Religion/God/Jesus/Etc.

[popdisaster00]

So. Here it goes. I grew up catholic...not strong catholic, but catholic none the less. Catholic as in we went to church every sunday - my parents, brother, and i - for most of my entire life. I am 17 now and my family stopped going to church about 2 years ago. My parents still have "faith" and pray every night, as far as I know, but my brother who is now 19 stopped believing in god and jesus and everything christian about 4 years ago. In no way is he a satanist, he's actually pretty educated. but he is basically neutral when it comes to religion, and choses not to believe in anything. Fast forward to now, a month before my senior year in High School. I'm pretty sure I'm about to do the same. I used to pray every night, but I don't anymore. I really dont know who or what to blame this on, but I'm definitely falling out of this religion. I really honestly try to read on both ends of religion, both believers and nonbelievers, and i just keep siding with nonbelievers. Is this bad? So many stories in the bible, i just cant buy them. I guess for me, I don't believe in anything that I can't see. I know that they say religion isn't about seeing, it's about feeling and knowing and assuming that god is there watching down on you. But...at the end of the day...my prayers are unanswered. I feel like I have to, and should make my own miracles. I do things for myself, you know? Lately, I dont go to God to help me with stuff such as family problems, health problems, etc. I've fixed them myself and it just seems to work better. There are just too many sick, terrible things happening in this world for me to really believe in this higher power.

I guess why I'm posting this is because I'm asking for your opinion. Believers, nonbelievers. All of you. Do you believe in God? Why or why not? If you disagree with me, can you give me reasons as to give Christianity another chance? And if you agree with me, can you tell me why you don't believe anymore?

Thank you.

[odnetnin]

I don't consider myself a Christian. I grew up a protestant. I believe in one God and that God had a son name Jesus Christ or whatever and died for our sins. However, I hate Christians because of what tools they appear to be. Thus, I don't consider myself a Christian. I just need God as a higher power for guidance and a positive way of thinking. In a way, I can sort of relate. I really don't want to believe in God, or a god for that matter, but I need to to help keep myself alive for another seven years or so.

[Mula225]

well if there isn't..i'm not looking forward to rotting in the ground..

[cantnokdahustle]

Atheist :wave:

Philosophy major (undergrad) looking to go to Grad school for Religious Studies:

I have been an atheist since i was 12, after reading the bible. I have never really been pleased with the response "cause i said so" or "cause it says so!" Might makes right is a terrible philosophy and not one that we, as human beings, any longer champion as a "good thing." I couldn't stand the way that "god" treated "his" creation, especially in the Torah, and I was really put off by the story of Job.

Adam and Eve was also something i had a lot of quarrels with. I didn't/don't understand how you can ask two beings, who are basically large 2 year olds (mentally), to not disobey you, when they haven't any sort of idea of right and wrong. You can not hold someone morally culpable for something they can not understand. And to hold all of mankind responsible? this is a just god?

So, started reading a lot of mythology and it soon became very apparent that many of the stories were "borrowed" from Mesopotamian myth, especially Sumerian. Adapa and the West Wind is point for point the adam and eve story (with exception of the moral).

Xtianity/judaism and Islam in general are pretty hilarious, while also being ridiculously scary in consequence:

-we are god's chosen people, we don't care if you've never heard of our god, or whether there have been humans roaming the earth for thousands of years before us. They and you are going to hell because you were unfortunate enough to have been born on the other side of the world.

-without Judas' betrayal, there is not crucificion, no death, no resurrection, no ascent, no christianity. What does that say about "free will?"

honestly, if you read up on mythology, as well as, other regions of the globe and the things that the folks their value(d), it becomes quickly apparent that religion and god(s) are simply a human manifestation of desire for order/justice and what societies/individuals hope to acheive (except for the Abrahamic faiths, for they see society as a consequence of "our fall," and not something to be proud of)

[Narcissm]

im not sure if i believe...mainly becouse of all the bad natural disasters that happen..if god was so powerful would he not stop those thimgs..instead of letting thousands die for no reason.

however id like to believe that there is somewhere we can go after we die..purely because of all teh people i love that have died.

dont worry about loosing your faith.....im catholic and the same age as you and i lost mine a long time ago....i pray when i need to. that way i feel it matters more...indstead of being forced to pray..if you get me?

/x



/x

[cantnokdahustle]

I don't consider myself a Christian. I grew up a protestant. I believe in one God and that God had a son name Jesus Christ or whatever and died for our sins. However, I hate Christians because of what tools they appear to be. Thus, I don't consider myself a Christian. I just need God as a higher power for guidance and a positive way of thinking. In a way, I can sort of relate. I really don't want to believe in God, or a god for that matter, but I need to to help keep myself alive for another seven years or so.


you might want to check into the unitarian universalist group: they are deists, for the most part, but believe in the moral teachings of jesus.

[cantnokdahustle]

well if there isn't..i'm not looking forward to rotting in the ground..

you might want to check into cremation then.

[mikeford]

until someone can prove to me there is a god, i will not believe in it.

Atheism is the only thing that makes any sense.

For a really indepth look at why atheism is the right choice, and why ALL religions of the world are instruments of pure evil, whos bad TOTALLY outweighs any good that may come from them, please read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris.

I was already an atheist when I read it, but it definitely solidifed all my positions for me.

[mps]

I'm a physicist, thus I understand logic not far-fetched beliefs based on ideology from thousands of years ago. I'd love to spend my life finding out where we really did come from (as in, the Universe), rather than wasting my time with organised religion, which I despise of so deeply. So yeah, I'm atheist, and realised it as soon as I was smart enough to think for myself, and work out that none of these religious stories make any sense whatsoever, unless you want to publish them in a childrens' fairy tale book.

[Troggy]

I have definitely learned that being raised a Christian does not necessarily make you one. Going through the motions in a religion is one of the most pointless things you can do if you do not actually believe in it. Christianity is often misconstrued as a 'religion'. Christianity is one thing, it is a relationship with God through the Savior Jesus Christ. It is something that, although not tangible, is real and moving in the believer's life. I have come to believe in this on my own not because I was raised in the church, but because I have seen numerous occasions where God has changed my life and others lives around me.

In high school I definitely turned away from God, I rarely went to church or read the Bible or even prayed. This took a huge toll on my life. By my freshman year in college I was a wreck. Maybe a lot of people can get by in life just assuming that all there is to life is what you see in front of you, but is that really fulfilling? I eventually broke down and prayed that I would be reconciled to God. Since that point I have grown so much and become so much more content. It is our purpose in life to glorify God.

Christianity is unique because it exists not for those who are in it, but for those who are not. At its heart it is a faith that lets God work through us to benefit others. Christianity is not a "tool of evil" unless people corrupt it to be so. There are groups and churches and even powerful figures who distort what Christianity is all about. It is simply about sharing the good news of Jesus Christ with others and helping those in need in any way possible. This means we as Christians are responsible for giving everyone a chance to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

All people have their doubts to whether they put their trust in the right things, it's natural. I surely couldn't convince anyone here that they are wrong just by typing some words, and vice versa. But at the end of the day I believe in God because I have seen him working in and around me for a long time.

[Juliana101]

I've been raised in basically the same family as yours. I also went to Catholic school all my life. I went to church every Sunday, and prayed before every single class in high school. I dropped out of faith about Sophomore year. It's not that I don't believe in God, it's that I have too many things going on in my life right now to be concerned with God, and that's normal.

Instead of using God as a Savior and a higher being, I use him as a moral standard. I do (for the most part) good things so that I do not disappoint my God. Rarely do I pray to him asking him for something.

I find things work better for me now that I use him for what I should do.

Also, instead of asking yourself how or why. Ask yourself why not. Or how can God not be there? Do you think existance is merely a coincidence?

I'm not trying to push faith on you, seeing as you're already a Baptized and Confirmed Catholic, but I'd like to hear what other people have to say.

[we are cured]

I'm not trying to knock anyone's beliefs, but...there are 5104567923 'religions' in this world, mostly based on the same principle of trying to explain the unexplainable. To me, that says something about human nature- when there are no answers, we like to believe that there are to reduce our insecurities about our ultimate lack of control. For most of its existence, Chrisitianity was mostly used by nobles to give their serfs/slaves something to distract them from their horrible lives. I'm not saying it doesn't have any good values- it certainly teaches forgiveness and acceptance (in some cases).

The Universe is so vast and ridiculously uniform that I believe there may be something/some reason for all of this. I do not, however, believe that humans came up with it. There is so much more going on out there, be it other forms of life or giant collisions, than our petty concerns and lifestyles.

[AShannon04]

I believe in some sort of higher power, but he/she/it/whatever doesn't have a name or face for me. I don't really buy into the whole idea of organized religion and I don't like the idea of living my life because a book or someone tells me to do something. I would much rather live my life the way I think I should, with tolerance for everyone and all that good shit.

How can religions preach peace and tolerance if there are holy wars over the tiniest details? I just think the minute segregations between faiths and demoninations is kinda silly. Everyone should just live their life the best they can.

Don't get me wrong: I have no problem with people who are religious and if that works for them, then great. It's just not something that motivates me to become a better person.

[mps]

I'm not trying to knock anyone's beliefs, but...there are 5104567923 'religions' in this world, mostly based on the same principle of trying to explain the unexplainable. To me, that says something about human nature- when there are no answers, we like to believe that there are to reduce our insecurities about our ultimate lack of control. For most of its existence, Chrisitianity was mostly used by nobles to give their serfs/slaves something to distract them from their horrible lives. I'm not saying it doesn't have any good values- it certainly teaches forgiveness and acceptance (in some cases).

The Universe is so vast and ridiculously uniform that I believe there may be something/some reason for all of this. I do not, however, believe that humans came up with it. There is so much more going on out there, be it other forms of life or giant collisions, than our petty concerns and lifestyles.

Yes my friend, it's called inflation. Haha, proven by physics, look it up.

[howdydoody]

Yes my friend, it's called inflation. Haha, proven by physics, look it up.
damn son.. that picture fucks w/ my brain lol!!
for the ones who take a scientific approach to why we are here, you should all look into a guy named Lee Strobel. He grew up catholic, decided at a young age to be agnostic, then by twist of fate began to openly research if science pointed to a creator. In a book called The Case for a Creator, he finds some pretty dead ends to some of the widely accepted and still taught scientific theories. This is a little long winded, but if you're interested: http://www.geocities.com/lauho08/evidence_of_modern_physics_points_t o_a_creator.html

as for me personally, i grew up in a christian church, that later broke off into its own nondenominational christian church. i have a great pastoral teacher who urges people to look with open minds to the bible and not just take his word for it. granted, many people look at the bible as a book of stories, but i'm interested personally in finding historical and scientific evidence that supports the bible, though i'm not educated enough to make any arguments at this point.

however, i am certain that in my own life i need god, jesus, and the spirit. any time i've ever turned my back and began to "doubt" it has landed me in a great deal of trouble. the most recent of which almost killed my marriage and family because i became self righteous and selfish. everytime that i realize that i've fucked up, YET AGAIN, when i fall to my knees and pray for the strenth to do what is right, i've always been much better off. I have had many answered prayers, and mind you, prayers are funny. Because you can ask for something, and a series of events may happen that makes you think "no one listened, no one answered" but if you give it some time, in the end when it's all said and done, God will have done what is best for you. You just need faith.

On a side note, some people say "i can do it better on my own" IMO, there is God, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit. The holy spirit is hard to define, but the best way i know how is that it is that ever moving spirit that is within all people, within your emotions. If you've ever been to church and listened to a story someone told of a testimony and cried and thought "why the hell am i crying, its not that big of a deal!" that is the holy spirit moving you. If you've ever been touched by someone singing amazing grace that you choked up, that is the holy spirit. So, it exists in us all, and if you have faith in it, and trust it, then yes, things will turn out good for you.

um.. i hope thats comprehensible, lol.

[Mula225]

you might want to check into cremation then.

Was already planning on it..

My logic behind it all..the guilty has to be punished. I have a hard time believing that the truly evil people in this world, will be subjected to the same fate as everyone else. Call me crazy..but i'd rather believe in something than nothing..us humans give ourselves far too much credit..

[odnetnin]

you might want to check into the unitarian universalist group: they are deists, for the most part, but believe in the moral teachings of jesus.
No thanks. I am not about to join any cult.

[mikeford]

seriously

"the end of faith" by sam harris

[mps]

damn son.. that picture fucks w/ my brain lol!!
for the ones who take a scientific approach to why we are here, you should all look into a guy named Lee Strobel. He grew up catholic, decided at a young age to be agnostic, then by twist of fate began to openly research if science pointed to a creator. In a book called The Case for a Creator, he finds some pretty dead ends to some of the widely accepted and still taught scientific theories. This is a little long winded, but if you're interested: http://www.geocities.com/lauho08/evidence_of_modern_physics_points_t o_a_creator.html



Sorry, but that's all bullshit. The scientific community as a whole strongly believes that there is no such thing as intelligent design, hence the reason Creationism is not/should not be taught as science. Isolated cases like this of people trying to use their title's as "scientists" to try and prove to people that there is any shed of truth in a divine creator is saddening to the scientific community.

[grace we bestow]

I believe because of the things i've seen beaten through prayer. I believe that prayers are answered one way or another. Sometimes you won't even notice it. There's no way I would have survived some of the things i've been through without God and His love. It also comes down to faith. Just as in you have faith that say, the box of cereal you're opening is what the box says it is.

But belief in God isn't something someone can learn. It's something you have to figure out for yourself and experience first hand. And I promise you, everyone will experience God in a very real way in their life, even if they want to deny it. It has/is/will happen.

All of this could look like rambling because I don't know exactly how to put in words my love for God. All I know is He is my best friend and the love of my life. Without Him I wouldn't be me.

[howdydoody]

Sorry, but that's all bullshit. The scientific community as a whole strongly believes that there is no such thing as intelligent design, hence the reason Creationism is not/should not be taught as science. Isolated cases like this of people trying to use their title's as "scientists" to try and prove to people that there is any shed of truth in a divine creator is saddening to the scientific community.
i understand where you might be coming from. I did however read the book, and at the beginning of every chapter, whoever the "scientist" was that Strobel was interviewing had a seriously long list of credentials that i honestly had to skip over because of their length. I just found it interesting some of the potential debuking of theories, but i'm not very educated on science either, so.. thur ya go :)
I'm not saying creationism should be taught, but if there are scientific things still in textbooks that have been proven otherwise, neither should they be taught either.

[Rock]

I believe in some sort of higher power, but he/she/it/whatever doesn't have a name or face for me.
I was raised a Christian, and I think that's kind of where I'm at as well. I've struggled with this for a long time. For me, however, God is definitely a possibility. I'm just unsure.

How can religions preach peace and tolerance if there are holy wars over the tiniest details?
Holy wars were the early Christians' idea of converting non-believers and spreading Christianity. That doesn't mean it was God's plan. I don't believe the Bible mentions anything about holy wars.

All I know is He is my best friend and the love of my life.
Haha. That reminds me of that South Park episode: "It seems you are actually in love with Jesus."

[howdydoody]

I was raised a Christian, and I think that's kind of where I'm at as well. I've struggled with this for a long time. For me, however, God is definitely a possibility. I'm just unsure.


Holy wars were the early Christians' idea of converting non-believers and spreading Christianity. That doesn't mean it was God's plan. I don't believe the Bible mentions anything about holy wars.


Haha. That reminds me of that South Park episode: "It seems you are actually in love with Jesus."
OMG!! you are satan!@! post 666!!1! thought that was ironic, heh

[Jra1]

So. Here it goes. I grew up catholic...not strong catholic, but catholic none the less. Catholic as in we went to church every sunday - my parents, brother, and i - for most of my entire life. I am 17 now and my family stopped going to church about 2 years ago. My parents still have "faith" and pray every night, as far as I know, but my brother who is now 19 stopped believing in god and jesus and everything christian about 4 years ago. In no way is he a satanist, he's actually pretty educated. but he is basically neutral when it comes to religion, and choses not to believe in anything. Fast forward to now, a month before my senior year in High School. I'm pretty sure I'm about to do the same. I used to pray every night, but I don't anymore. I really dont know who or what to blame this on, but I'm definitely falling out of this religion. I really honestly try to read on both ends of religion, both believers and nonbelievers, and i just keep siding with nonbelievers. Is this bad? So many stories in the bible, i just cant buy them. I guess for me, I don't believe in anything that I can't see. I know that they say religion isn't about seeing, it's about feeling and knowing and assuming that god is there watching down on you. But...at the end of the day...my prayers are unanswered. I feel like I have to, and should make my own miracles. I do things for myself, you know? Lately, I dont go to God to help me with stuff such as family problems, health problems, etc. I've fixed them myself and it just seems to work better. There are just too many sick, terrible things happening in this world for me to really believe in this higher power.

I guess why I'm posting this is because I'm asking for your opinion. Believers, nonbelievers. All of you. Do you believe in God? Why or why not? If you disagree with me, can you give me reasons as to give Christianity another chance? And if you agree with me, can you tell me why you don't believe anymore?

Thank you.

that little portion made me cringe... level of education has absolutely no bearing on choice of religion. Take super-christian gay-haters for example, beleive in god, but are also clearly retarded.

as for the rest of your post, beleif has nothing to do with the amount you pray or where you pray or why you pray, it has to do with whether or not, when it came down to the wire... you seriously beleived in a higher being.
The bible is the most loop-hole-filled book ever written, if you base your religious beleifs solely on the bible you'll be sorely disappointed.

[oldwirehands]

im not sure if i believe...mainly becouse of all the bad natural disasters that happen..if god was so powerful would he not stop those thimgs..instead of letting thousands die for no reason.

however id like to believe that there is somewhere we can go after we die..purely because of all teh people i love that have died.

dont worry about loosing your faith.....im catholic and the same age as you and i lost mine a long time ago....i pray when i need to. that way i feel it matters more...indstead of being forced to pray..if you get me?

