hand. My bad.

Still kind of on topic though, I don't see why it is apparently so evil to dislike somebody's beliefs. I would never insult somebody because of their race, gender, disability etc. But I don't see why we should need to be so tolerant of other's religious beliefs if they themselves have consciously chosen them. We judge people's non-religious views. For instance illegal immigration. We will criticise someone's belief if they say something like "we should shoot at people trying to cross the border", but for some reason a lot of people see it as taboo to criticise someone's religious choice, merely because it is about religion. That is fucked IMO. Why can't we criticise religious views just as we criticise political views or what sports team we root for?

For the same reason you'd scream like a stuck pig if I said (not that I believed it) that being agnostic makes you an amoral fucktard.

What I believe does not affect you in any way. To pitch a tantrum calling me stupid, idiotic, and yelling that you hate me says more about you than it does about me: namely that you're childish, intolerant, and apparently see nothing wrong with abusing others because they don't agree with you.

I suggest that you grow up.

lol, yeah. My bad.

But in general I think I was right that for some reason people think it is taboo to insult someone's religion. You could be having quite a nice argumental conversation about an election, then politely try and change it to be about someone's religion, and why they follow it even with x, and they will find it rude.

No it's more that you have no recourse but to be insulting. Sad, really.

And that may be some of the problem, at least to some of us non theists from understanding

Some of us have come to the realization that a religious belief is really just a choice, and while we made our choice based on our opinion we just cant understand how someone can view it as not a choice but as objectively right choice

That leap is maybe where some of the contention comes in, I realize I made a choice and that I may be wrong how ever much I dont think so ...

The difference is that I am not abusing you for what you believe in. Apparently, some non-believers (not including you, UT) think that insults = a rational argument.

Do you pray? Do you feel that praying actually helps? I think my sig sums up my opinion on the matter, but I'd like to hear people's justifications for prayer.

I tried that. It didn't work.

Yes, it is rather amazing what humans can do through sheer will. As has been said before, prayer does nothing. If solving problems were as easy as saying a few words, war would be a thing of the past. You Christians sicken me.

And people who can do nothing more than insult others show their worthlessness for all to see.

2.1 billion people believe in an invisible sky wizard (invisible because he is apparently so hideous that his countenance conveniently kills you) that they should worship because some naked people, including a rib-woman, in a garden ate an apple after a talking snake convinced them to, leading to a worldwide flood that left no evidence and was only survived by a man fond of talking to himself who somehow managed to fit two of every species on a boat of very finite space, some time after which a demigod Jew, begotten by a poltergeist and a "virgin", got nailed to some planks and became a zombie and promised to come back to kill them all.

Honey, we left ridiculous behind us a long time ago.

...and that justifies accusing all Christians of bigotry, how exactly?

It doesn't. It does show bigotry, though.

I forgive you for ignoring what is written. You better hope that your deity does.

Ha. Why is what is written so important? I mean the religion survived for thousands of years with no writings at all and Jesus had no writings to work from. I think it's hilarious that you claim that the only people who are right are the bigots who hate you and therefore the whole religion is wrong. The fallacy of this is so obvious that I can't help but simply giggle.

My "deity" could care less about what's written by men on a bunch of paper so far as I know. Why you'd claim He doesn't exist while claiming to know what He doesn't and does care about is so deliciious illogical that one wonders if you're not purposefully trying to look silly.

Good luck, and it would be nice if there were a Christian apologetic or theologian really skilled in their theology that could answer these questions.

This thread's already filled with a disgusting amount of hatred and anger against Christians that is almost frightening at times in its intensity; if this is what we'd get if we got rid of religion, Gods have mercy on us because it actually manages to be worse than contemporary religion. It's far beyond criticism, it's downright cruel. Honestly, it's not painting a very nice picture of the "tolerance" that so many people here supposedly possess.