/x



/x

Ever heard of the wrath of God? Take a look around at whats going on in the world. All the hate and evil. If I was God, I'd sure be pissed off.

Either way, believe what you want. You don't need a label. If I am asked what religion I am, I just say "I am here".

[mikeford]

people who honestly instill their faith in an invisible man in the sky because some book tells them to seriously boggles my mind.

[howdydoody]

its not so much that a book tells me to as it is i've seen the effects in my personal life with and without trust in Him.

[livethesounds]

Atheist :wave:

Philosophy major (undergrad) looking to go to Grad school for Religious Studies:

I have been an atheist since i was 12, after reading the bible. I have never really been pleased with the response "cause i said so" or "cause it says so!" Might makes right is a terrible philosophy and not one that we, as human beings, any longer champion as a "good thing." I couldn't stand the way that "god" treated "his" creation, especially in the Torah, and I was really put off by the story of Job.

Adam and Eve was also something i had a lot of quarrels with. I didn't/don't understand how you can ask two beings, who are basically large 2 year olds (mentally), to not disobey you, when they haven't any sort of idea of right and wrong. You can not hold someone morally culpable for something they can not understand. And to hold all of mankind responsible? this is a just god?

So, started reading a lot of mythology and it soon became very apparent that many of the stories were "borrowed" from Mesopotamian myth, especially Sumerian. Adapa and the West Wind is point for point the adam and eve story (with exception of the moral).

Xtianity/judaism and Islam in general are pretty hilarious, while also being ridiculously scary in consequence:

-we are god's chosen people, we don't care if you've never heard of our god, or whether there have been humans roaming the earth for thousands of years before us. They and you are going to hell because you were unfortunate enough to have been born on the other side of the world.

-without Judas' betrayal, there is not crucificion, no death, no resurrection, no ascent, no christianity. What does that say about "free will?"

honestly, if you read up on mythology, as well as, other regions of the globe and the things that the folks their value(d), it becomes quickly apparent that religion and god(s) are simply a human manifestation of desire for order/justice and what societies/individuals hope to acheive (except for the Abrahamic faiths, for they see society as a consequence of "our fall," and not something to be proud of)

This guy kinda hit the nail on the head for me, I really think that most of the stuff in the (current) bible is made up stufff by the catholic chruch. idk theres no way to know for sure if any religion is real, and its most likley that none of it is. I used to be baptist, but it was all spoon fed, dont think for yourself kind of stuff...eh.

[howdydoody]

baptists are good at spoonfeeding, ranting, raving, sweating, talking in circles, huffing, puffing, and judging, lol.
not all, but a bunch.

[livethesounds]

baptists are good at spoonfeeding, ranting, raving, sweating, talking in circles, huffing, puffing, and judging, lol.
not all, but a bunch.

haha, and other religions arnt. i had a catholic lady tell me i was going to hell once in high school because i told her i was baptist.

[yourneck]

I was raised Christian, but decided that atheism was the best lifestyle for me. Instead of wasting time on some imaginary figure, I focus on other stuff that gets me through hard times (such as music). I'd rather put on a good song than pray. I dunno if that makes sense.

[Chasing Suns]

Basically, religion is something our parents taught us as kids, just like good manners. Now I'm not saying this is why people believe in this shit, but think about it. Throughout our childhood we are being taught all this stuff that we never question basically 'cause we were to young to really understand much anyway, that is until we grew up a bit and started questioning it. And there are tons of other religions besides your own, what makes you think your religion is ultimately right? You'd have to be a pretty ignorant person if you think the religion you were RANDOMLY born into is true.

[ForeverInADay]

I don't believe in God, I think the Catholic faith is full of shit. It's just a mainstream cult. Fuck that.
Along with every other religion, for that matter.

Ironically, it was my 12th grade religion teacher who basically 'converted' me to be a non believer of any sort of religion, he was so brainwashed by the church and God, it was fucking ridiculous.

I seriously hate every religion, it's pretty much the underlying cause of almost every problem plaguing the world today, without religion, I bet this world would be a lot more peaceful. Religion is just the modern day "My dad can beat up your dad" arguement you had in elementary school, except now it's "My god can beat up your god".

And on that note something I told my mom after she kept being upset that I don't believe in God:
Christians are just want to be cannibals, drinking the blood and eating the body of an extremely dead magical man.

[swirlofhues]

Religion is apart of every culture and you can't avoid it. You don't have to believe, but even amongst atheists or agnostics, there are people that hold, to some extent, the same 'ignorance' that a lot of people in this thread hate. There are believers in every religion that are entirely too extreme to open up their mind to anything else; the way a lot of people expressing their disdain for Christianity (or religion) is JUST as bad as bible thumpers describe non-believers.


To the maker of this thread:

You shouldn't let us influence your decision at all. Religion is a set of morals that you either abide by or you don't. You either believe this or you don't. You can live your life perfectly fine without believing in a higher being. I'm in the same situation as you, I'm 17 and I'm not a terribly religious person. However, I think to shun out religion is completely ridiculous, from a cultural view. Religion is the basis of every nation and it should be understood in order for us to live openmindedly. It has built our nation, it's apart of our history.

So even if you decide to not believe in Catholicism, just don't let your view of religion be soiled by people. Religion is about giving faith to people (whether it's in a time of need or not). Religion is not evil. Humans make it evil. Let religion and what humans do be completely separate from each other.



Sorry if this got way off course. I just can't believe some of the things said in here.

[firewater]

well i guess i know where you're coming from.

I'm still a Christian, raised by my parents to be one. But I have an uncle that lives with us, and he just gave up on religion. While he told me that religions just brainwash people and are in it only for the money, he believes that there is a god out there, one that created us. I'm stilll going to be a christian but I still don't agree with everything they preach. But I like going to church and while the priest is saying his speeches, I just think in my head about how there really is a god and everyone just believes in him in some way or the other.

So I don't believe there is one "right" religion, and I can't believe a grown person could tell anyone they are going to hell b/c they belong to a different group, it's sad actually.

I rambled, and I know I'm only 15 and don't know alot, but my 40 year old uncle told me a story that he used to be a very angry person, and thought about beating people up all the time, and one night he saw the devil. And he said he just woke up afterwards and started to change his life. You don't have to believe in a religion, but you should be aware there is some divine being out there that is watching us. lol correct me on anything but that's just my opinion.

[mps]

i understand where you might be coming from. I did however read the book, and at the beginning of every chapter, whoever the "scientist" was that Strobel was interviewing had a seriously long list of credentials that i honestly had to skip over because of their length. I just found it interesting some of the potential debuking of theories, but i'm not very educated on science either, so.. thur ya go :)
I'm not saying creationism should be taught, but if there are scientific things still in textbooks that have been proven otherwise, neither should they be taught either.

Well I don't even need to go into details to prove my point. If this book had any real credibility in the scientific community, then there would be absolute scandal, but there isn't, so obviously it hasn't. When big breakthroughs/discoveries are made, people know about it, history changes. This book is just another feeble attempt at the whole "I'm a scientist, and I'm using science to prove the existance of a divine creator" thing, which has been done many-a-time before. We don't need any of that in science. Science is theory, experimentation, observation and analysis, that's it. Concrete, solid.

What scientific things have been proven otherwise that are still taught in textbooks, which serve no purpose in knowing whatsoever?

[mikeford]

Creationists are brainless.

[IamTheINDUSTRY]

i believe because i have faith.

[Love As Arson]

Basically, religion is something our parents taught us as kids, just like good manners. Now I'm not saying this is why people believe in this shit, but think about it. Throughout our childhood we are being taught all this stuff that we never question basically 'cause we were to young to really understand much anyway, that is until we grew up a bit and started questioning it. And there are tons of other religions besides your own, what makes you think your religion is ultimately right? You'd have to be a pretty ignorant person if you think the religion you were RANDOMLY born into is true.
I tend to be of the opinion that each religion is a manifestation of god.
I don't believe in God, I think the Catholic faith is full of shit. It's just a mainstream cult. Fuck that.
Along with every other religion, for that matter.

Ironically, it was my 12th grade religion teacher who basically 'converted' me to be a non believer of any sort of religion, he was so brainwashed by the church and God, it was fucking ridiculous.

I seriously hate every religion, it's pretty much the underlying cause of almost every problem plaguing the world today, without religion, I bet this world would be a lot more peaceful. Religion is just the modern day "My dad can beat up your dad" arguement you had in elementary school, except now it's "My god can beat up your god".

And on that note something I told my mom after she kept being upset that I don't believe in God:
Christians are just want to be cannibals, drinking the blood and eating the body of an extremely dead magical man.
The underlying cause of man's problem is not religion, but conflicting ideas in general. Rid the world of religion, and you shall still see conflict arise based on differing interpretations of the world and things like greed.

In response to atheists calling for proof, the burden of proof is upon you. That is, a Christian's beliefs are based upon faith, not proof, therefore proving him is contradictory, where as an atheist holds the material world to be true, so he must then justify his beliefs with material proof. Even then, it is merely an educated guess, nothing absolute. You may say, "It is more than likely god does not exist", but you cannot say, "God does not exist". For one to do so, they are making a leap of faith similar to that of a Christians.


As for me, I am a Christian, although my beliefs tend to vary from that of the mainstream. I believe because I have been convicted by god. That is the simplest explanation. It is hard to explain the conversion. My advice to you is to read through any number of religious texts to find your path.

[dai the flu]

im no sterling example of one i admit, but im a jehovah's witness. i dont really have a ton of time to go into my beliefs but yes i do believe in a creator and i have yet to find a meaningful question that the bible doesnt provide a satisfactory answer to.

[yourneck]

Everybody is looking for some answers to the basic questions (where do we come from, what's after death, etc) and religion supplies them. Praying to a god makes you feel some sort of control over your life. Everybody gets a choice if they want to depend on religious figures or science, and I think most people just choose religion out of what they've been taught by their family. I wish more people could think for themselves, but hey.

[mikeford]

i have yet to find a meaningful question that the bible doesnt provide a satisfactory answer to.

who created god then

[we are cured]

What scientific things have been proven otherwise that are still taught in textbooks, which serve no purpose in knowing whatsoever?

True.

Let me ask you this- what is your explanation for the mysterious 'dark energy' that keeps our universe expanding?

I took Astro 101 and this shit blows my mind.

[we are cured]

and by the way all you bible lovers, the book you read today has been abridged and rewritten 134349223 times since it originated. by humans.

[Love As Arson]

Everybody is looking for some answers to the basic questions (where do we come from, what's after death, etc) and religion supplies them. Praying to a god makes you feel some sort of control over your life. Everybody gets a choice if they want to depend on religious figures or science, and I think most people just choose religion out of what they've been taught by their family. I wish more people could think for themselves, but hey.
One can make the same argument about any belief system. Watch:

Atheism allows one to believe they have control over their lives, rather than acknowledging there is something greater going on, which they fear because they cannot comprehend.
who created god then
God exists outside of time, therefore he needs no creator.

[Love As Arson]

and by the way all you bible lovers, the book you read today has been abridged and rewritten 134349223 times since it originated. by humans.
The underlying truth, however, is still present. If we are to discard books because of revisions, then let us discard all books.

[mikeford]

God exists outside of time, therefore he needs no creator.

says who

and prove it.

[mps]

True.

Let me ask you this- what is your explanation for the mysterious 'dark energy' that keeps our universe expanding?

I took Astro 101 and this shit blows my mind.

Haha, you want to know what dark energy is...pffft, I can't really put it simply, and I don't know how much you know about this stuff already. Basically no one really knows, but it has to exist to fit the model of the Universe. Basically it opposes gravity, so it means it has a strong negative pressure. It's all hypothetical of course, but is believed to permeate throughout all of space. 70% of energy in the Universe is believed to be dark energy.

As for explainations...well, the two main proposed ones are quintessence and the cosmological constant.

But yeah, this is still a very underdeveloped field in astrophysics. I can go into more detail if you like. :bigsmile:

[dai the flu]

i love how people are so quick to demand proof of god and creation.
how about if you prove to me that evolution is fact. where's the proof? show me some facts or something tangible i can see that 100% proves that there is no god.

and god created the universe and the laws that govern everything, time being one of them. he isnt constrained by the laws that he created and set in place. we cant possibly comprehend everything fully. thats why he is a 'higher being'.

if you went back in time 500 years and showed people a tv or a cell phone, they wouldnt have any way of comprehending what you were showing them. its the same with us. we're so limited in what we can understand that we cant even begin to prove how everything works or how to explain god's existence.

[Love As Arson]

says who

and prove it.
Common sense. He created space and time. The logical conclusion one could come to is there is an area, which god resides in that pre-existed the unverse.

[mps]

i love how people are so quick to demand proof of god and creation.
how about if you prove to me that evolution is fact. where's the proof? show me some facts or something tangible i can see that 100% proves that there is no god.

and god created the universe and the laws that govern everything, time being one of them. he isnt constrained by the laws that he created and set in place. we cant possibly comprehend everything fully. thats why he is a 'higher being'.

if you went back in time 500 years and showed people a tv or a cell phone, they wouldnt have any way of comprehending what you were showing them. its the same with us. we're so limited in what we can understand that we cant even begin to prove how everything works or how to explain god's existence.

Hahahahaha, you cannot be serious?

The Origin of Species By Means Of Natural Selection is possibly one of the most important books ever written in the scientific community (by Charles Darwin of course). This is a pointless argument, honestly.

[mps]

Common sense. He created space and time. The logical conclusion one could come to is there is an area, which god resides in that pre-existed the unverse.

That is impossible. Utter nonsense.

[dai the flu]

Hahahahaha, you cannot be serious?

The Origin of Species By Means Of Natural Selection is possibly one of the most important books ever written in the scientific community (by Charles Darwin of course). This is a pointless argument, honestly.
oh i see. charles darwin said its so, so it must be fact?
once again ill ask you.
please prove to me scientifically that there is no god.

[mikeford]

Common sense. He created space and time. The logical conclusion one could come to is there is an area, which god resides in that pre-existed the unverse.

says who?

[swirlofhues]

Everybody is looking for some answers to the basic questions (where do we come from, what's after death, etc) and religion supplies them. Praying to a god makes you feel some sort of control over your life. Everybody gets a choice if they want to depend on religious figures or science, and I think most people just choose religion out of what they've been taught by their family. I wish more people could think for themselves, but hey.
Religion isn't solely for people who need explanations to everything in life. Religion enlightens you; it doesn't set you back or make you less decisive. Look at Gandhi, he used his religion to advocate equality. He made bold actions during a time where his ideologies endangered him. I think religion only pushed his message across even further.


I mean, just looking in history, you can see how religion's not always about an answer. It has started revolutions, it has begun movements, it has inspired artists, writers, and musicians.

Religion can be beautiful. It's a big assumption to say that 'most people' choose religion because of family or a need for a safety net.

[mikeford]

oh i see. charles darwin said its so, so it must be fact?
once again ill ask you.
please prove to me scientifically that there is no god.

we dont have to disprove the existance of something until it can be proven that it exists.

[blahme]

I don't have a college degree in Religious Studies, 94,383 posts, or even that many years under my belt. All I know is that God makes me content upon myself and makes me a stronger person. If others choose to do differently, then that's cool, but it doesn't hurt my faith at all...

[dai the flu]

we dont have to disprove the existance of something until it can be proven that it exists.
ok let me rephrase my question. you claim that life and the universe happened by chance. we are where we are today by evolution, or something to that effect.
so prove it.
show me the scientific evidence that some big bang created life and all its amazing intricacies.
PROOF, not theories and hypothetical guessing.
after all, you've already agreed not to believe in something we cant scientifically understand, right? so you must have some substantial facts to back up your ideas.

[mps]

oh i see. charles darwin said its so, so it must be fact?
once again ill ask you.
please prove to me scientifically that there is no god.

Ok, the entire scientific community take that paper to be fact. It's science, it's proven. There is no point even arguing over it until you understand the importance and relevence of that document. Evolutionism is based entirely on scientific proof. Scientists seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Science is the branch of knowledge which dominates in our society.

Oh and about proving to you scientifically that there is no god, you don't prove something wrong, you prove something right, or that the theory doesn't fail.

Anyways 'god' cannot logically exist. If you believe he can, explain to me how and what 'god' is.

[mps]

ok let me rephrase my question. you claim that life and the universe happened by chance. we are where we are today by evolution, or something to that effect.
so prove it.
show me the scientific evidence that some big bang created life and all its amazing intricacies.
PROOF, not theories and hypothetical guessing.
after all, you've already agreed not to believe in something we cant scientifically understand, right? so you must have some substantial facts to back up your ideas.

What the fuck do you think the word 'theory' entails in the scientific world? This is the way science operates.

[Mula225]

One can make the same argument about any belief system. Watch:

Atheism allows one to believe they have control over their lives, rather than acknowledging there is something greater going on, which they fear because they cannot comprehend.

God exists outside of time, therefore he needs no creator.

Awesome. 'Your thoughts are not my thoughts.'

[dai the flu]

you know, im gonna give you time. im leaving for the night. so put on your thinking caps and find some way to prove that evolution is fact. cuz i still havent heard anything other than "oh well this guy says so and then all the other guys agreed so yeah thats a fact..."
you're putting faith in something just as far-fetched and unproven as the religious side. except you guys do it belligerently, telling us how "creationists are brainless".
so put together a convincing case, ill be glad to read it in the morning.

[yourneck]

i love how people are so quick to demand proof of god and creation.
how about if you prove to me that evolution is fact. where's the proof?

I dunno, how about fossils? Evolution is visible everywhere; it's pretty much the explanation for all of the different species alive today. The only proof against evolution is written text like the Bible, as far as I know.