To be completely ironic, Amen Vetalia. ;)
For all that we've been told how vile Christians are and how arrogant, violent, and hateful -- who has actually SHOWN that behavior in this debate, and who has NOT?

Who has resorted to ad hominems, and who has not?
Who has resorted to flaming, and who has not?
Who has used debate as an excuse to be as derisive and hurtful as possible, and who has not?

His nonsense isn't even worth refuting since it's just a repetition of "I ignore the parts I don't like, and go with the fluffiness I can stomach" and "How dare you show me what the Bible actually says? I'd like to pretend it doesn't say that! I'd like to pretend Christianity is nice and warm and welcoming and tolerant!" It's a bunch of crock, that's what it is, and the only one fooled by it is himself.

The Bible didn't exist when the subject of my religion created my religion. Why would I worship a book LATER compiled by men that does not agree with what he taught. I think it's hilarious that you drop any argument that doesn't agree with you, one fallacy, employ the One True Scotsman, another fallacy, and ad hominems, another fallacy. Looks like you've got nothing but fallacies to rely on.

One wonders why it's so important to you that my religion be one of hatred and bigotry. Need company?

To be completely ironic, Amen Vetalia. ;)
For all that we've been told how vile Christians are and how arrogant, violent, and hateful -- who has actually SHOWN that behavior in this debate, and who has NOT?

Who has resorted to ad hominems, and who has not?
Who has resorted to flaming, and who has not?
Who has used debate as an excuse to be as derisive and hurtful as possible, and who has not?

That's not fair. Not all Atheists are so afraid they might be wrong that they have to be so angry and dogmatic. Just like not all Christians are afraid they might be wrong. People who are comfortable with the spiritual relationship they've created don't freak out because people don't agree. Grave_n_Idle is a perfect example of that. It also so happens that he also took the time to learn the Bible so he wouldn't sound ignorant while claiming it teaches differently than it does. I won't allow Fass or the other bigots to be a representative of my beliefs OR those of rational Atheists.

The Bible didn't exist when the subject of my religion created my religion. Why would I worship a book LATER compiled by men that does not agree with what he taught.

So you don't believe that the words of the bible are infallible and the ones of god, right ?

Then where do you get your teachings from ? The Jesus of the christian religion is only described in the bible itself. It still remains to be seen if he historically existed or not.

So how do you know jesus ever existed, or what he said ?

But, wait, the mods are anti-Christian, aren't they? Have I mentioned I love how vocally Christian you are, lately, Kat?

You will find that we mods have been chosen across the spectrum; some of us are religious, some are not. Some of us are liberal; some conservative. Our ages are far ranging, as well. You may be shocked to believe that we don't always agree with each other (Hack WILL insist that Chicago style hotdogs, hidden under a mountain of garden is superior to the NY frank, sauerkraut and brown mustard, silly man!) but we don't feel the need, even when disagreeing, to try to utterly destroy each other.

It's good to know some folks don't mind me expressing my beliefs, but if you look back through my posts over the years, I've been expressing this for a very long time. I refuse to feel embarassed because someone can only express vitriol and hatred in response to what I've said, or because they believe insults are a debating method.

That's not fair. Not all Atheists are so afraid they might be wrong that they have to be so angry and dogmatic. Just like not all Christians are afraid they might be wrong. People who are comfortable with the spiritual relationship they've created don't freak out because people don't agree. Grave_n_Idle is a perfect example of that. It also so happens that he also took the time to learn the Bible so he wouldn't sound ignorant while claiming it teaches differently than it does. I won't allow Fass or the other bigots to be a representative of my beliefs OR those of rational Atheists.

If you interpreted that to mean that I think all Atheists and Agnostics are angry and hateful, then let me clarify: I meant those expressing hatred and anger in this thread.

I should have thought that was obvious, regarding my responses to Upward Thrust, who has actually been debating and disagreeing without exhibiting any of the behavior I mentioned.

Honestly, it's not painting a very nice picture of the "tolerance" that so many people here supposedly possess.

As was discussed, why should we have tolerance for willful ignorance?

As was discussed, why should we have tolerance for willful ignorance?

Main Entry: ig·no·rance
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&n(t)s
Function: noun
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

Since we are not lacking in knowledge, nor education, nor awareness, we are not ignorant, although it seems you are not precisely in tune with what the word means.

That's not exactly what I mean. All I mean is that God grants prayers based on if it would be good to do so; if he's truly benevolent, he probably can't or won't grant prayers that could have a significant negative effect down the line. It would be terrible to do a good deed for one person that would lead to an evil act; he may be able to only grant prayers that will not have that outcome.

But then again, who knows? Any God's thought processes will be radically different from our own.

If it is good to do so? If the outcome of answering a prayer is good, why would Mr Omniscient have done that anyway? Why the need for the prayer?

Main Entry: ig·no·rance
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&n(t)s
Function: noun
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

Since we are not lacking in knowledge, nor education, nor awareness, we are not ignorant, although it seems you are not precisely in tune with what the word means.

No. You are lacking awareness. You are ignorant. And you have the knowledge and resources to easily stop your ignorant delusion, but you choose not to.

I pray.

I also believe God helps those that help themselves.

No. You are lacking awareness. You are ignorant. And you have the knowledge and resources to easily stop your ignorant delusion, but you choose not to.

Truly, with two educational degrees, I am not lacking awareness. Your disagreement with my belief does not change the dictionary definition, dear.

No. You are lacking awareness. You are ignorant. And you have the knowledge and resources to easily stop your ignorant delusion, but you choose not to.

Wow... I know the comment was not addressed to me, but I just want to ask you something. What makes you so sure that you are right?

Truly, with two educational degrees, I am not lacking awareness. Your disagreement with my belief does not change the dictionary definition, dear.

I don't see how; you aren't aware that your belief in the truth of the Bible and divinity of Christianity is a delusion (or maybe you are, but that is another kettle of fish lol) ergo you are ignorant.

I don't see how; you aren't aware that your belief in the truth of the Bible and divinity of Christianity is a delusion (or maybe you are, but that is another kettle of fish lol) ergo you are ignorant.

And around and around and around we go. Do you realize that we are RIGHT back where this thread started?

I don't see how; you aren't aware that your belief in the truth of the Bible and divinity of Christianity is a delusion (or maybe you are, but that is another kettle of fish lol) ergo you are ignorant.

No, but you certainly have been flaming and flamebaiting me for all this time.

Wow... I know the comment was not addressed to me, but I just want to ask you something. What makes you so sure that you are right?

I'm agnostic on the existence of God, but I am quite confident that Christianity, at least, is bollocks, seeing as its cornerstone, the Bible, is just a bunch of stories with little to no historical truth and many of which are re-writings or amalgamations of older myths and legends of other contemporary religions... I'm fairly sure using that as a guiding light to find God is wrong.

I don't see how; you aren't aware that your belief in the truth of the Bible and divinity of Christianity is a delusion (or maybe you are, but that is another kettle of fish lol) ergo you are ignorant.

You know what... I am tired of you athiests prostyletizing(wth?) your doggoned RELIGION all over this country.. I mean..come on... I see a cross or two on a building and maybe a statue of baby jesus on every 10 miles or so of road.. but you A-Theists have your little symbols all over the place. Every bare street corner and un-crucifixed home that I see... thats athiest symbolism! Us Christians at least have the decency to limit our representation, so as not to bother anyone else, but you folk flaunt your lack of faith. PffaH!


lawl :p

So you don't believe that the words of the bible are infallible and the ones of god, right ?

Then where do you get your teachings from ? The Jesus of the christian religion is only described in the bible itself. It still remains to be seen if he historically existed or not.

So how do you know jesus ever existed, or what he said ?