[mps]

you know, im gonna give you time. im leaving for the night. so put on your thinking caps and find some way to prove that evolution is fact. cuz i still havent heard anything other than "oh well this guy says so and then all the other guys agreed so yeah thats a fact..."
you're putting faith in something just as far-fetched and unproven as the religious side. except you guys do it belligerently, telling us how "creationists are brainless".
so put together a convincing case, ill be glad to read it in the morning.

How the hell can you even be questioning evolutionism?! I'm just astounded...it's 3am and I'm staying up to try and knock some sense into you.

Here's an extract of something I wrote in a paper on evolutionism vs creationism a year ago -

Darwin and Wallace proposed that evolution occurs because a heritable trait that increases an individual's chance of successfully reproducing will become more common, by inheritance, from one generation to the next, and likewise a heritable trait that decreases an individual's chance of reproducing will become rarer. Darwin stated that natural selection, or survival of the fittest occurs, hence the species which are not well enough adapted to survive in their environment, perish. This is how certain characteristics have made their way through the evolutionary chain, resulting in humans being at the top of the pyramid of intelligent life on earth.

The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell

Charles Darwin defined this scientific theory as:
- The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
- The manifestation of novel traits in a lineage.
- The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish – “survival of the fittest”.


Anyways, you want all the scientific details to evolutionism look it up online, I can't be arsed to cover it here. Plus there's not much point talking to someone who doesn't understand the validity of the theory of evolution - that's just being ignorant. It's like saying to me, prove that gravity exists - not worth it.

[yourneck]

Religion isn't solely for people who need explanations to everything in life. Religion enlightens you; it doesn't set you back or make you less decisive. Look at Gandhi, he used his religion to advocate equality. He made bold actions during a time where his ideologies endangered him. I think religion only pushed his message across even further.


I mean, just looking in history, you can see how religion's not always about an answer. It has started revolutions, it has begun movements, it has inspired artists, writers, and musicians.

Religion can be beautiful. It's a big assumption to say that 'most people' choose religion because of family or a need for a safety net.

I never meant to come off as sounding like religion was entirely negative, because I don't believe that. I do think that religion is limiting, though. I don't get how it can be considered enlightening, when all it does is close your mind to new possibilities. While you're blindly following the word of the Torah, or your priest's sermons, you aren't really thinking for yourself. How does that let you start a revolution?

[dai the flu]

ok before i leave, ill give a quick reply. this is nothing like gravity. gravity is measurable. gravity is tangible, i can see its effects i can prove that it exists by simply dropping something.
now i understand that darwin explained his whole theory in depth and talked at great length about it. but this is still not proof. there is still no scientific evidence that shows that humans evolved from lower species or anything of the sort. it is still ALL SPECULATION. and you put all your faith and belief into speculation, while criticizing religion for doing the same.

[mps]

ok before i leave, ill give a quick reply. this is nothing like gravity. gravity is measurable. gravity is tangible, i can see its effects i can prove that it exists by simply dropping something.
now i understand that darwin explained his whole theory in depth and talked at great length about it. but this is still not proof. there is still no scientific evidence that shows that humans evolved from lower species or anything of the sort. it is still ALL SPECULATION. and you put all your faith and belief into speculation, while criticizing religion for doing the same.

Haha, no it's not speculation at all. There IS scientific evidence. I'm no biologist, so I'm not about to explain about fossils, or bodies they have found which show how there was once a different species of 'humans' which was the jump from ape to man, but trust me, it's all in the scientific documents. DNA, fossils, etc, it's all there, just I as a person not so knowledgable in this field am unable to provide you with all the neccesary data. Look it up online or something. This is science my friend, you are getting the wrong idea.

[swirlofhues]

I never meant to come off as sounding like religion was entirely negative, because I don't believe that. I do think that religion is limiting, though. I don't get how it can be considered enlightening, when all it does is close your mind to new possibilities. While you're blindly following the word of the Torah, or your priest's sermons, you aren't really thinking for yourself. How does that let you start a revolution?

Religion can be limiting, but so could atheism or agnosticism. It depends on the individual and how he or she will apply it to their ideologies. But it can aid or start revolutions.

For example, religion can teach you tolerance. Look at MLK Jr., he was driven by the injustice of his time but also by the teachings of the Bible. Religion can give faith and hope to leaders in what they're doing. (Or look at Joan of Arc)


I don't think religion, in those cases, hinders a person from thinking for themselves or 'opening their minds to new possibilities'.

[mps]

Religion can be limiting, but so could atheism or agnosticism. It depends on the individual and how he or she will apply it to their ideologies. But it can aid or start revolutions.

For example, religion can teach you tolerance. Look at MLK Jr., he was driven by the injustice of his time but also by the teachings of the Bible. Religion can give faith and hope to leaders in what they're doing. (Or look at Joan of Arc)


I don't think religion, in those cases, hinders a person from thinking for themselves or 'opening their minds to new possibilities'.

You can teach yourself tolerance, you can teach yourself to have faith in your actions, so religion has nothing to do with either really. Sorry.

[blankster07]

So. Here it goes. I grew up catholic...not strong catholic, but catholic none the less. Catholic as in we went to church every sunday - my parents, brother, and i - for most of my entire life. I am 17 now and my family stopped going to church about 2 years ago. My parents still have "faith" and pray every night, as far as I know, but my brother who is now 19 stopped believing in god and jesus and everything christian about 4 years ago. In no way is he a satanist, he's actually pretty educated. but he is basically neutral when it comes to religion, and choses not to believe in anything. Fast forward to now, a month before my senior year in High School. I'm pretty sure I'm about to do the same. I used to pray every night, but I don't anymore. I really dont know who or what to blame this on, but I'm definitely falling out of this religion. I really honestly try to read on both ends of religion, both believers and nonbelievers, and i just keep siding with nonbelievers. Is this bad? So many stories in the bible, i just cant buy them. I guess for me, I don't believe in anything that I can't see. I know that they say religion isn't about seeing, it's about feeling and knowing and assuming that god is there watching down on you. But...at the end of the day...my prayers are unanswered. I feel like I have to, and should make my own miracles. I do things for myself, you know? Lately, I dont go to God to help me with stuff such as family problems, health problems, etc. I've fixed them myself and it just seems to work better. There are just too many sick, terrible things happening in this world for me to really believe in this higher power.

I guess why I'm posting this is because I'm asking for your opinion. Believers, nonbelievers. All of you. Do you believe in God? Why or why not? If you disagree with me, can you give me reasons as to give Christianity another chance? And if you agree with me, can you tell me why you don't believe anymore?

Thank you.

This is perfectly fine! Any rationally thinker would agree that no God could exist on this hell-hole. In fact, religion is the route of all evil.

[yourneck]

Religion can be limiting, but so could atheism or agnosticism. It depends on the individual and how he or she will apply it to their ideologies. But it can aid or start revolutions.

For example, religion can teach you tolerance. Look at MLK Jr., he was driven by the injustice of his time but also by the teachings of the Bible. Religion can give faith and hope to leaders in what they're doing. (Or look at Joan of Arc)


I don't think religion, in those cases, hinders a person from thinking for themselves or 'opening their minds to new possibilities'.

I don't get how the Bible helps teach tolerance. The basic premise of Christianity is that you believe in God and follow his teachings, or you burn in a fiery pit for all of eternity. Not too much diversity there. I see more discrimination from Christianity than tolerance (see: gay rights).

[swirlofhues]

You can teach yourself tolerance, you can teach yourself to have faith in your actions, so religion has nothing to do with either really. Sorry.

It's true, religion isn't the only source where you can learn tolerance and faith. But in these cases of history, religion played an influencial part no matter how big or small.

[swirlofhues]

I don't get how the Bible helps teach tolerance. The basic premise of Christianity is that you believe in God and follow his teachings, or you burn in a fiery pit for all of eternity. Not too much diversity there. I see more discrimination from Christianity than tolerance (see: gay rights).
I'm not a bible fanatic and I'm not going to get into Christianity. I am hardly qualified to discuss the Bible. I'm sorry I can't really point out passages from the text (maybe someone else here can find something along the lines of "under his eyes, we're all children of God"). It's up to interpretation how the Bible should be read.



But it's undeniable that it played a part in MLK's beliefs.

[yourneck]

I'm not a bible fanatic and I'm not going to get into Christianity. I am hardly qualified to discuss the Bible. I'm sorry I can't really point out passages from the text (maybe someone else here can find something along the lines of "under his eyes, we're all children of God"). It's up to interpretation how the Bible should be read.

I'm not talking about specific passages. What Christianity is based on doesn't teach tolerance, that's all I'm saying.

When it comes down to it, I think religion has caused a lot more harm than good. I see more wars based off of religion than movements inspired by it.

[swirlofhues]

I'm not talking about specific passages. What Christianity is based on doesn't teach tolerance, that's all I'm saying.

When it comes down to it, I think religion has caused a lot more harm than good. I see more wars based off of religion than movements inspired by it.
Well, I don't think any religion is built on tolerance. Christianity can teach you tolerance, maybe not directly, but indirectly. That's why I wanted passages because even if the basis of Christianity is not tolerance, there are passages and stories that speak of equality.

And religion is a creation of humans so it's bound to be imperfect. The problem is that we hold it to be an intangiblity so nothing can touch it or prove it wrong. I think that religion is meant to do good (in most cases) for the community, that's why it has to be held above humans as something perfect. The intent of religion is pure but humans turn it into evil or bad. It's just... with good, there comes bad.

[Shoes]

Dude, I feel really sorry for because it's sad when someone loses their faith.
From my personal point of view I used to be really anti-religious; to the point of being a real dick about it to some of my Christian friends. But just like all the cliches when things turned bad my friend tried to convince me about God and how if I at least gave religion a shot, things might perk up.
I went to church and thought "Whoa, this is still pretty lame" and I met some complete nutters a long the way; infact I met one woman who tried to cast the devil out of me.
All these suckers should have probably swayed me from stepping foot in a church ever again but something made me feel like I should give it another chance, because of how many nutters and God bothers I met I still got the feeling that God was good and wanted good for me. I talked with my non crazy friends and they really opened my eyes. I think it's not necessarly a case of feeling like your prayers being answered but getting strength from God in order to get what you want.

To me, there's no doubt I've been tested on my will power and feelings towards to God and I unfornaturely failed a few times. But I also feel that through all the crappy stuff I've gone through the reward and appcreaition for the good is ten times better because of it and He's helped me achieve some pretty fucking awesome things that I don't think I could have without him.
I can't really describe it, it's just the best fucking feeling ever knowing that there's this dude up there who's always had my back and let me go my seperate ways in order for me to get a few things. To think He still accepts me after all the dumb things I've done is amazing. Like the best friend that still calls you after a massive fight to see if you're okay.
I guess it all sounds a little vague and "so what?" Because I don't know what you've had thrown your way? But I will say, at least give God another chance?

[Love As Arson]

I don't get how the Bible helps teach tolerance. The basic premise of Christianity is that you believe in God and follow his teachings, or you burn in a fiery pit for all of eternity. Not too much diversity there. I see more discrimination from Christianity than tolerance (see: gay rights).
Many Christians support the homosexual cause. Furthermore, the most important law of Christianity is love for one another. In response to hell, if it does, in fact, exist, then the fault lies with the individual, not the religion. That is, one chooses to go to hell. Now, I am not the sort of Christian that believes one goes to hell for differing beliefs, however, it is important to understand scripture.

[Love As Arson]

That is impossible. Utter nonsense.
Impossible for a deity? Well, that's nonsense.
says who?
If you're looking for the final word on something, you'll not find it here. That does little to make your case, though. But, if we are speaking of Christians solely, and not some generic deity, then it states this in Isaiah, I believe. If we are speaking of a generic deity, then it goes back to common sense. Unless, of course, you're going to posit that the universe has always existed.
we dont have to disprove the existance of something until it can be proven that it exists.
On the contrary, those who hold the material as the ultimate must provide proof, while those that are content with faith need do no such thing, as that is not the basis for their argument.

[x togepi x]

i'm really glad nobody tried pulling pascal's wager out in this thread.

[mentch_man]

I finally confronted the same issue just these past few weeks. I've gone to church all my life but never fully understood what I thought I believed, and so it was easy for me to ignore them as I got busy during high school. I never spiraled out of control like some people have, but I recently realized my life wasn't where I wanted it to be. A couple weeks ago I went to a camp for inner city kids in California with my youth group where we just did projects and kitchen work for them, but the testimonies of a lot of the counselors reminded me of the complexities of who God really is. I'm working my way through Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis now, and I'd really recommend that to anyone who's unsure about their faith or want even a slightly greater understanding of Christianity. It's not the damnations spewed by Pat Robertson or anything like that; it's God's desire for a relationship with us. I can't even begin to describe how much this has changed my outlook on life.

[mikeford]

Many Christians support the homosexual cause.

then they are going against gods will. it says right in the book you base your life beliefs on. moderate christianity is even stupider than extremism. why do you get to pick and chose whats right in the book and whats "not as important" or valid?

[popdisaster00]

Fantastic thread, thanks to everyone who has added their two cents. I've read every post carefully and respect mostly what everyone has said in here, on both sides. I will say that I agree with user MPS the most in here. I believe in Evolution for sure, it's right out infront of us, every day. Ape to man, for instance. Or howabout the fact that we humans have a TAIL and GILLS in the early stages of formation in the womb? Not that that means we evolved from fish or anything, but I think it says something. And I am also aware that it really doesn't have anything to do with religion, but hey. It's proven, it's visible, and that's why i believe it. Fossils, bones, artifacts, everything. It's just so much more concrete than this religion bullshit.

I honestly appreciate what everyone has said in here, and I am not going to "give up" on God yet, but I really don't know if Christianity will last much longer in me.

[mikeford]

oh by the way... religious people... where are the dinosaurs in the bible? im curious. carl everett told me that man made them... and that they were not real cuz no one ever saw a tyranasaurous rex.



Seriously, read that Sam Harris book. it will change your life.

[mentch_man]

then they are going against gods will. it says right in the book you base your life beliefs on. moderate christianity is even stupider than extremism. why do you get to pick and chose whats right in the book and whats "not as important" or valid?
The thing about this, though, is that God condemns homosexuality, but reserves judgement only for Himself. I'm not going to pretend to be very knowledgeable on this, because like I said before, I've never been serious about my faith until now, but Christians are called on to love everybody, regardless of their past or their circumstances. Are homosexuals sinning? Sure. But am I blameless? Far from it. God will enact His will when He's ready, but until then, I'm only supposed to be an example of Christ's love, and that extends to everyone.

[Mula225]

This is perfectly fine! Any rationally thinker would agree that no God could exist on this hell-hole. In fact, religion is the route of all evil.

It's called free will..which mean's..you can do what you want! Until one day..

[mikeford]

The thing about this, though, is that God condemns homosexuality, but reserves judgement only for Himself. I'm not going to pretend to be very knowledgeable on this, because like I said before, I've never been serious about my faith until now, but Christians are called on to love everybody, regardless of their past or their circumstances. Are homosexuals sinning? Sure. But am I blameless? Far from it. God will enact His will when He's ready, but until then, I'm only supposed to be an example of Christ's love, and that extends to everyone.

it advocates stone-ing people who try to persuade you to believe in their god in deuteronomy 13:7-11

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, of the spouse whom you embrace, of your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God..."

sounds like a good means of showing Christ's love...

the bible is a hypocritical rag and it boggles my mind that people believe in it.

[Love As Arson]

then they are going against gods will. it says right in the book you base your life beliefs on. moderate christianity is even stupider than extremism. why do you get to pick and chose whats right in the book and whats "not as important" or valid?
Free will is the hallmark of Christianity. Christ never postulated that the morality of Christianity should be foisted upon the population, rather it should be willingly accepted. As such, I do not support any governmental legislation of morality.
Furthermore, what you designate as picking and choosing, scholars call giving historical context to these established beliefs.

[Love As Arson]

it advocates stone-ing people who try to persuade you to believe in their god in deuteronomy 13:7-11

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, of the spouse whom you embrace, of your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God..."

sounds like a good means of showing Christ's love...

the bible is a hypocritical rag and it boggles my mind that people believe in it.
That is Levitical law, which was made unnecessary with Christ's fulfillment of the law. Christ made faith and love the only requirements for following god.

Galatians 2:16

"Know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified."

[dai the flu]

That is Levitical law, which was made unnecessary with Christ's fulfillment of the law. Christ made faith and love the only requirements for following god.

Galatians 2:16

"Know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." i gotta say im surprised. good explanation. i never thought id ever agree with you on anything.
but yeah, mikeford's quoting from the mosaic law code which was no longer in effect after jesus' death. people that always point to certain laws in leviticus as being hypocritical really just dont have any understanding of the bible as a whole, its purpose and theme.

oh and it bothers me to see people mention the bibles teaching of "going to hell". thats a teaching that isnt exactly found in the bible. the bible clearly states numerous times that the dead are conscious of nothing at all, the words used for hell and hades in the bible simply mean grave in the hebrew and greek languages, and besides one or two figurative references to 'gehenna', a burning garbage dump outside of jerusalem, there really is no basis for believing in a hell. fire/burning is mentioned a couple times but the context shows it to symbolize death, nothing more.
ezekial 18:4 "the soul that is sinning, it itself will die" - the soul doesnt live on after death
ecclesiastes 9:10 "no work nor devising nor knowledge in sheol(grave)"
psalm 146:4 "...goes back to the ground, in that day his thoughts do perish"
ecclesiastes 9:5 "living are conscious they will die, dead are conscious of nothing at all"

[punklet2101]

I'm a Christian believer, for a few years now. I didn't grow up in a Christian family or attend church in my childhood so it's all been 100% my own choice to have this lifestyle and attend my church. but I have complete respect for everyone no matter what they've chosen to do. I'm good friends with athiests, buddhists, homosexuals, whatever. Jesus wouldn't have felt uncomfortable around anybody. A preacher at my church prayed for me and I was healed of a serious illness. I've seen people with one leg longer than the other and when they were prayed for it leveled out. I've seen a man at my old church who had no toes on one of his feet and a man prayed for him and toes grew. I've seen a young muslim teenaged boy who came to a Christian camp and he didn't have the part on his nose that seperates your nostrils from sniffing too many drugs... he was prayed for and it grew back. I could go on and on but it's up to you whether you believe this or not. But speaking for myself, I know (more than I know that i'm typing at this computer) that God is real. Because i've felt His power and He answers my prayers. As for your prayers being unanswered, it may just not be the will of God or you may need to think about whether you're really right with Him. The bible, and Jesus, made it pretty clear that you can't be "in between" and that your life has to be 100% given to Him. What I find pretty amazing is the prophecies of Jesus thousands of years before He was born, namely by Isaiah and king David.