Ah, the good old false dichotomy. If it's not infallible, it's all bunk, right? It doesn't work that way. I don't consider my history book infallible either. Not to mention the Bible is not the only source, since not all Gospels are canon. I don't let a Pagan emperor decide what does and does not belong in my Bible. And of course there is that whole issue of the Jewish part not actually agreeing with the Jews. Now, neither did Jesus, but since everyone is crying about how Jesus said such teaching were infallible (he didn't) that fact is pretty significant. I also don't adhere to the Nicean creed.

I'm silly in that I follow the overarching teachings of Jesus found in all the Gospels which is that of discernment. But, hey, maybe I should let Atheists define it for me. That'll work.

And Proggresica has just won a week-long vacation off these boards because the internet does not give people the right to base their arguments practically solely on vitriolic ad hominems.

Being a zealous flamer is...

http://dagobah.tchmachines.com/~tpjzdd/albums/Photochop/not_key_to_airpower.jpg

EDIT: Then again, his nation is dead... permaban, rez, warn, delete.

Hmm..

Well, my parents love me and know when I'm in a crisis. They just choose to let me work it out on my own and not interfere unless I ask them for help. Doesn't mean I am not loved.

Same could be said about god I guess.

And they would continue to let harm come to you if you did not ask?

Probably not your parents would help reguardless if they knew harm was going to come weather you asked for it or not

And they would continue to let harm come to you if you did not ask?

Probably not your parents would help reguardless if they knew harm was going to come weather you asked for it or not

What if they knew, not thought, knew, that in the end that harm would not matter, why would they interfere? Particularly if that harm or at least the risk of it was the point? People who think God must interfere are placing a premium on physical security that needn't necessarily exist. In a world where wisdom is so valued, I find it odd that people would suggest that the best thing for us would be to be protected omnipotently from any kind of harm. I don't believe that. Why would that be a good thing?

And Proggresica has just won a week-long vacation off these boards because the internet does not give people the right to base their arguments practically solely on vitriolic ad hominems.

Being a zealous flamer is...

http://dagobah.tchmachines.com/~tpjzdd/albums/Photochop/not_key_to_airpower.jpg

EDIT: Then again, his nation is dead... permaban, rez, warn, delete.

Ooh, harsh. :p

If it is good to do so? If the outcome of answering a prayer is good, why would Mr Omniscient have done that anyway? Why the need for the prayer?

Because maybe it's up to us to take responsibility for ourselves?

What if they knew, not thought, knew, that in the end that harm would not matter, why would they interfere? Particularly if that harm or at least the risk of it was the point? People who think God must interfere are placing a premium on physical security that needn't necessarily exist. In a world where wisdom is so valued, I find it odd that people would suggest that the best thing for us would be to be protected omnipotently from any kind of harm. I don't believe that. Why would that be a good thing?

Thats not what I was arguing necessarily, my point that if it was better to be done over all god would have done it and if not he would not

Damn, the rabid atheist brigade is out in force today.
:rolleyes:

Because maybe it's up to us to take responsibility for ourselves?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12707814&postcount=71

Thats not what I was arguing necessarily, my point that if it was better to be done over all god would have done it and if not he would not

Ah, I see. I misunderstood. In that case, I agree.

Well, the vast majority isn't hard to interpret at all. The vast majority of the words translate easily into modern language. The vast majority of the rules are simple to understand. The overall message is very easy to understand.

It's the things that don't readily line up with Christ's teachings that take the extra effort.

Sorry, but this is one of the big lies of Christianity. For starters, it's not easy to translate most of what's in the Bible, largely because there is no definitive early manuscript, not even of the Gospels. There are huge discrepancies between early manuscripts, some small, some major. And let's not even get into the Old Testament since large sections of that, in order to get it into a modern language, has already been through one translation--from Hebrew or Aramaic into Greek, and then into whatever language you're reading it in. Forget about losing nuance--you can easily lose literal objective meaning that way, and since much of the original Hebrew doesn't even exist, there's no way to go back and check (and that assumes the originals were good copies of what came before).

So for you to believe that you have anything resembling a "true copy" of what some fourth century religious leaders decided would be the Bible, you have to seriously believe in divine intervention, and in a discussion of this type, where the very existence of a divine God who answers individual prayers is seriously in question, that leaves your book with a massive credibility gap.

Sorry, but this is one of the big lies of Christianity. For starters, it's not easy to translate most of what's in the Bible, largely because there is no definitive early manuscript, not even of the Gospels. There are huge discrepancies between early manuscripts, some small, some major. And let's not even get into the Old Testament since large sections of that, in order to get it into a modern language, has already been through one translation--from Hebrew or Aramaic into Greek, and then into whatever language you're reading it in. Forget about losing nuance--you can easily lose literal objective meaning that way, and since much of the original Hebrew doesn't even exist, there's no way to go back and check (and that assumes the originals were good copies of what came before).

So for you to believe that you have anything resembling a "true copy" of what some fourth century religious leaders decided would be the Bible, you have to seriously believe in divine intervention, and in a discussion of this type, where the very existence of a divine God who answers individual prayers is seriously in question, that leaves your book with a massive credibility gap.

...or something.
:eek:

...or something.
:eek:

Where'd everyone go? My point wasn't that devastating, especially to those people who don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.

:rolleyes:

:confused:

Where'd everyone go? My point wasn't that devastating, especially to those people who don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.

I think it did put a nice point on it because if you start believing in the inerrancy of the book, you have to start to wonder why there is so much other trash left in that bible as some claim, with no clear marking of what should or should not be followed

Eh? I believe it works, but then gain you should remember: "Heaven helps those who help themselves."

:confused:
*just play along*

I don't pray per se...but when I smudge I do ask for certain things, like clarity, strength, and so on. It's less of a prayer in the religious sense than a focusing.

Eh? I believe it works, but then gain you should remember: "Heaven helps those who help themselves."

Yeah, so when people say ... let's all say it now ...
"Heaven help us"
what they really mean is
"Commence looting and rioting"

Remember: pillage first, THEN burn

...
Rape the horses and pillage the women? Those ARE some evil men!

I think it did put a nice point on it because if you start believing in the inerrancy of the book, you have to start to wonder why there is so much other trash left in that bible as some claim, with no clear marking of what should or should not be followed

You also have to deal with the fact that "the Bible" as it is known today didn't come into existence until the 4th century and was put together by a group of people trying to create a common dogma so they could consolidate into a legitimate political force--and they succeeded. The history of the early churches makes for interesting reading, as long as you're not locked into the idea that these people who are largely now canonized weren't very saintlike in their behavior.

I've been told it doesn't work if you don't actaully put your heart into it. I don't know about you guys, but I need my heart to live.

I've been told it doesn't work if you don't actaully put your heart into it. I don't know about you guys, but I need my heart to live.

You lie. You've got access to some pretty keen equipment, iirc. Funny you said "heart", though .... ===>

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-03-30-prayer-study_x.htm

Yeah, so when people say ... let's all say it now ...
"Heaven help us"
what they really mean is...


that they're Catholic. :D

that they're Catholic. :D

Ah yes, as was George Carlin in Dogma ... and perhaps more importantly, in "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" :D

Where'd everyone go? My point wasn't that devastating, especially to those people who don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.
I went to bed after saying my prayers. ;):p:D

Where'd everyone go? My point wasn't that devastating, especially to those people who don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Eh? I was in bed? I don't live on these message boards 24/7 you know.

I don't pray per se...but when I smudge I do ask for certain things, like clarity, strength, and so on. It's less of a prayer in the religious sense than a focusing.

Yeah i'd say that best describes what I do. I use it for the reasons you've said but my method is the one I was brought up with (presbyterian family). Therefore I pray to God but I don't believe in a God. It just feels more natural because i'm used to it

I've been told it doesn't work if you don't actaully put your heart into it. I don't know about you guys, but I need my heart to live.