I'm not one of those people who thinks everyone should believe what I believe, but I think that people should look into things and know their stuff before they go judging, bad mouthing or dismissing. Example, the continual documentation of Jesus Christ's existance (by the very people who were outraged by Him) proves His existance. Just as William Shakespear existed, Jesus existed. The choice you have to make is this --- was He a liar, a lunatic, or who He said He was?

I know this to be true, but I also aim to be accepting of all people.

[punklet2101]

That is Levitical law, which was made unnecessary with Christ's fulfillment of the law. Christ made faith and love the only requirements for following god.

Galatians 2:16

"Know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified."
Right on.
'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and, Love your neighbor as yourself.'

[punklet2101]

im not sure if i believe...mainly becouse of all the bad natural disasters that happen..if god was so powerful would he not stop those thimgs..instead of letting thousands die for no reason.

God doesn't make natural disasters. Read Luke.. Jesus calms storms. He came to still them. It greives God when people die. I don't believe He causes earthquakes and storms... I believe He pulls out survivors and puts a heart of service into those who help fix the damages.

The devil steals, kills and destroys. God is all about abundant life.

[mps]

Impossible for a deity? Well, that's nonsense.


Well that too, but that's not what I was refering to, as I know that argument won't get far, because religion allows people to make up absurd explainations to describe things they can't otherwise with modern science. I was refering to the fact you mentioned that 'god' existed in an area that pre-existed the Universe, which is impossible. It just doesn't make sense to say something like that.

[mps]

Fantastic thread, thanks to everyone who has added their two cents. I've read every post carefully and respect mostly what everyone has said in here, on both sides. I will say that I agree with user MPS the most in here. I believe in Evolution for sure, it's right out infront of us, every day. Ape to man, for instance. Or howabout the fact that we humans have a TAIL and GILLS in the early stages of formation in the womb? Not that that means we evolved from fish or anything, but I think it says something. And I am also aware that it really doesn't have anything to do with religion, but hey. It's proven, it's visible, and that's why i believe it. Fossils, bones, artifacts, everything. It's just so much more concrete than this religion bullshit.

I honestly appreciate what everyone has said in here, and I am not going to "give up" on God yet, but I really don't know if Christianity will last much longer in me.

What I think religion is, is that it's a sort of psychological outlet to comfort people's insecurities. All modern religions were first formed way back when there was so much unknown about the world, and people lived in much harder times. Religion was the easy way to explain the unknown, and give people a sense of belonging, and that they had something to live for. Personally now I believe that it's all mythical bullshit, but if people want to follow whatever religion they do, then fine with me, but I believe it's very much on a personal level rather than something real. It gives people something to live for, without having to worry about the unknown, as religion explains it all. I on the other hand feel confident enough in myself to not need any of that and to go out there and ask the big questions like "where did we come from?" and use science to try and find the answers. I believe the notion of 'god' is all in the mind.

[howdydoody]

damn this thread took off after i got offline :-D
oh i see. charles darwin said its so, so it must be fact?
once again ill ask you.
please prove to me scientifically that there is no god.

we dont have to disprove the existance of something until it can be proven that it exists.

believers dont have to disprove the nonexistance of god until it can be proven that god doesn't exist.

[we are cured]

It's true, religion isn't the only source where you can learn tolerance and faith. But in these cases of history, religion played an influencial part no matter how big or small.

Excuse me?

See: the Inquisition or the Crusades.

[howdydoody]

Well I don't even need to go into details to prove my point. If this book had any real credibility in the scientific community, then there would be absolute scandal, but there isn't, so obviously it hasn't. When big breakthroughs/discoveries are made, people know about it, history changes. This book is just another feeble attempt at the whole "I'm a scientist, and I'm using science to prove the existance of a divine creator" thing, which has been done many-a-time before. We don't need any of that in science. Science is theory, experimentation, observation and analysis, that's it. Concrete, solid.

What scientific things have been proven otherwise that are still taught in textbooks, which serve no purpose in knowing whatsoever?
for the record i would like to state that my entering upon this thread is not to get into a pissing contest with someone over who's right or wrong, but merely to state my views in a noncondescending way to the maker of the thread and to anybody else with an open mind. Most people who were openminded enough to follow a different route than the spoon fed religion they grew up to question, should be atleast openminded enough to venture into a territory that may make them change their mind again, or perhaps not. That's what further knowledge is all about.

Unfortunately I borrowed the book from someone, and don't have a copy to "go into details to prove my point" , or rather why it strengthened my faith. It is a very indepth book, and hard to put into words, even if it is worded in a way itself that is easy to understand by the average joe. History hasn't necissarily "changed" because those types of changes don't take place overnight in science. So i wouldn't anticipate a big scandal coming forth because i know that scientists are all about tests and absolutes, so they're not going to bow down to some idea at the first mention of it. However, did it occur to anyone that the reason why there hasn't been any arguments is that there isn't anything to argue regarding the claims made? It could be moreso that they are scientists saying that there isn't enough evidence to disprove the existance of a creator, therefore lets be open to that as a possiblity, rather than the aforementioned "i'm a scientist and i'm going to use science to prove that there is a divine creator"

I do really regret not having the book in hand, but.. if anyone here is openminded enough and has gained enough knowledge to not follow blindly, then you should at least be open enough to read it and see how it holds up against your own belief system. If you feel the same way afterwards, fine, if not, fine. But we are always afraid of what we don't know, and always comfortable with what we do know. You can't expect to learn anything new by not giving it a chance.

[cantnokdahustle]

Impossible for a deity? Well, that's nonsense.
]

HOORAY! you (as a believer) just uttered the magic words!

Omnipotence and impossibility!

Couple questions for you then:

Can "god" make a round-square (i.e. a square that is also a circle)?

how about, can "god" form a mass that is too heavy for "god" to lift?

The answer to all of these questions is that, the first question is absurd. Nothing can break logical law, because it would take meaning away from words. Anything that seems illogically possible is a confusion in terms, and is completely unintelligible. This is why things such as "god being independent of time" is completely preposterous.

The second question, no matter what, puts limits on god's power, for it mostly forces apologeticists to concede that god is in fact bound by logic.

also, if god "is" (sorry i'm not sure what tense should be used in the case of something existing outside of time) independent of time, then why go through the whole she-bang? He/she/it knows what the outcome "is" of their little experiment. You kids throw around "free will" as an end all sort of explanation for just about everything, but again, if god is omniscient, then it knows what you will do in any situation, this negates free will, not to mention free will negates "god's plan."

[popdisaster00]

What I think religion is, is that it's a sort of psychological outlet to comfort people's insecurities. All modern religions were first formed way back when there was so much unknown about the world, and people lived in much harder times. Religion was the easy way to explain the unknown, and give people a sense of belonging, and that they had something to live for. Personally now I believe that it's all mythical bullshit, but if people want to follow whatever religion they do, then fine with me, but I believe it's very much on a personal level rather than something real. It gives people something to live for, without having to worry about the unknown, as religion explains it all. I on the other hand feel confident enough in myself to not need any of that and to go out there and ask the big questions like "where did we come from?" and use science to try and find the answers. I believe the notion of 'god' is all in the mind.


Hey man, basically my thoughts as well in a nutshell. I see it the same way that you do and I think that's why I'm falling out of religion.

[cantnokdahustle]

believers dont have to disprove the nonexistance of god until it can be proven that god doesn't exist.

despite your attempt at inane convolution, this is entirely incorrect: The burden of proof is on the believer, this is accepted by all credible apologeticist.

and here is why, short and shorter versions:

Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary Evidence.

The purple unicorn argument: You can not disprove that a purple unicorn exists. Why? because it requires proof of a negative. You are the "proposer" and it is incumbent on "the proposer" to prove to "the challenger."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy% 29

[mikeford]

That is Levitical law, which was made unnecessary with Christ's fulfillment of the law. Christ made faith and love the only requirements for following god.

Galatians 2:16

"Know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified."

its in deuteronomy, not leviticus.

but for the sake of argument that would also mean that all of these laws are invalid...

Laws similar to those elsewhere in the torah

Laws of religious Observance

Against worshipping other gods, at Deuteronomy 12:29-31
Prohibiting deliberate disfigurement as an act of mourning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourning), at Deuteronomy 14:1-2
Concerning clean and unclean animals, at Deuteronomy 14:3-20
Prohibiting the consumption of animals who have not been killed by mankind, at Deuteronomy 14:21
Against Asherah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah) groves and ritual pillars, at Deuteronomy 16:21-22
Against blemished sacrifices, at Deuteronomy 17;1 Laws concerning officials

Ordering impartiality of judges, at Deuteronomy 16:19-20 Criminal Law

Concerning witnesses, at 19:15-21
Concerning adultery and seduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction), at Deuteronomy 22:22-29
Against kidnap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap), at Deuteronomy 24:7
Ordering just weights and measures, at Deuteronomy 25:13-16 Civil law

Ordering the restoration of lost property once found, at Deuteronomy 22:1-4
Prohibition of mixing kinds, at Deuteronomy 22:9-11
Concerning tzitzit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzitzit), at Deuteronomy 22:12
Against marrying a step-mother (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-mother), at Deuteronomy 22:30
Against usury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury), at Deuteronomy 23:19-20
Concerning vows, at Deuteronomy 23:21-23
Concerning pledges, at Deuteronomy 24:6, and 24:10-13
Concerning leprosy, at Deuteronomy 24:8-9
Concerning the wages of a hired servant, at Deuteronomy 24:14-15
Ordering justice towards strangers, widows, and orphans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan), at Deuteronomy 24:17-18
Concerning the scraps of crops, at Deuteronomy 24:19-22 [edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deuteronomic_Code&action=edit&section=3)]

Laws differing from those elsewhere in the torah

Laws of religious Observance

Prohibiting offerings and vows outside a single central sancturary, at Deuteronomy 12:1-28
Concerning the tithe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe), at Deuteronomy 14:22-29
Concerning relief of debt in the seventh year, at Deuteronomy 15:1-11
Ordering the offering to Yahweh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh) of the firstborn males, at Deuteronomy 15:19-23
Concerning the three annual feasts, at Deuteronomy 16:1-17 Criminal Law

Concerning manslaughter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter) and murder, at Deuteronomy 19:1-13 Civil laws

Concerning slavery, at Deuteronomy 15:12-18
Concerning cleanliness in the camp, at Deuteronomy 23:9-14 [edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deuteronomic_Code&action=edit&section=4)]

Laws unique, within the torah, to the Deuteronomic Code

Laws of religious Observance

Against false prophets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_prophet), at Deuteronomy 13
Ordering idolaters to be stoned to death, at Deuteronomy 17:2-7 Laws concerning officials

Ordering judges to be appointed in every city, at Deuteronomy 16:18
Ordering there to be a supreme central tribunal, at Deuteronomy 17:8-13
Restrictions on the king, at Deuteronomy 17:14-20
Concerning the rights, and revenue, of the Levites, at Deuteronomy 18:1-8
Concerning the future (unspecified) prophet, at Deuteronomy 18:9-22
Restrictions on admittance to the priesthood, at Deuteronomy 23:1-8 Military Law

Concerning behaviour during war, at Deuteronomy 20, and 21:10-14 Criminal Law

Ordering a ritual atonement by the people for untraced murder, at Deuteronomy 21:1-9
Concerning the corpse of a criminal, at Deuteronomy 21:22-23 Civil laws

Against the removal of boundary markers, at Deuteronomy 19:14
Concerning primogeniture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture), at Deuteronomy 21:15-17
Ordering undutiful sons to be stoned to death, at Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Against transvestitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvestitism), at Deuteronomy 22:5
Prohibiting taking a mother bird at the same time as its nest, at Deuteronomy 22:6-7
Ordering roofs to be constructed with parapets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapet), at Deuteronomy 22:8
Prohibiting newly married women from being slandered, at Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Concerning escaped slaves, at Deuteronomy 23:15-16
Against religious prostitution, at Deuteronomy 23:17-18
Concerning the crops of a neighbour, at Deuteronomy 23:24-25
Concerning divorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce), at Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Against punishing the family of a criminal, at Deuteronomy 24:16
Limiting the number of lashes, at Deuteronomy 25:1-3
Against muzzling oxen during threshing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshing), at Deuteronomy 25:4
Concerning levirate marriage, at Deuteronomy 25:5-10
Ordering women to be modest, at Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Ritual

The ritual of the firstfruits and of the tithe, including a prayer, at Deuteronomy 26:1-15

[dai the flu]

mikeford, i really fail to see your point. yeah sure its in deuteronomy, not leviticus. who cares? its still part of the law code passed on from moses to the israelites. and jesus fulfilled that law and made it obsolete. so yes, all those regulations were now invalid...so whats your point?

[Mula225]

]
also, if god "is" (sorry i'm not sure what tense should be used in the case of something existing outside of time) independent of time, then why go through the whole she-bang? He/she/it knows what the outcome "is" of their little experiment. You kids throw around "free will" as an end all sort of explanation for just about everything, but again, if god is omniscient, then it knows what you will do in any situation, this negates free will, not to mention free will negates "god's plan."

Not at all..your talking in circles. Why can't free will and God's plan co-exist? We still have free will..we can choose to do anything we want..he'll allow us to make mistakes; it's called grace. I understand why this doesn't sit well with people..but I don't find it all that difficult to grasp.

[swirlofhues]

Excuse me?

See: the Inquisition or the Crusades.

I don't see how what I said conflicts with your examples. I was having a different conversation, therefore that satement (said by me) shouldn't stand alone.

[Fat Kid Running]

I'm just throwing this out there... to all of you non believers how do you explain the existence of the universe? can you honestly say that you believe in the "big bang theory"? that there was just a huge explotion and it created a perfectly working solar system and universe? sorry if i come off as angry i just want to hear your opinion on this because i don't believe that.

[cantnokdahustle]

I'm just throwing this out there... to all of you non believers how do you explain the existence of the universe? can you honestly say that you believe in the "big bang theory"? that there was just a huge explotion and it created a perfectly working solar system and universe? sorry if i come off as angry i just want to hear your opinion on this because i don't believe that.

A perfectly working universe...please tell me that is not what you think scientists "believe." Our universe, is no where near perfect: Black holes, dead planets, asteroids (which are debree from old planets as well as bits that were unable to hold together by way of accretion, which would have made them planets.)

No... our universe, solar system and planet are far from perfect.

Planet: rampant extinction, deadly disease, deadly natural disasters, misscarriage/stillbirth, etc...

Solar System: Only one planet with intelligent life(contemporaneously).

How's this: The Big Bang is "easier to swallow," as it has quite a plethora of evidence to back it up, for we (unbelievers) to accept (tentatively, because science is always evolving), than the idea of an omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent being who is impervious to time (what this being did, before it created the world, no one knows).

plus, why would it take god, in its infinite power, six whole days to create the world? Why not just a snap of the proverbial finger?

[dai the flu]

if i dropped bombs on a junkyard for a billion years, i dont think id ever create a fully functional airplane. i could shake a bag full of gears and wires forever but i dont think id ever make a watch that way.
but when you consider this 'big bang theory', and how we're supposed to believe the universe, infinitesimally more complex than anything else imaginable, came about by some galactic firecracker in a cloud of space-dust, it makes these first two examples i said sound almost likely to happen.

but WE are the brainless ones because we believe in some higher power?

[Fat Kid Running]

A perfectly working universe...please tell me that is not what you think scientists "believe." Our universe, is no where near perfect: Black holes, dead planets, asteroids (which are debree from old planets as well as bits that were unable to hold together by way of accretion, which would have made them planets.)

No... our universe, solar system and planet are far from perfect.

Planet: rampant extinction, deadly disease, deadly natural disasters, misscarriage/stillbirth, etc...

Solar System: Only one planet with intelligent life(contemporaneously).

How's this: The Big Bang is "easier to swallow," as it has quite a plethora of evidence to back it up, for we (unbelievers) to accept (tentatively, because science is always evolving), than the idea of an omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent being who is impervious to time (what this being did, before it created the world, no one knows).

plus, why would it take god, in its infinite power, six whole days to create the world? Why not just a snap of the proverbial finger?

you make some good points about it not being perfect, but how do explain nine planets simantaneously revolve around the sun and revolving on an axis as well? i just want to know your opinion on this since you a nonbeliever; this is an honest question, how do you feel about it knowing once you die, you are eliminated for eternity? i have this debate with my friends all the time so i just want to here some other viewpoints.

[Love As Arson]

Well that too, but that's not what I was refering to, as I know that argument won't get far, because religion allows people to make up absurd explainations to describe things they can't otherwise with modern science. I was refering to the fact you mentioned that 'god' existed in an area that pre-existed the Universe, which is impossible. It just doesn't make sense to say something like that.
The uncaused cause, which brought forth the universe, pre-existed space, time, matter, etc. That would mean that there existed an "area" or void which existed before the universe.

[Love As Arson]

]
Can "god" make a round-square (i.e. a square that is also a circle)?
Yes.

]
how about, can "god" form a mass that is too heavy for "god" to lift?
Descartes view will suffice:

1. An omnipotent being can do the logically impossible.
2. The omnipotent being creates a stone which it cannot lift.
3. The omnipotent being then lifts the stone.


The answer to all of these questions is that, the first question is obsurd. Nothing can break logical law, because it would take meaning away from words. Anything that seems illogically possible is a confusion in terms, and is completely unintelligible. This is why things such as "god being independent of time" is completely preposterous.
The meaning of words is relative. The will of a deity is absolute. By the way, you may want to check the manner in which you reach your conclusions because it is rather inconsistent.

The second question, no matter what, puts limits on god's power, for it mostly forces apologeticists to concede that god is in fact bound by logic.
Not at all. In fact, that paradox only serves to prove the point that god transcends logic.


also, if god "is" (sorry i'm not sure what tense should be used in the case of something existing outside of time) independent of time, then why go through the whole she-bang? He/she/it knows what the outcome "is" of their little experiment. You kids throw around "free will" as an end all sort of explanation for just about everything, but again, if god is omniscient, then it knows what you will do in any situation, this negates free will, not to mention free will negates "god's plan."
I do not believe in the idea of a plan laid out for all. Furthermore, his existence outside of time does not negate free will, but simply gives him knowledge. One is still making the decisions, and god is not dictating them. This conclusion's logical end is that, because I watch a car crash into another from far away, I somehow influenced the crash.

[Love As Arson]

its in deuteronomy, not leviticus.

but for the sake of argument that would also mean that all of these laws are invalid...

Laws similar to those elsewhere in the torah

Laws of religious Observance

Against worshipping other gods, at Deuteronomy 12:29-31
Prohibiting deliberate disfigurement as an act of mourning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourning), at Deuteronomy 14:1-2
Concerning clean and unclean animals, at Deuteronomy 14:3-20
Prohibiting the consumption of animals who have not been killed by mankind, at Deuteronomy 14:21
Against Asherah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah) groves and ritual pillars, at Deuteronomy 16:21-22
Against blemished sacrifices, at Deuteronomy 17;1 Laws concerning officials

Ordering impartiality of judges, at Deuteronomy 16:19-20 Criminal Law

Concerning witnesses, at 19:15-21
Concerning adultery and seduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction), at Deuteronomy 22:22-29
Against kidnap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap), at Deuteronomy 24:7
Ordering just weights and measures, at Deuteronomy 25:13-16 Civil law

Ordering the restoration of lost property once found, at Deuteronomy 22:1-4
Prohibition of mixing kinds, at Deuteronomy 22:9-11
Concerning tzitzit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzitzit), at Deuteronomy 22:12
Against marrying a step-mother (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-mother), at Deuteronomy 22:30
Against usury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury), at Deuteronomy 23:19-20
Concerning vows, at Deuteronomy 23:21-23
Concerning pledges, at Deuteronomy 24:6, and 24:10-13
Concerning leprosy, at Deuteronomy 24:8-9
Concerning the wages of a hired servant, at Deuteronomy 24:14-15
Ordering justice towards strangers, widows, and orphans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan), at Deuteronomy 24:17-18
Concerning the scraps of crops, at Deuteronomy 24:19-22 [edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deuteronomic_Code&action=edit&section=3)]

Laws differing from those elsewhere in the torah

Laws of religious Observance

Prohibiting offerings and vows outside a single central sancturary, at Deuteronomy 12:1-28
Concerning the tithe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe), at Deuteronomy 14:22-29
Concerning relief of debt in the seventh year, at Deuteronomy 15:1-11
Ordering the offering to Yahweh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh) of the firstborn males, at Deuteronomy 15:19-23
Concerning the three annual feasts, at Deuteronomy 16:1-17 Criminal Law

Concerning manslaughter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter) and murder, at Deuteronomy 19:1-13 Civil laws

Concerning slavery, at Deuteronomy 15:12-18
Concerning cleanliness in the camp, at Deuteronomy 23:9-14 [edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deuteronomic_Code&action=edit&section=4)]

Laws unique, within the torah, to the Deuteronomic Code

Laws of religious Observance

Against false prophets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_prophet), at Deuteronomy 13
Ordering idolaters to be stoned to death, at Deuteronomy 17:2-7 Laws concerning officials

Ordering judges to be appointed in every city, at Deuteronomy 16:18
Ordering there to be a supreme central tribunal, at Deuteronomy 17:8-13
Restrictions on the king, at Deuteronomy 17:14-20
Concerning the rights, and revenue, of the Levites, at Deuteronomy 18:1-8
Concerning the future (unspecified) prophet, at Deuteronomy 18:9-22
Restrictions on admittance to the priesthood, at Deuteronomy 23:1-8 Military Law

Concerning behaviour during war, at Deuteronomy 20, and 21:10-14 Criminal Law

Ordering a ritual atonement by the people for untraced murder, at Deuteronomy 21:1-9
Concerning the corpse of a criminal, at Deuteronomy 21:22-23 Civil laws

Against the removal of boundary markers, at Deuteronomy 19:14
Concerning primogeniture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture), at Deuteronomy 21:15-17
Ordering undutiful sons to be stoned to death, at Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Against transvestitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvestitism), at Deuteronomy 22:5
Prohibiting taking a mother bird at the same time as its nest, at Deuteronomy 22:6-7
Ordering roofs to be constructed with parapets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapet), at Deuteronomy 22:8
Prohibiting newly married women from being slandered, at Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Concerning escaped slaves, at Deuteronomy 23:15-16
Against religious prostitution, at Deuteronomy 23:17-18
Concerning the crops of a neighbour, at Deuteronomy 23:24-25
Concerning divorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce), at Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Against punishing the family of a criminal, at Deuteronomy 24:16
Limiting the number of lashes, at Deuteronomy 25:1-3
Against muzzling oxen during threshing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshing), at Deuteronomy 25:4
Concerning levirate marriage, at Deuteronomy 25:5-10
Ordering women to be modest, at Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Ritual

The ritual of the firstfruits and of the tithe, including a prayer, at Deuteronomy 26:1-15


Levitical law is an all-encompassing term for the law put forth in the Old Testament. As Christ is the fulfillment of the law, one observes the law simply through faith. Furthermore, that law is relative to the society. Christ's fulfillment made the law absolute and eternal.

[Love As Arson]

Excuse me?

See: the Inquisition or the Crusades.
And neither of those are in accordance with Christ's law, therefore they've nothing to with the faith. They may espouse to be Christians, but their actions and beliefs prove otherwise. What has to happen is one must discern between a religion and its followers. We, of course, realise that there are other factors which play into certain events that occur, and that all sorts of justifications are used for them. The current war, for example. Democracy is the justification. We realise that is not the case. However, if we are to use your logic, then democracy is nothing more than a tyrannical institution which oppresses foreign people.

But, Swirlofhues is not wrong, Chrisitian movements have been an agent of reform. Abolition, for instance, has its roots in the Second Great Awakening, a resurgence in the Christian faith. What we had was a large movement of Christians working to free slaves, because they felt it was against god's will. You may, of course, disregard this in favor of focusing on the bad acts, but to do so is willful ignorance and only using what serves your purposes to prove your point.

[shes.a.ghost]

For the record, I am a Christian to this day because I have witnessed a miracle. When I was 10 my dad had cancer in his Lymph Nodes on either side of his groin. Basically the cancer caused his Lymph Nodes to swell to he size of baseballs. It was to the point where he could barely get his hands in his pockets. This cancer was going to kill him in less than a year. One weekend my dad flew to Dallas to visit a Prayer Seminar. Basically 100s of people layed thier hands on my father and prayed for him. After the seminar was over my dad was walking back to his rental car in the parking lot. As he was walking he dropped his keys and bent down to pick them up. He reached down and picked up his keys and went to put the keys back in his pocket. His hand slid right down into his pocket... from the time he dropped his keys to the time he put them back in his pocket, God had wiped out all the cancer in my fathers body. His Lymph Nodes were the size of baseballs one second. And the next they were normal. The next day when he was back in town he went to the doctor. The doctor said there was no sign that he had ever had cancer at all.

The doctor who treated my father is since become a Christian because of my fathers story. My father has been in medical magazines and given his testimony all over the United States. You can believe what you want. I choose to be a Christian and a lover of Christ for many reasons. But this is why I am one today.

[Mercy Medical]

I'm a Christian, have been raised in a Christian household my entire life and accepted Jesus Christ into my heart and all that blah, blah, blah when I was 5. When I lived at home I went to church every Sunday with my parents even when I didn't want to. I've strayed away from attending church the past 4 years of my life while I was in college because I didn't want to look for a new church (especially coming from liberal Washington to conservative Indiana) and because I enjoyed sleeping in on Sunday. I don't read the Bible much and I try and pray as much as I can (I have a tendancy to pray before bed and fall asleep during the process). I do a lot of things and have done a lot of things to lead one to believe that I'm not a Christian, but still in my heart I fully believe in God.

It's all about faith honestly. I can't see God or know he's there for sure, but I believe it. I've always believed it and as much as I may stray away from the practices of religion I will always believe it. I don't believe that God is there to answer every single one of our prayers. It's all about free will and choice a lot of the time. You can always ask him for help or for guidance in a situation, but he's not going to lead you down that sunny little path where everything is hunky dory. If everything in our lives went the way we wanted it, how would we ever learn? We wouldn't, at least that's what I believe. You have to travel through pain and hardship to come out of it with something and to grow from it. If we didn't have that life would be pretty stagnent.

I'm at a rough spot in my life right now in the fact that I'm searching for a job. I'm trying to have faith in God that he has a plan for me and for my life. I moved 2,400 miles from a life I was very much enjoying to back home with my family because I think that's what God's plan is for me and although I don't have a job quite yet, I've had a lot more opportunities here at home then I did back in Indiana, so I believe I am following the right path and this is what he wanted for me.

I don't know, I guess sometimes I see life as one of those books you read where you could chose the ending. You could either turn to page 27 or page 89 and get a different result. It's kind of like that. You could either go on about your life and push away God's influence or you could go with what you think he's telling you to do and either way you're going to end up with a completely different result.

I don't know if that helps at all or if any of it made sense, but that's just sort of how I feel about things.

[blankster07]

God doesn't make natural disasters. Read Luke.. Jesus calms storms. He came to still them. It greives God when people die. I don't believe He causes earthquakes and storms... I believe He pulls out survivors and puts a heart of service into those who help fix the damages.

The devil steals, kills and destroys. God is all about abundant life.

You're telling us that God, the almighty creator, doesn't make natural disasters? Really, how bizarre! As the creator of the universe, don't you have absolute control over everything and everyone?

[mps]

I'm just throwing this out there... to all of you non believers how do you explain the existence of the universe? can you honestly say that you believe in the "big bang theory"? that there was just a huge explotion and it created a perfectly working solar system and universe? sorry if i come off as angry i just want to hear your opinion on this because i don't believe that.

Hahaha, it would take hours for me to explain it to you, but yes, modern science can account for EXACTLY how everything we see today is formed. Right down to the very elements you exist of, forged in stars. Amazing eh?

[mps]

if i dropped bombs on a junkyard for a billion years, i dont think id ever create a fully functional airplane. i could shake a bag full of gears and wires forever but i dont think id ever make a watch that way.
but when you consider this 'big bang theory', and how we're supposed to believe the universe, infinitesimally more complex than anything else imaginable, came about by some galactic firecracker in a cloud of space-dust, it makes these first two examples i said sound almost likely to happen.

but WE are the brainless ones because we believe in some higher power?

Ok, you are really starting to sound stupid now. Read up on the Big Bang theory before you begin to question it, because this is what is accepted in modern science as the correct factual explaination of the birth of our Universe. I can explain it to you in full detail if required, and answer any questions you have on it if you so desire.

And for the record it was not "some galactic firecracker in a cloud of space-dust" - be a bit more intelligent now please.

[mps]

you make some good points about it not being perfect, but how do explain nine planets simantaneously revolve around the sun and revolving on an axis as well? i just want to know your opinion on this since you a nonbeliever; this is an honest question, how do you feel about it knowing once you die, you are eliminated for eternity? i have this debate with my friends all the time so i just want to here some other viewpoints.

Hahahaha, how about the gravity of the Sun? And they CERTAINLY do NOT simultaneously revolve around the Sun.

[Mercy Medical]

As far as the people who go about living their lives not believing in God, it just baffles me and I think it's becuase I've just been raised completely differently and have complete faith in the fact that God is out there. Yea, I question it sometimes or question why the Bible says we should do this and why it says we shouldn't do that. I think it's good to question those aspects because it solidifies your beliefs.

Hell, even as a Christian I don't necessarily think everything the Bible has to say is "right."

[mps]

The uncaused cause, which brought forth the universe, pre-existed space, time, matter, etc. That would mean that there existed an "area" or void which existed before the universe.
That is mathematically and scienetifically impossible. Nothing 'pre-existed' the Universe. Please do not question this when you clearly have nothing to back it up. My patience is being tested now in this thread, due to people with serious lack of knowledge about astrophysics making absurd statements.

[Mercy Medical]

That is mathematically and scienetifically impossible. Nothing 'pre-existed' the Universe. Please do not question this when you clearly have nothing to back it up. My patience is being tested now in this thread, due to people with serious lack of knowledge about astrophysics making absurd statements.
*cough*GEEK*cough*

[mps]

*cough*GEEK*cough*

Fair enough, at least I know what I'm talking about when I say something, and can back it up.

[Mercy Medical]

Fair enough, at least I know what I'm talking about when I say something, and can back it up.
Haha, I'm just giving you a hard time Mark and saying it with all smiles. You were getting a bit worked up, though I could lighten the situation a bit.

At least you do have knowledge to back up the subject, hence why I don't fight about the Big Bang theory or any of that jazz. Although I still believe that God created this universe. :)

[sweetbeatdead<3]

people who honestly instill their faith in an invisible man in the sky because some book tells them to seriously boggles my mind.

Stupid people seriously use a lot of adverbs to honestly cover it seriously up. =)

[cantnokdahustle]

Yes.


Descartes view will suffice:

1. An omnipotent being can do the logically impossible.
2. The omnipotent being creates a stone which it cannot lift.
3. The omnipotent being then lifts the stone.


The meaning of words is relative. The will of a deity is absolute. By the way, you may want to check the manner in which you reach your conclusions because it is rather inconsistent.

Not at all. In fact, that paradox only serves to prove the point that god transcends logic.


I do not believe in the idea of a plan laid out for all. Furthermore, his existence outside of time does not negate free will, but simply gives him knowledge. One is still making the decisions, and god is not dictating them. This conclusion's logical end is that, because I watch a car crash into another from far away, I somehow influenced the crash.


WOW!

1) words are not "relative," they serve a specific purpose. If all words were ambiguous, no one would be able to sufficiently communicate.

2) There is not a single theologian (who is looked upon as credible from an academic standpoint) who would ever argue that god can make a "perfectly round-square." This is completely unintelligible.

3) your last point: ...but according to believers god was the cause, since he was the "first cause." Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, perhaps you have heard this before; the "first cause" is responsible for every subsequent reaction (causation).

4) You have lost every ounce of credibility by holding the view that "god transcends logic," nothing can do this. :explode:

[mps]

Haha, I'm just giving you a hard time Mark and saying it with all smiles. You were getting a bit worked up, though I could lighten the situation a bit.

At least you do have knowledge to back up the subject, hence why I don't fight about the Big Bang theory or any of that jazz. Although I still believe that God created this universe. :)

I know, I just feel really strongly about this. I mean when I was at school I'd give presentations on this, write papers about it, research it, etc. So when some smart ass comes in here questioning me I'm obviously going to get worked up.

Although I cannot disprove you on that, since we still have NO CLUE actually where the Universe came from, I wouldn't agree with that. I'd just be bold and say we haven't discovered that yet - that's the joy of science. Centuaries back people used to blame 'god' for lightening, and now we've discovered using science how it's really formed - classic example. :thumbsup:

[mps]

WOW!

1) words are not "relative," they serve a specific purpose. If all words were ambiguous, no one would be able to sufficiently communicate.

2) There is not a single theologist (who is looked upon as credible from an academic stadpoint) who would ever argue that god can make a "perfectly round-square." This is completely unintelligible.

3) your last point: ...but according to believers god was the cause, since he was the "first cause." Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, perhaps you have heard this before; the "first cause" is responsible for every subsequent reaction (causation).

4) You have lost every ounce of credibility by holding the view that "god transcends logic," nothing can do this. :explode:

Yes, it's called Newton's Third Law.

P.S - I'm really starting to like you.

[Mercy Medical]

I know, I just feel really strongly about this. I mean when I was at school I'd give presentations on this, write papers about it, research it, etc. So when some smart ass comes in here questioning me I'm obviously going to get worked up.

Although I cannot disprove you on that, since we still have NO CLUE actually where the Universe came from, I wouldn't agree with that. I'd just be bold and say we haven't discovered that yet - that's the joy of science. Centuaries back people used to blame 'god' for lightening, and now we've discovered using science how it's really formed - classic example. :thumbsup:
Oh, I know. I'm a mix of science in faith seeing as how I'm an engineer and all. I appreciate the sciences a lot and although science may disprove some aspects of faith, I will always believe in a God. That's never going to change.

I mean, situations like evolution. I believe in evolution, but not completely. I believe that animals are evolving as we speak, but as far as if we came from some single cell organism...I dunno. It's hard to cut a line between science and faith though. I have issues with things like cavemen and dinosaurs. I mean, the Bible never speaks about that stuff very much (well, to what little knowledge of the Bible that I have since I've never actually read it entirely through...that book is long...haha). But it's like, they've obviously found evidence of dinosaurs and prehistoric men, so where does that fit in the Bible, ya know?