Nah, if it works than God gave you what you wanted and if it doesn't he chose to not give it to you. Simple as that really, for those who want to believe their lives are controlled by some mystical power.

I pray and it always helps.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12707814&postcount=71

Have my babies. My millions of babies.

I pray and it always helps.Do you have evidence of this?

Eh? I was in bed? I don't live on these message boards 24/7 you know.23.5/7 ??

23.5/7 ??

22.67/6.98

Do you have evidence of this?

maybe it only helps emotionally. when I pray the "help" I receive comes in emotional benefits, they are hard to quantify.

Do you have evidence of this?

How ironic given your signature.

Where'd everyone go? My point wasn't that devastating, especially to those people who don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.

As UpwardThrust pointed out, it pretty much did the trick. :)

Have my babies. My millions of babies.

I suspect that's an appropriate response to a post about "responsibility", eh? ;)

I suspect that's an appropriate response to a post about "responsibility", eh? ;)

Maynard is LAW.

Maynard is LAW.

Weird, i've got a friend who swears by the same.
..."Jimmy" said something particularly interesting about Bush a while back in a Spin article - back at the release of Lateralus.
And he says some funny things in The Outsider DVD single.
:)

Weird, i've got a friend who swears by the same.
..."Jimmy" said something particularly interesting about Bush a while back in a Spin article - back at the release of Lateralus.
And he says some funny things in The Outsider DVD single.
:)

That man's bathwater is a holy weapon against the undead.

Jimmy and The Outsider are but part of the Gospel that we as the humble servants of the Church of Maynard worship by.

Yeah. He's that good.

Well, empirically, prayers seem to do more harm than good :

Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 604 received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; 597 did not receive intercessory prayer also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days, starting the night before CABG. The primary outcome was presence of any complication within 30 days of CABG. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality.

In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups.

American Heart Journal (http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS0002870305006496/abstract?browse_volume=151&issue_key=TOC%40%40JOURNALSNOSUPP%40YMHJ%400151%400004&issue_preview=no&select1=no&select1=no&vol=)

I call it meditation. Talking to an invisible person seems a little childish.

Well, empirically, prayers seem to do more harm than good :

American Heart Journal (http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS0002870305006496/abstract?browse_volume=151&issue_key=TOC%40%40JOURNALSNOSUPP%40YMHJ%400151%400004&issue_preview=no&select1=no&select1=no&vol=)

I'm not sure what kind of statistics they did on that, but according to a Chi-Square test, the results were not significantly different. I thought the comparison between people who were told they would receive prayer and people who were told they wouldn't might be significant, but they aren't in a Chi-Square test. Maybe they would be with a higher sample size - hard to tell.

I'm not sure what kind of statistics they did on that, but according to a Chi-Square test, the results were not significantly different. I thought the comparison between people who were told they would receive prayer and people who were told they wouldn't might be significant, but they aren't in a Chi-Square test. Maybe they would be with a higher sample size - hard to tell.

Erm.. the statistics are listed in the text I quoted.
They did a standard experiment, one group receiving prayers, one group not receiving prayers and a "blind" group.
The group who received prayers and knew they were receiving prayers had 7% more cases of medical complications than the group who wasn't prayed for.

Erm.. the statistics are listed in the text I quoted.

They list a confidence interval, which could be any sort of test. Like I said, I ran a Chi-Square test and the results weren't anywhere near a significant different. They are getting a difference, but without significance, there is no reason to believe that it is anything more than a fluke.

They did a standard experiment, one group receiving prayers, one group not receiving prayers and a "blind" group.
The group who received prayers and knew they were receiving prayers had 7% more cases of medical complications than the group who wasn't prayed for.

That 7% means nothing unless they have statistics demonstrating that it is significant. I'm not an expert on statistics, but I do know that the Chi-Square test is fairly standard in these sorts of experiments, and it leads to the conclusion that the differences are not significant.