Props to you being interested in all that stuff though. I know how it goes to have an extreme interest and passion in something to really fight for it.

[mps]

Oh, I know. I'm a mix of science in faith seeing as how I'm an engineer and all. I appreciate the sciences a lot and although science may disprove some aspects of faith, I will always believe in a God. That's never going to change.

I mean, situations like evolution. I believe in evolution, but not completely. I believe that animals are evolving as we speak, but as far as if we came from some single cell organism...I dunno. It's hard to cut a line between science and faith though. I have issues with things like cavemen and dinosaurs. I mean, the Bible never speaks about that stuff very much (well, to what little knowledge of the Bible that I have since I've never actually read it entirely through...that book is long...haha). But it's like, they've obviously found evidence of dinosaurs and prehistoric men, so where does that fit in the Bible, ya know?

Props to you being interested in all that stuff though. I know how it goes to have an extreme interest and passion in something to really fight for it.

I actually made one of my closest friends lose his faith, and he was a very devoted christian beforehand (Korean as well, so very disciplined) by just questioning things he had always believed to be true 'because the bible says so'.

Cheers.

Btw what type of engineer are you?

[Mercy Medical]

I actually made one of my closest friends lose his faith, and he was a very devoted christian beforehand (Korean as well, so very disciplined) by just questioning things he had always believed to be true 'because the bible says so'.

Cheers.

Btw what type of engineer are you?
I'm not the type of Christian that believes whatever my pastor tells me. I think a mindset like that is a bunch of shit. How can you back anything up that you believe with "because my pastor told me the Bible said so." That's crap. Instead I take what I've been told from the Bible and come to my own conclusions about things or determine why I believe that outside of the fact that it's what the Bible says. I believe the Bible can be very open to interpretation at times, so it can either be taken one way or the other. By questioning and coming to your own conclusions it makes it so much easier to back up what you believe. I mean hell, a perfect example of this was me believing that homosexuality was wrong just because the Bible said so. Well, I experienced it for myself and came to a very different conclusion...let people love who the want to love as long as it makes them happy. There's no sense it making someone lie to themselves about how they truly feel just because the Bible said so.

I'm a mechanical engineer.

[cantnokdahustle]

you make some good points about it not being perfect, but how do explain nine planets simantaneously revolve around the sun and revolving on an axis as well? i just want to know your opinion on this since you a nonbeliever; this is an honest question, how do you feel about it knowing once you die, you are eliminated for eternity? i have this debate with my friends all the time so i just want to hear some other viewpoints.

The first part has been answered by MPS, though i would also like to add that magnetism has a large role to play in all of it.

as for your second question, this is perhaps the most thoughtful question someone can ask, if they are genuine about it.

There are so many answers:

Socrates, during his trial, stated an agnostic point of view (though he was most certainly a pious man). Paraphrasing: in response to his punishment, for a crime (impiety and corrupting the youth) which he most certainly innocent of, he stated that if i am correct and there are gods, then I shall be joined with my friends and family and get to meet the great minds of the past, but if i am found incorrect, then what? I will enjoy the greatest sleep of all time, I will simply sleep forever.

I, on the other hand, find the idea of heaven, as it is currently thought of, to be one that i want nothing to do with. This, and the history of heaven are actually the focus of my undergrad thesis.

Reasons why heaven scares me:
I can not imagine a place where i will be infinitely happy, What about those who suffer on earth still, will i not mourn for them? What of those in hell who were virtuous but doubted or never heard of "god," do i harden my heart for them as well? These things would be completely against my character. W.L. Craig (a prominent xtian apologetic) explains that humans go through a bit of a "divine rape" where our memories are modified, or wiped clean, so that we will not grieve for them. But this would negate who i am, and since personal responsibility is rather important, this would seem a very odd thing for "god" to do.

Lets say, that my wife and i have a child, and at some point after that we die, and lets say we were virtuous and worthy of "god's kingdom" ( i know, difficult to conceive of). Now, lets say that we decide to check in on, lets say, our daughter, and she is being raped. How are we to respond? We are completely helpless to do anything about such an event. But, heaven is supposed to be a place of pure happiness, and one in which we can not be made "sad or depressed." What if one of us was to go to heaven and the other to hell, How should one in heaven react to that?

More specifically, I am content with the idea that i will simply cease to be. The consequences of this are really just that I appreciate all of the time that i spend with my wife, and family and friends. Make use of the time that we have together, and hey we try to positively contribute to society in some way. We will then die, and allow other things to live. Not to get all Lion King on you, but according to the law of conservation of energy and mass, this is exactly what happens.

hope this helps a bit

[mps]

I'm not the type of Christian that believes whatever my pastor tells me. I think a mindset like that is a bunch of shit. How can you back anything up that you believe with "because my pastor told me the Bible said so." That's crap. Instead I take what I've been told from the Bible and come to my own conclusions about things or determine why I believe that outside of the fact that it's what the Bible says. I believe the Bible can be very open to interpretation at times, so it can either be taken one way or the other. By questioning and coming to your own conclusions it makes it so much easier to back up what you believe. I mean hell, a perfect example of this was me believing that homosexuality was wrong just because the Bible said so. Well, I experienced it for myself and came to a very different conclusion...let people love who the want to love as long as it makes them happy. There's no sense it making someone lie to themselves about how they truly feel just because the Bible said so.

I'm a mechanical engineer.

I respect that, although I have never and will never be a religious person myself.

Cool, I have a few friends going into engineering. Isn't it rare though for a woman to be an engineer (and take this as a compliment)?

[cantnokdahustle]

Yes, it's called Newton's Third Law.

P.S - I'm really starting to like you.


awe, i think your cute too. ;)

It's always nice to meet someone who trusts in empirical inquiry.

[mps]

The first part has been answered by MPS, though i would also like to add that magnetism has a large role to play in all of it.

as for your second question, this is perhaps the most thoughtful question someone can ask, if they are genuine about it.

There are so many answers:

Socrates, during his trial, stated an agnostic point of view (though he was most certainly a pious man). Paraphrasing: in response to his punishment, for a crime (impiety and corrupting the youth) which he most certainly innocent of, he stated that if i am correct and there are gods, then I shall be joined with my friends and family and get to meet the great minds of the past, but if i am found incorrect, then what? I will enjoy the greatest sleep of all time, I will simply sleep forever.

I, on the other hand, find the idea of heaven, as it is currently thought of, to be one that i want nothing to do with. This, and the history of heaven are actually the focus of my undergrad thesis.

Reasons why heaven scares me:
I can not imagine a place where i will be infinitely happy, What about those who suffer on earth still, will i not mourn for them? What of those in hell who were virtuous but doubted or never heard of "god," do i harden my heart for them as well? These things would be completely against my character. W.L. Craig (a prominent xtian apologetic) explains that humans go through a bit of a "divine rape" where our memories are modified, or wiped clean, so that we will not grieve for them. But this would negate who i am, and since personal responsibility is rather important, this would seem a very odd thing for "god" to do.

Lets say, that my wife and i have a child, and at some point after that we die, and lets say we were virtuous and worthy of "god's kingdom" ( i know, difficult to conceive of). Now, lets say that we decide to check in on, lets say, our daughter, and she is being raped. How are we to respond? We are completely helpless to do anything about such an event. But, heaven is supposed to be a place of pure happiness, and one in which we can not be made "sad or depressed." What if one of us was to go to heaven and the other to hell, How should one in heaven react to that?

More specifically, I am content with the idea that i will simply cease to be. The consequences of this are really just that I appreciate all of the time that i spend with my wife, and family and friends. Make use of the time that we have together, and hey we try to positively contribute to society in some way. We will then die, and allow other things to live. Not to get all Lion King on you, but according to the law of conservation of energy and mass, this is exactly what happens.

hope this helps a bit

...although the idea of 'heaven' is inconceivable and illogical. When someone dies electrical activity within the brain ceases, and thus the person is no more than lifeless flesh and bones. No logical explaination can provide proof for the existance of some sort of 'heaven' where to which one's 'spirit' transcends to after death.

[mps]

awe, i think your cute too. ;)

It's always nice to meet someone who trusts in impirical inquiry.

Haha, I cannot believe some of the things people are saying in this thread. It's as if they have had no education whatsoever. It's not hard to put forward the sort of argument we are.

[cantnokdahustle]

...although the idea of 'heaven' is inconceivable and illogical. When someone dies electrical activity within the brain ceases, and thus the person is no more than lifeless flesh and bones. No logical explaination can provide proof for the existance of some sort of 'heaven' where to which one's 'spirit' transcends to after death.

Oh... i did not mean to give the impression that i believed in any sort of afterlife, just meant to raise questions for those who do.

[mps]

Oh... i did not mean to give the impression that i believed in any sort of afterlife, just meant to raise questions for those who do.

I know you didn't (from your last paragraph), I was just bringing the argument against the existance of 'heaven' into this thread.

[Love As Arson]

WOW!

1) words are not "relative," they serve a specific purpose. If all words were ambiguous, no one would be able to sufficiently communicate.
They serve a specific purpose as prescribed by man. The definitions of these words exist so long as man desires. As we've seen in history, certain words have had their definitions changed.

2) There is not a single theologist (who is looked upon as credible from an academic standpoint) who would ever argue that god can make a "perfectly round-square." This is completely unintelligible.
Please, refer me to sites of these accredited theologians that have been asked this question.

I imagine a dog would find your explanation of atheism unintelligible as well.


3) your last point: ...but according to believers god was the cause, since he was the "first cause." Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, perhaps you have heard this before; the "first cause" is responsible for every subsequent reaction (causation).
That does little substantiate your position that god negates free will.


4) You have lost every ounce of credibility by holding the view that "god transcends logic," nothing can do this. :explode:
If god does exist, its logic is not our own, and, in all likelihood, it is beyond ours, therefore applying human logic to god is inherently flawed. It, in and of itself , is illogical to do so. It would be similar to an ant supposing to understand the actions of a human.

[blankster07]

Believers:

I had not thought of this until I read some of Maia's philosophical essays at www.saysmom.com Would a loving God create a world in which animals kill other animals for their meals? Only a sadistic mad man would create a world in which he could watch his own beautiful creatures devour each other!

"GOOD can flourish in a world rank with EVIL, but only in the form of those creatures so designed as to be incapable of evil acts. Butterflies living side-by-side with aphid- eating ladybugs and cannibalistic praying mantises; deer and sheep sharing a meadow with wolves; the placid manatee swamp-dwelling alongside alligators... innocent (GOOD) prey provided for the equally innocent (but evil-acting) predator.

The evil-acting ones did not create themselves, therefore they only carry out the evil designs of whatever did. But they are part and parcel of EVIL overall, nonetheless. Neither did the good-doing (or, more accurately and fairly, the non-evil-doing) make themselves “innocent” or “GOOD.” They were perhaps even made thusly, just to provide a satisfactory target/menu for their opposites. Who knows? " -- Maia

[Mercy Medical]

I respect that, although I have never and will never be a religious person myself.

Cool, I have a few friends going into engineering. Isn't it rare though for a woman to be an engineer (and take this as a compliment)?Yea, it is. Although it's a lot more common then it used to be. I was the only female ME graduate in my class, but there was only 5 of us anyway.

Believers:

I had not thought of this until I read some of Maia's philosophical essays at www.saysmom.com Would a loving God create a world in which animals kill other animals for their meals? Only a sadistic mad man would create a world in which he could watch his own beautiful creatures devour each other!Life isn't going to be all positive. How else are these animals going to survive? It's just a negative aspect of life I suppose. I don't know, believers can't explain everything. We don't have God on speed dial so we can call him up and have him answer all the questions we may have.

[Love As Arson]

That is mathematically and scienetifically impossible. Nothing 'pre-existed' the Universe. Please do not question this when you clearly have nothing to back it up. My patience is being tested now in this thread, due to people with serious lack of knowledge about astrophysics making absurd statements.
Mathematical and scientific laws break down at the singularity from which the universe originated. Moreoever, it is not at all ridiculous to suppose an infinite void existed prior to the universe's expansion.

[cantnokdahustle]

They serve a specific purpose as prescribed by man. The definitions of these words exist so long as man desires. As we've seen in history, certain words have had their definitions changed.

Please, refer me to sites of these accredited theologians that have been asked this question.

I imagine a dog would find your explanation of atheism unintelligible as well.


That does little substantiate your position that god negates free will.


If god does exist, its logic is not our own, and, in all likelihood, it is beyond ours, therefore applying human logic to god is inherently flawed. It, in and of itself , is illogical to do so. It would be similar to an ant supposing to understand the actions of a human.


You mean like, St. Thomas Aquinas, yeah i don't think he's set up his web page yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent

If god had made us, and it is indeed omnipotent, then it could have easily given us the power to understand, even a part of what it is. But according to you, it chose not to, not only did it choose not to, it "gave" us the ability of imperical observation and logic instead. Brilliant fucking idea.

your willful ignorance is beyond having pissed me off. Don't talk about shit you have not studied. Ask questions, of course, but do not espouse inane analogies and wild fantasies as justifications.

[Love As Arson]

Believers:

I had not thought of this until I read some of Maia's philosophical essays at www.saysmom.com Would a loving God create a world in which animals kill other animals for their meals? Only a sadistic mad man would create a world in which he could watch his own beautiful creatures devour each other!

"GOOD can flourish in a world rank with EVIL, but only in the form of those creatures so designed as to be incapable of evil acts. Butterflies living side-by-side with aphid- eating ladybugs and cannibalistic praying mantises; deer and sheep sharing a meadow with wolves; the placid manatee swamp-dwelling alongside alligators... innocent (GOOD) prey provided for the equally innocent (but evil-acting) predator.

The evil-acting ones did not create themselves, therefore they only carry out the evil designs of whatever did. But they are part and parcel of EVIL overall, nonetheless. Neither did the good-doing (or, more accurately and fairly, the non-evil-doing) make themselves “innocent” or “GOOD.” They were perhaps even made thusly, just to provide a satisfactory target/menu for their opposites. Who knows? " -- Maia
A creationist would respond as such:

Prior to man's fall, this was unnecessary. When man disobeyed Yahweh, he brought death into the world, therefore causing an affect which rippled throughout all of creation. In other words, when man fell, the rest of the world fell with him.

My opinion:

You cannot ascribe moral character to the actions of an animal.

[blankster07]

Yea, it is. Although it's a lot more common then it used to be. I was the only female ME graduate in my class, but there was only 5 of us anyway.

Life isn't going to be all positive. How else are these animals going to survive? It's just a negative aspect of life I suppose. I don't know, believers can't explain everything. We don't have God on speed dial so we can call him up and have him answer all the questions we may have.

If God was loving, all living creatures would be vegetarians. Yes, I just said that.

[Love As Arson]

If god had made us, and it is indeed omnipotent, then it could have easily given us the power to understand, even a part of what it is. But according to you, it chose not to, not only did it choose not to, it "gave" us the ability of imperical observation and logic instead.
It endowed humanity with such skills so as to foster free will. Otherwise, an endowment of divine knowledge renders faith a meaningless excercise, and as we all know, it is faith that is important in the Christian belief system.



your willful ignorance is beyond having pissed me off. Don't talk about shit you have not studied. Ask questions, of course, but do not espouse inane analogies and wild fantasies as justifications.
Ad hominems are indicative of poor arguments.

[dontgrabtindy]

If God was loving, all living creatures would be vegetarians. Yes, I just said that.
he said we could eat meat

[Love As Arson]

If God created man in his "own image," man would never fall. Or, this proves that God is a sadistic bastard.
The passage means their will was their own, just as god's will is his own. Furthermore, the passage does not say this,"God made man a god".

[dontgrabtindy]

If God created man in his "own image," man would never fall. Or, this proves that God is a sadistic bastard.
your understanding of that verse is wrong, we were not created to look like him or act like him, or be like him at all

[Love As Arson]

Grammar Check:

Ad hominem is an adj.
There are three forms it may take:

Noun
Adjective
Adverb

[mps]

Mathematical and scientific laws break down at the singularity from which the universe originated. Moreoever, it is not at all ridiculous to suppose an infinite void existed prior to the universe's expansion.

Thus based entirely upon assumption. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang, and currently cannot find evidence to prove that there was a 'before', but we are still seeking to find this out. Our current knowledge leads to the explaination that there was no 'before'.

What does this 'void' you are talking of consist of? Because to me void means empty space, and that certainly did not exist before the Big Bang.

Anyways, I can prove you wrong with one argument, which I have been waiting to pull out the bag for quite awhile in this thread. Now I don't know how deep your mathematical and physics knowledge goes, but bear with me. The claim that the beginning of our Universe has an actual cause conflicts with current scientific theory. The scientific theory is called the wave function of the Universe. It has been developed in the past ten years or so by Stephen Hawking, Andre Vilenkin, Alex Linde, and many others. Their theory is that there is a scientific law of nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our Universe possesses. For example, contains intelligent organisms such as humans. This remaining universe has a certain probability very high -- near to a hundred percent -- of coming into existence uncaused.

Hawking's theory is confirmed by observational evidence (thus proof). This theory predicts our Universe has evenly-distributed matter on a large scale, which would be on scales of super-clusters of galaxies - this is correct and can be observed in our Universe. It also predicts that the expansion rate of our Universe (Hubble's Constant) -- our Universe has been expanding ever since the Big Bang -- would be almost exactly between the rate of the Universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called inflation (this is VERY important). Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the microwave background radiation (what you see/hear when you turn on an un-tuned tv or radio) in the Universe. So a scientific theory that is confirmed by observational evidence tells us that the Universe began without being caused. So if you want to be a rational person and accept the results of rational inquiry into nature, then we (atheists) must accept the fact that your 'god' did not cause the Universe to exist. The Universe exists because of this wave-function law.

Bingo.

[punklet2101]

This thread is dumb now... you can argue until you're blue and try to work out things that you'll never be able to work out but at the end of the day it's everyones own choice what they want to believe and it'd be a lot easier if people just respected what other people want to do with their lives

[mps]

This thread is dumb now... you can argue until you're blue and try to work out things that you'll never be able to work out but at the end of the day it's everyones own choice what they want to believe and it'd be a lot easier if people just respected what other people want to do with their lives


Pfft, at least no one can disprove my argument. :bigsmile:

[cantnokdahustle]

This thread is dumb... you can argue until you're blue and try to work out things that you'll never be able to work out but at the end of the day it's everyones own choice what they want to believe and it'd be a lot easier if people just respected what other people want to do with their lives


The problem is that, with the exception of Buddhism and Jainism, all religions affect society, and most of them explicitly state, that anyone who disagrees with them should be put do death, and there in lay the problem.

[cantnokdahustle]

It endowed humanity with such skills so as to foster free will. Otherwise, an endowment of divine knowledge renders faith a meaningless excercise, and as we all know, it is faith that is important in the Christian belief system.



Ad hominems are indicative of poor arguments.


...and espousing blind ignorant horse shit is indicative of being an ass. So, is ignoring logic and empirical evidence.

[Mercy Medical]

This thread is dumb now... you can argue until you're blue and try to work out things that you'll never be able to work out but at the end of the day it's everyones own choice what they want to believe and it'd be a lot easier if people just respected what other people want to do with their lives
BINGO!

[Love As Arson]

Thus based entirely upon assumption. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang, and currently cannot find evidence to prove that there was a 'before', but we are still seeking to find this out. Our current knowledge leads to the explaination that there was no 'before'.
We can make an educated guess. What existed before expansion? There was a singularity within a void, which is what the universe is expanding into.


What does this 'void' you are talking of consist of? Because to me void means empty space, and that certainly did not exist before the Big Bang.
Apart from the singularity contained within it, infinite nothingness.



Anyways, I can prove you wrong with one argument, which I have been waiting to pull out the bag for quite awhile in this thread. Now I don't know how deep your mathematical and physics knowledge goes, but bear with me. The claim that the beginning of our Universe has an actual cause conflicts with current scientific theory. The scientific theory is called the wave function of the Universe. It has been developed in the past ten years or so by Stephen Hawking, Andre Vilenkin, Alex Linde, and many others. Their theory is that there is a scientific law of nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our Universe possesses. For example, contains intelligent organisms such as humans. This remaining universe has a certain probability very high -- near to a hundred percent -- of coming into existence uncaused.

Hawking's theory is confirmed by observational evidence (thus proof). This theory predicts our Universe has evenly-distributed matter on a large scale, which would be on scales of super-clusters of galaxies - this is correct and can be observed in our Universe. It also predicts that the expansion rate of our Universe (Hubble's Constant) -- our Universe has been expanding ever since the Big Bang -- would be almost exactly between the rate of the Universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called inflation (this is VERY important). Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the microwave background radiation (what you see/hear when you turn on an un-tuned tv or radio) in the Universe. So a scientific theory that is confirmed by observational evidence tells us that the Universe began without being caused. So if you want to be a rational person and accept the results of rational inquiry into nature, then we (atheists) must accept the fact that your 'god' did not cause the Universe to exist. The Universe exists because of this wave-function law.

Bingo.
Refer to the PDF.

[Mercy Medical]

If God was loving, all living creatures would be vegetarians. Yes, I just said that.
Stop trying to pick fights with people over this shit. You're mostly just saying stuff to get us believers all worked up.

I believe what I believe, it's my own personal experience and you can go on believing whatever you want. I'm not trying to make you change. Religion to me is very personal, therefore I don't feel the need to press it on others in a hope to convert them. I'm not that type of Christian. I believe what I believe and you can do the same, I don't care.

You're not going to change the way I believe, so just stop.

[Love As Arson]

...and espousing blind ignorant horse shit is indicative of being an ass.
Then, one such as yourself should discontinue posting.
So, is ignoring logic and empirical evidence.
The logic you espouse is inherently flawed. You simply cannot accept such a concept. In regards to the empirical evidence, I never once denigrated it.

[mps]

We can make an educated guess. What existed before expansion? There was a singularity within a void, which is what the universe is expanding into.


Ah, a common misconception. There was NO void, there was nothing. The Universe does NOT expanded into anything, it creates space, and time, as it expands. Thus imagine two normal stars, moving apart from each other - the spacetime fabric between them is being created as the Universe expands, the stars are actually static in their positions.

[mps]

Refer to the PDF.
I will tomorrow. It's getting on for 3.40am, and I need to sleep.

[Love As Arson]

Ah, a common misconception. There was NO void, there was nothing. The Universe does NOT expand into anything, it creates space, and time, as it expands. Thus imagine two normal stars, moving apart from each other - the spacetime fabric between them is being created as the Universe expands, the stars are actually static in their positions.
I do not disagree. That is, the void, for me, is synonymous with nothing.

[cantnokdahustle]

Then, one such as yourself should discontinue posting.

The logic you espouse is inherently flawed. You simply cannot accept such a concept. In regards to the empirical evidence, I never once denigrated it.


It is the "logic" that every rational argument is based on; I refuse to argue any longer with someone who thinks that words are "relative" and believes that god can/could do anything illogical. I have posted why the philosophical community states, as an axiom, that god is incapable of doing anything illogical. You have ignored this, and are completely content to stay in your own little bubble, so good day sir.

[punklet2101]

Stop trying to pick fights with people over this shit. You're mostly just saying stuff to get us believers all worked up.

I believe what I believe, it's my own personal experience and you can go on believing whatever you want. I'm not trying to make you change. Religion to me is very personal, therefore I don't feel the need to press it on others in a hope to convert them. I'm not that type of Christian. I believe what I believe and you can do the same, I don't care.

You're not going to change the way I believe, so just stop.
yep!

[punklet2101]

The problem is that, with the exception of Buddhism and Jainism, all religions affect society, and most of them explicitly state, that anyone who disagrees with them should be put do death, and there in lay the problem.
if they disagree with them how much are they going to care that someone says "by my religion, you're going to hell"?

[Love As Arson]

It is the "logic" that every rational argument is based on
Your logic consists of positing that a metaphysical being is subject to finite conception of ideas. Again, illogical.
I refuse to argue any longer with someone who thinks that words are "relative"
Their definitions are. As I said, we've seen the definitions of words change. This, alone, proves that the definition of words are relative to the people that designate what it is they represent.
believes that god can/could do anything illogical.
I merely posited that god's system of logic is not our own, therefore any judgement in regards to our view of this logic is flawed, as we cannot fully understand it. Moreover, for a being that is all-powerful, nothing is impossible. You may continue to foist your conceptions of logic upon a deity, but it is ultimately futile.
I have posted why the philosophical community states, as an axiom, that god is incapable of doing anything illogical.
I responded with a the philosophical argument that Descartes put forth. You did not feel it necessary to respond.

[MySuicidalLove]

Become a Buddhist, it's the most open minded and believable religion and the teaching's are respectable as well.

I'm not saying disregard every religion as "close minded and unbelievable".

I'm not a Buddhist, but I've never been to a temple as it's hard for me to get to one(The closest one is over 3h drive away), I just follow the teachings and what not, that's what I believe in.

[Mula225]

I know, I just feel really strongly about this. I mean when I was at school I'd give presentations on this, write papers about it, research it, etc. So when some smart ass comes in here questioning me I'm obviously going to get worked up.

Much like when believers get worked up when you start questioning our beliefs..

[Mula225]

Pfft, at least no one can disprove my argument. :bigsmile:

and you've disproven ours????

[Mercy Medical]

The problem is that, with the exception of Buddhism and Jainism, all religions affect society, and most of them explicitly state, that anyone who disagrees with them should be put do death, and there in lay the problem.
Christianity at it's core never states that you should be put to death for not believing what we believe. Yes, it states that when you die if you haven't accepted Jesus as your lord and savior you will go to hell when you die, but no where does it say that you deserve such a thing. Most Christians should be compassionate individuals who want to prevent that from occurring. Most Christians have a desire to prevent that from happening and thus want to teach people about Christianity. I feel as though Christianity at is core is possibly one of the most compassionate religions out there seeing as how Jesus himself was one of the most loving and compassionate individuals to ever walk the earth. They want the same of their believers, however, a lot of Christians today misconstrew (spelling error most likely) that overall goal. Don't mistake those idiot Christians who walk around and protest homosexuality and state that "homosexuals should burn in hell" as what Christianity truly is or what it's truly meant to be.

[dai the flu]

im not even attempting to fight this anymore, i think its the ultimate in egotism to think that man is the highest form of life and there's nothing in existence that we cant understand. denying a higher power simply because you read some book and think you're somehow above this idea of having a creator....im sorry. thats just so high-minded and egotistical i cant stomach even reading what you type.

but i have one question id like answered.

if religion and belief in a god has given people a purpose in life and a contentment they cant find anywhere else, if its a force for good in their lives and makes them a happier, better person,

then why are you so determined to try and take that away from them?

[popdisaster00]

It's been a solid thread.

[mps]

and you've disproven ours????
No, I didn't say that I had, because you guys will always pull out crazy absurd explainations based on no logic whatsoever. At least I have a concrete argument.

[mps]

im not even attempting to fight this anymore, i think its the ultimate in egotism to think that man is the highest form of life and there's nothing in existence that we cant understand. denying a higher power simply because you read some book and think you're somehow above this idea of having a creator....im sorry. thats just so high-minded and egotistical i cant stomach even reading what you type.

but i have one question id like answered.

if religion and belief in a god has given people a purpose in life and a contentment they cant find anywhere else, if its a force for good in their lives and makes them a happier, better person,

then why are you so determined to try and take that away from them?

Firstly no one said that we were the 'highest for of life' - there may well be other much more advance lifeforms residing in our Universe. Secondary the pinnacle of our argument, the Big Bang, clearly represents that we admit to not understanding everything, as we cannot explain what preceeded this. There is SO much about the Universe that we do not understand. If anything, you are the one who is acting like they understand everything, as it can all be explained by 'god'. Thirdly no one is thinking they are 'above the idea of having a creator', we are just arguing that there is a much more logical explaination to where we came from. Finally, no one is trying to 'take away' anything from anyone, we were just responding to the first post in this thread, which sparked a debate on this matter.

[punklet2101]

Christianity at it's core never states that you should be put to death for not believing what we believe. Yes, it states that when you die if you haven't accepted Jesus as your lord and savior you will go to hell when you die, but no where does it say that you deserve such a thing. Most Christians should be compassionate individuals who want to prevent that from occurring. Most Christians have a desire to prevent that from happening and thus want to teach people about Christianity. I feel as though Christianity at is core is possibly one of the most compassionate religions out there seeing as how Jesus himself was one of the most loving and compassionate individuals to ever walk the earth. They want the same of their believers, however, a lot of Christians today misconstrew (spelling error most likely) that overall goal. Don't mistake those idiot Christians who walk around and protest homosexuality and state that "homosexuals should burn in hell" as what Christianity truly is or what it's truly meant to be.
well said

[A picasso blue]

Just because i dont believe in a higher power doesnt mean i think i as a human think I am at the height of everything. all forms if lfie are on the same level

[A picasso blue]

Christianity at it's core never states that you should be put to death for not believing what we believe. Yes, it states that when you die if you haven't accepted Jesus as your lord and savior you will go to hell when you die, but no where does it say that you deserve such a thing. Most Christians should be compassionate individuals who want to prevent that from occurring. Most Christians have a desire to prevent that from happening and thus want to teach people about Christianity. I feel as though Christianity at is core is possibly one of the most compassionate religions out there seeing as how Jesus himself was one of the most loving and compassionate individuals to ever walk the earth. They want the same of their believers, however, a lot of Christians today misconstrew (spelling error most likely) that overall goal. Don't mistake those idiot Christians who walk around and protest homosexuality and state that "homosexuals should burn in hell" as what Christianity truly is or what it's truly meant to be.


How is "You shall suffer in hell because you didnt accept Jesus"

different from "You deserve to suffer because you didnt believe what we believe"?

[xvszero]

I'm pretty much in the same boat. Around 18 or 19 or so I really started questioning things and by 21 I realized there wasn't a point in saying I'm "Catholic" anymore since I really didn't believe. Probably many children coming from super religious homes go through this. You're taught certain things as facts and then you grow up and go "wait a second, why exactly do I believe all this? Because my mom and teachers told me it was true?" and of course you realize many of these "facts" you grew up with have to be accepted on faith.

I don't NOT believe though, I'm pretty much sort of like "I'm a mere mortal I can't figure all this god stuff out" or agnostic as they call it.

[xvszero]

Cows are more intelligent than human beings!

Well, I'm smart enough to not end up some cow's lunch.

[xvszero]

Become a Buddhist, it's the most open minded and believable religion and the teaching's are respectable as well.

One of the most open-minded, sure, but the most believable? How do you figure? Most people I know who follow Buddhism can't even really explain how it all works. It's like, there's no god per se, but there are um... supernatural... um... things that um... make things happen.

[A picasso blue]

Cows do ruin the earth

-they cause heart attacks
- ozone layer destruction
-floods

[Love As Arson]

1. I do not believe in God and I do not believe man is the highest form of life. Cows are more intelligent than human beings! We are the most grotesque plague that has ever infected earth.
Intelligent? Well, no, they don't have the knowledge to build cities and such. We do know the consequences of our action, we choose to disregard them. That is indicative one's values, not intelligence.

2. Religions focus too much on reaching heaven. What people should be doing is creating heaven on earth! Taoism, anyone?
Actually, Christianity does focus upon social justice.
How is "You shall suffer in hell because you didnt accept Jesus"

different from "You deserve to suffer because you didnt believe what we believe"?
You are approaching it wrong. In Christianity, humanity is suffering for deeds they've done in the past. Faith in Christ is meant to assuage that suffering. If one chooses not to do so, then the blame lies upon their own actions. Similarly, if you are on punishment, and you freely choose to disobey your parents further, is it wrong that you are further punished for such actions?

[fedhed7]

As a child, I was religious. I attended Hebrew School, went to Shul often, I was even in a youth group until recently.

One day, a few years ago, I was having a conversation about religion with my father. I asked him flat out: "Do you believe in God?" He replied: "No, I don't."

This completely changed my perspective on things. All of my life, it was a solid truth. God exists. Religion is real. There is a greater power.

But then, I thought about it. In order for me to follow a set of regulations, I need to have proof that I'm not living my life in vain. Now, I've come to the conclusion that keeping kosher, practicing Shabbat, and going to temple every morning is unneccesary. I don't NEED to do these things in order to win God's favor. How do I even know there is a God?



The Holocaust happened. That is enough proof for me not to believe in Judaism.

[ghostyouare]

As a child, I was religious. I attended Hebrew School, went to Shul often, I was even in a youth group until recently.

One day, a few years ago, I was having a conversation about religion with my father. I asked him flat out: "Do you believe in God?" He replied: "No, I don't."

This completely changed my perspective on things. All of my life, it was a solid truth. God exists. Religion is real. There is a greater power.

But then, I thought about it. In order for me to follow a set of regulations, I need to have proof that I'm not living my life in vain. Now, I've come to the conclusion that keeping kosher, practicing Shabbat, and going to temple every morning is unneccesary. I don't NEED to do these things in order to win God's favor. How do I even know there is a God?



The Holocaust happened. That is enough proof for me not to believe in Judaism.
I don't get it. It seems like your faith isn't your own. It seems like you're looking to be directed by some one else. It's funny to me that you gave up religion just because your dad did.

Anyways, what do you have to say about all those jews that suffered through the holocaust, that were in camps and still continued to be practicing jews? I think that's testimony enough to make you believe in a higher power, there's something there to give them hope.

Faith has never been about miracle after miracle, infact it has almost been from one struggle onto the next.

The last thing you said is that you don't want to be living you life in vain but it's almost hypocritical. Giving up religion so you don't have live for God and follow the religious teachings so you could live a more self-centered life.

Sorry that I just picked on you a bit. I just walked into this thread and hadn't a clue where to start.

[cal1082]

One thing I've never understood was when someone says either "you must prove it" before they believe it.

Here's why...........being that type of skeptic you'd think it'd work in both directions.

To fall under the "you must prove it" category you should expect that everything you see and feel with your 5 senses it provable. Now obviously not everything has been proven and there is not we as humans will not know all of lifes creations and reasons.

Why must you not "prove it" the other way around?

[ghostyouare]

One thing I've never understood was when someone says either "you must prove it" before they believe it.

Here's why...........being that type of skeptic you'd think it'd work in both directions.

To fall under the "you must prove it" category you should expect that everything you see and feel with your 5 senses it provable. Now obviously not everything has been proven and there is not we as humans will not know all of lifes creations and reasons.

Why must you not "prove it" the other way around?
Hey Cal prove that you don't think about gay guys going at it all the time.

[cal1082]

Hey Cal prove that you don't think about gay guys going at it all the time.

I really can't. All I can tell you that might help is that you havent come up in a conversation lately.

[swirlofhues]

I really can't. All I can tell you is that might help is that you havent come up in a conversation lately.

Are you drunk?

[skankinbri]

Never was one on religion, never will be.

[xvszero]

Cows do not ruin the earth they live on, do they? But you, on the other hand, plague it! Have you driven in a car before? Cows don't pollute like you do! Have you ever harmed another human being? Sure, you have! Cows don't kill, rape, destory, pollute, etc. However, people do and you do too! (hopefully not rape and kill, but you get my picture)

Neither do rocks, and they don't even kill grass.