Edit: From what I can tell of the full-text, they didn't do any standardized tests for statistical significance. Instead, they made up a few numbers for what they would consider clinically relevant, and then used those numbers to devise a statistical test.

Interestingly enough, they also claim to have done a Chi-Square test, which is fairly simple. But, with the data they provide, I'm not getting any p-values below 0.2, which would suggest no statistical significance.

It really looks like they had to stretch the statistics an awful lot for this one.

Wow, there are all sorts of problems with this study. Apparently, if they had missing data on a patient, they simply assumed that said patient had a complication.

Note: This doesn't mean that I don't think prayer can be helpful. It's just that studies like this always seem to have some pretty obvious flaws. This one isn't as bad as the one where they unblinded the study, found no results, and then went on a wild-goose chase for anything that looked significant, but it still seems flawed.

That man's bathwater is a holy weapon against the undead.

Jimmy and The Outsider are but part of the Gospel that we as the humble servants of the Church of Maynard worship by.

Yeah. He's that good.
Oh, yes. *nods*
May we all make weapons of our imperfections.

Well, empirically, prayers seem to do more harm than good :



American Heart Journal (http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS0002870305006496/abstract?browse_volume=151&issue_key=TOC%40%40JOURNALSNOSUPP%40YMHJ%400151%400004&issue_preview=no&select1=no&select1=no&vol=)

:D

Wuv you.

They list a confidence interval, which could be any sort of test. Like I said, I ran a Chi-Square test and the results weren't anywhere near a significant different. They are getting a difference, but without significance, there is no reason to believe that it is anything more than a fluke.



That 7% means nothing unless they have statistics demonstrating that it is significant. I'm not an expert on statistics, but I do know that the Chi-Square test is fairly standard in these sorts of experiments, and it leads to the conclusion that the differences are not significant.

Edit: From what I can tell of the full-text, they didn't do any standardized tests for statistical significance. Instead, they made up a few numbers for what they would consider clinically relevant, and then used those numbers to devise a statistical test.

Interestingly enough, they also claim to have done a Chi-Square test, which is fairly simple. But, with the data they provide, I'm not getting any p-values below 0.2, which would suggest no statistical significance.

It really looks like they had to stretch the statistics an awful lot for this one.

Wow, there are all sorts of problems with this study. Apparently, if they had missing data on a patient, they simply assumed that said patient had a complication.
There are a few others such as Friedman's I believe has some application (though tending towards economics) can be used with this sort of distribution but if it is more logarithmic which bio stats tend to lean towards then Chi while ok is not ALWAYS your best test of fit.

In short terms there may be other tests out there that do better and may change results but chi and chi-sq are a good start

They list a confidence interval, which could be any sort of test. Like I said, I ran a Chi-Square test and the results weren't anywhere near a significant different. They are getting a difference, but without significance, there is no reason to believe that it is anything more than a fluke.



That 7% means nothing unless they have statistics demonstrating that it is significant. I'm not an expert on statistics, but I do know that the Chi-Square test is fairly standard in these sorts of experiments, and it leads to the conclusion that the differences are not significant.

Edit: From what I can tell of the full-text, they didn't do any standardized tests for statistical significance. Instead, they made up a few numbers for what they would consider clinically relevant, and then used those numbers to devise a statistical test.

Interestingly enough, they also claim to have done a Chi-Square test, which is fairly simple. But, with the data they provide, I'm not getting any p-values below 0.2, which would suggest no statistical significance.

It really looks like they had to stretch the statistics an awful lot for this one.

Wow, there are all sorts of problems with this study. Apparently, if they had missing data on a patient, they simply assumed that said patient had a complication.

Could you perhaps provide quotes for that? All I have access to is the abstract, and several quotes from the report in a book. As far as I can tell, they didn't assume anything and just went with the data they could get.