Rocks must be the smartest fucking things around, ever.

[ghostyouare]

Neither do rocks, and they don't even kill grass.

Rocks must be the smartest fucking things around, ever.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I love you.

[Un-AmericanPunk]

Thus based entirely upon assumption. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang, and currently cannot find evidence to prove that there was a 'before', but we are still seeking to find this out. Our current knowledge leads to the explaination that there was no 'before'.

What does this 'void' you are talking of consist of? Because to me void means empty space, and that certainly did not exist before the Big Bang.

Anyways, I can prove you wrong with one argument, which I have been waiting to pull out the bag for quite awhile in this thread. Now I don't know how deep your mathematical and physics knowledge goes, but bear with me. The claim that the beginning of our Universe has an actual cause conflicts with current scientific theory. The scientific theory is called the wave function of the Universe. It has been developed in the past ten years or so by Stephen Hawking, Andre Vilenkin, Alex Linde, and many others. Their theory is that there is a scientific law of nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our Universe possesses. For example, contains intelligent organisms such as humans. This remaining universe has a certain probability very high -- near to a hundred percent -- of coming into existence uncaused.

Hawking's theory is confirmed by observational evidence (thus proof). This theory predicts our Universe has evenly-distributed matter on a large scale, which would be on scales of super-clusters of galaxies - this is correct and can be observed in our Universe. It also predicts that the expansion rate of our Universe (Hubble's Constant) -- our Universe has been expanding ever since the Big Bang -- would be almost exactly between the rate of the Universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called inflation (this is VERY important). Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the microwave background radiation (what you see/hear when you turn on an un-tuned tv or radio) in the Universe. So a scientific theory that is confirmed by observational evidence tells us that the Universe began without being caused. So if you want to be a rational person and accept the results of rational inquiry into nature, then we (atheists) must accept the fact that your 'god' did not cause the Universe to exist. The Universe exists because of this wave-function law.

Bingo.


ok..... does this make sense to anyone? I'm only 17, but I got a 34 on my ACT ok? so I'm anything but stupid, and all I get out of this is... Some scientists (a million times smarter than me) said this universe was #1 and #2 so it cancels itself out, but this one only gets one number so it doesn't cancel itself out, therefore.... our universe just appeared. Not trying to be a prick or anything, I'm just having a very hard time following your undenyable proof. PLEASE EXPLAIN.

[fedhed7]

I don't get it. It seems like your faith isn't your own. It seems like you're looking to be directed by some one else. It's funny to me that you gave up religion just because your dad did.No, I didn't give up religion because my father did. My father exposed to me a different view, one that I hadn't encountered before. And after that, I did some of my own soul searching, and found that religion isn't something that I want to be a part of.

Anyways, what do you have to say about all those jews that suffered through the holocaust, that were in camps and still continued to be practicing jews? I think that's testimony enough to make you believe in a higher power, there's something there to give them hope.According to Judaism and other religions, God doesn't give people the incentive to believe, or physically give them hope. People are supposed to form their own opinions during their lifetime. At least that's what I've gathered.

Faith has never been about miracle after miracle, infact it has almost been from one struggle onto the next. Why must one rely on a struggle to strengthen their faith? Is that God's will? Why must human beings suffer in order to believe in God?
The last thing you said is that you don't want to be living you life in vain but it's almost hypocritical. Giving up religion so you don't have live for God and follow the religious teachings so you could live a more self-centered life.Just because I'm not bound to a religion and its teachings doesn't mean I'm a man without morals. According to Judaic law, one is required to avoid working on friday nights and saturday mornings. One must not mix meat and dairy. One must not eat pork. You can't even flip the light switch or rip off a piece of toilet paper. Why not? It honestly makes no sense. If I disobey all of these laws, am I not Jewish?

As for my Rogerian Strategy, Religion is perhaps the greatest establishment of the human race. It has created a set of morals that any human being, regardless of religious stance, should follow. I'm not religious by any means, but it's hard to argue that religion has done nothing for humans.
Sorry that I just picked on you a bit. I just walked into this thread and hadn't a clue where to start.It's all good. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Judaism, but I'm just speaking from the experiences I've had in the past 17 years. Sorry if I've misconstrued anything you've said.

[xvszero]

ok..... does this make sense to anyone? I'm only 17, but I got a 34 on my ACT ok? so I'm anything but stupid, and all I get out of this is... Some scientists (a million times smarter than me) said this universe was #1 and #2 so it cancels itself out, but this one only gets one number so it doesn't cancel itself out, therefore.... our universe just appeared. Not trying to be a prick or anything, I'm just having a very hard time following your undenyable proof. PLEASE EXPLAIN.

I have a feeling he didn't write it out right at ALL. Which he might not necessarily be to blame, the actual theory is probably the type most people can't really comprehend.

What I don't get, though, is why he calls it a law near the end of his post and a theory when he introduces it. Theory != law.

[Mercy Medical]

How is "You shall suffer in hell because you didnt accept Jesus"

different from "You deserve to suffer because you didnt believe what we believe"?
It's a lot different. I feel by saying that someone deserves such a fate would be much worse then saying that's what will happen to them.

As you should have read in the rest of my post though, most Christians want to prevent that from occurring by converting people to Christianity. That's just the way it goes.

I don't understand why some of you people want to fight with Christians so hard about what we believe. I believe what I believe, I've made my stance, I've said how I felt. I'm not looking down on any of you non believers as being worse then who I am just because I am a believer. I haven't stated anywhere anything to really offend any of you people. I don't know, maybe a lot of you have just come across some bad Christians in your lifetime.

[ghostyouare]

No, I didn't give up religion because my father did. My father exposed to me a different view, one that I hadn't encountered before. And after that, I did some of my own soul searching, and found that religion isn't something that I want to be a part of.
Sorry you left that part out. It works both ways with religion. If you're parents are christians/jews/hindis/islams/taoist/buddhist/athiest you're more than likely going to be that and from what you said previous that's what was the easiest conclusion. Sorry I got you wrong though.

According to Judaism and other religions, God doesn't give people the incentive to believe, or physically give them hope. People are supposed to form their own opinions during their lifetime. At least that's what I've gathered.
That's more of a personal belief. As for mine, I've collected through stories (from my faith) that God gave us stories and testaments (not as in new/old) of people, from none believers as well.

Why must one rely on a struggle to strengthen their faith? Is that God's will? Why must human beings suffer in order to believe in God?
I didn't mean to make it sound like they should rely on a struggle to strengthen their faith. I just think if you go through hell and back (like the victims of the holocaust) and can continue on with it I belive that's a GREAT testimony. It's not physical proof but it's more of an observation. I might back track a bit and say if you're not tested then how do you know it works? And that's kinda what i've gathered from "trials and tribulations."

As for the God's will part. All abrahamic faiths (which is basically all I know about and really believe in) teach free will. And if God's will was to cross the line of pushing us to do something even just once, that would kill the whole idea of
free will. I want you to reexamine you stance on faith but that doesn't mean you will. I'm not God but I'm in the same stance as him.
Just because I'm not bound to a religion and its teachings doesn't mean I'm a man without morals. According to Judaic law, one is required to avoid working on friday nights and saturday mornings. One must not mix meat and dairy. One must not eat pork. You can't even flip the light switch or rip off a piece of toilet paper. Why not? It honestly makes no sense. If I disobey all of these laws, am I not Jewish?
The laws were different back then, it was a completely different time. It would make no sense if there was a speed limit back then. (I hope you can see my point there). As for the sabbah stuff it was to keep men at home and have family time. To skip work (mind you work was a sun up to sundown thing) and spend a day with your family and God. The pork thing I'm not completely certain why but if it's there I'm not going to question why.

As for my Rogerian Strategy, Religion is perhaps the greatest establishment of the human race. It has created a set of morals that any human being, regardless of religious stance, should follow. I'm not religious by any means, but it's hard to argue that religion has done nothing for humans.
I believe church is the biggest thing man has corrupted. The original reason holy books were written and the establishment of the church was to try to stop all the fake offspring teachings/religions that were created. Technically I believe it had an AMAZING purpose that man-kind ruined.

Every one in the abrahamic faiths believe that mankind is wicked and sinful and corrupt and I think it's proven that man RUINED/Corrupted/Tarnished the one of the most important things supposed to help us stay closer to God.

It's all good. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Judaism, but I'm just speaking from the experiences I've had in the past 17 years. Sorry if I've misconstrued anything you've said.
I'm not as familiar as a practicing jew but I've done plenty of research on it. It's part of knowing my roots as a christian.

[punklet2101]

I don't understand why some of you people want to fight with Christians so hard about what we believe. I believe what I believe, I've made my stance, I've said how I felt. I'm not looking down on any of you non believers as being worse then who I am just because I am a believer. I haven't stated anywhere anything to really offend any of you people. I don't know, maybe a lot of you have just come across some bad Christians in your lifetime.
That's exactly how i feel sometimes, it's like if you just put out there what you believe in (and were asked to in the first place!) people take it as an attack or something and get all defensive

[xvszero]

I said "highest form of life"... rocks aren't living are they!? Wow, you're useless.

We're all useless. A plague on the Earth, remember?

Good thing you ignored the point for a technicality though. Does it matter? Fine, roses then. Roses are alive, they are harmless, they're fucking brilliant.

Your point basically revolves around cows being intelligent because they're fucking idiots and can't comprehend anything beyond following their instincts, which just happen to make them docile creatures. Right. I guess sharks and wolves are morons then for all the slaughter they bring about following their instincts.

Face it, animals are too stupid to do anything besides act instinctively or do what they're taught.

And who cares about the planet? The animals? "Nature?" The dinosaurs didn't go around screwing everything up and the Ice Age still came about. No, only human beings sit around caring about the planet. You think we're such a plague, you think we will "ruin" the Earth, but so what if we do? Then life ends. Is that such a horrible thing? I'm sure cows aren't worried about whether future cows will have a planet to live on. Weird that you base our supposed lack of intelligence on a mere human concern...

[cal1082]

I don't have a college degree in Religious Studies, 94,383 posts, or even that many years under my belt. All I know is that God makes me content upon myself and makes me a stronger person. If others choose to do differently, then that's cool, but it doesn't hurt my faith at all...

Good post

If you're trying to convience someone who has already convienced themselves that there is no God it's gonna go nowhere fast. It'd be like a true believer looking to be convienced otherwise.

Often the best you can do is say how He's worked in your life and offer lending hand.

[Mercy Medical]

I said "highest form of life"... rocks aren't living are they!? Wow, you're useless.
Stop being a douche, seriously.

[hXc_pwnage]

I'm just curious...

Since when did your god become a man? If god is all he is cracked up to be, wouldn't god be above gender?

Also, why would a "loving god" put two child-like humans onto an Earth full of beautiful and new things and expect them not to go exploring around? And why would this loving god also punish all of humanity for the mistakes of one?

[hXc_pwnage]

despite your attempt at inane convolution, this is entirely incorrect: The burden of proof is on the believer, this is accepted by all credible apologeticist.

and here is why, short and shorter versions:

Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary Evidence.

The purple unicorn argument: You can not disprove that a purple unicorn exists. Why? because it requires proof of a negative. You are the "proposer" and it is incumbent on "the proposer" to prove to "the challenger."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy% 29
I think this post was over looked by many.

[hXc_pwnage]

And how many Christians in here believe in free will and how many believe in destiny?

[cal1082]

Great questions that have no answers! Also, why are children born with diseases, disorders, and handicaps? Gosh, if God was so damn loving, this wouldn't happen, would it? But, believers will claim, "God cannot make the world perfect." I guess we can just tell all the retarded children and miscarriages, "Sorry, you took one for the team. Better luck next time around in the womb. Wait, you won't have a next time."

You are going wrong by asking answers of believers and seeking answers other than Biblical answer.
The questions you are asking can be answered in the Bible for the most part directly. Others you have to study scripture and make reasonable guesses.

Someone could easily answer your questions through the Bible but it obviously would not matter to you because it is coming from the Bible.

It's somewhat of a catch-22

[ghostyouare]

And how many Christians in here believe in free will and how many believe in destiny?
I'm sure all Christians believe in free will. And with your destiny question this is how I best can put it.
Say you're going some where (in this case, death) and you have so many different paths you can take. You have the right to choose any of the pathes for what ever reason you want. You could have some one along side of you on this path, in this case it would be god. You say, "hey God, which path should I take" and there you go, if you follow his path then you have a "God-given destiny." You can choose whatever way you want though.

Sorry that was the gayest example every, it's too hot to be creative.
I'm just curious...

Since when did your god become a man? If god is all he is cracked up to be, wouldn't god be above gender?

Also, why would a "loving god" put two child-like humans onto an Earth full of beautiful and new things and expect them not to go exploring around? And why would this loving god also punish all of humanity for the mistakes of one?
God is referred to in masculine and feminine forms in the Bible. So I don't believe he's really gender specific.

As for the two-humans that ruin earth. Not all christians (even the Roman-Catholic church has said made it known their stance) that they completely believe in evolution and that the story of Adam and Eve were to symbol why man is corrupt.
God made man, not copies of himself.

[fedhed7]

As for Evolution, I took AP Biology last year, and it only strengthened my disbelief.

The Theory of Evolution has so much evidence backing it up that it is essentially fact.

With that in mind, doesn't it directly contradict the creation part of The Bible? And if one part of The Bible is wrong, wouldn't the rest be fabrication as well?

[ghostyouare]

As for Evolution, I took AP Biology last year, and it only strengthened my disbelief.

The Theory of Evolution has so much evidence backing it up that it is essentially fact.

With that in mind, doesn't it directly contradict the creation part of The Bible? And if one part of The Bible is wrong, wouldn't the rest be fabrication as well?
So people believe that the bible is infalliable (I am one of them) and other believe that there's a few things that are off.

I believe a bit of the stories are just metaphores and such. You can't really explain how the world was created to people who have no knowledge of what energy or mass is.

[hXc_pwnage]

I'm sure all Christians believe in free will. And with your destiny question this is how I best can put it.
Say you're going some where (in this case, death) and you have so many different paths you can take. You have the right to choose any of the pathes for what ever reason you want. You could have some one along side of you on this path, in this case it would be god. You say, "hey God, which path should I take" and there you go, if you follow his path then you have a "God-given destiny." You can choose whatever way you want though.

Sorry that was the gayest example every, it's too hot to be creative.
This is the way I see it: Alright, now if you have a set destiny, that mean god already knows how everyone is going to end up and where everyone is going to go. If you were given free will, how is it certain you'd end up at the destiny given by god? How is god sure you won't stray from the path? But if you have that set destiny, that mean god puts people in hell. That's not too loving.

Sorry, it's too early for me to keep one straight thought.

God is referred to in masculine and feminine forms in the Bible. So I don't believe he's really gender specific.

As for the two-humans that ruin earth. Not all christians (even the Roman-Catholic church has said made it known their stance) that they completely believe in evolution and that the story of Adam and Eve were to symbol why man is corrupt.
God made man, not copies of himself.
So why does everyone refer to god as a man? Isn't that kind of sexist and shit?

And I just also don't see how Christians can view their god as more truthful than the gods of ancient Romans and Greeks. All rely on faith.

[Love As Arson]

I think this post was over looked by many.
I believe it was addressed. In any case, to make it clear:

Christianity rests upon faith. As faith is the pillar of the belief system, proof is something contradictory and irrelevant. An atheist, on the other hand, says that the material world is the ultimate and proof is necessary for all assertions. As proof is the necessary fixture of the atheist's position, it is they that must provide evidence for the non-existence so far. As it stands, they've not done so.

[Love As Arson]

Yes, refering to God as a man is sexist. Almost all deities are males, strange isn't it... because men once ruled the world and women were considered shit. Sorry males, but women are much smarter than us. The world would be much more peaceful if it was ruled by women.
For one who claims to be reasonable, you make all sorts of statements, with little proof to back them up. I realise that it gets one support to say such things, but it is not the case. The female population has as many morons as the male population. The position that the world will be more peaceful is moronic as well if we are to take into consideration the material conditions of the world. When one does so, they find that the world would probably be in the same state as it is now, simply with different rulers.

[hXc_pwnage]

When one does so, they find that the world would probably be in the same state as it is now, simply with different rulers.
Agreed.

[cantnokdahustle]

I'm sure all Christians believe in free will. .


Clavinists do not believe in free will, and they are most certainly xtian.

[dai the flu]

adam and eve werent deprived of anything. they werent starving, about to die if they didnt eat from that tree. that one limitation they had should not and was not hard for them to follow. it was merely a symbol of their respect for god and their acknowledgment that as their creator, god had the right to set rules for them. it wasnt cruel for him to do that.
not all religions, and certainly not the bible, paint god as a vindictive, cruel, heartless entity. god doesnt make people suffer, god doesnt cause disasters, god doesnt send people to 'hell'.
on the other hand, god has provided answers to life's questions, a means to escape the problems that life in this world brings, and the instructions and guidance needed to take advantage of that provision. the only problem is, most people are so jaded by the crap that religions teach today that they dont give god and the bible a chance.

[cantnokdahustle]

I think this post was over looked by many.


Problem is, some (atleast one) on here seem to think that the agreed upon rules (in the philosophical community) do not apply to them; disregarding logic (which renders all sort of absurd statements o.k.).

When a book actively references unicorns, giants, gollu, and other magical creatures, and folks take the literature as true, there is no way the secular community can "win."

[cantnokdahustle]

adam and eve werent deprived of anything. they werent starving, about to die if they didnt eat from that tree. that one limitation they had should not and was not hard for them to follow. it was merely a symbol of their respect for god and their acknowledgment that as their creator, god had the right to set rules for them. it wasnt cruel for him to do that.
not all religions, and certainly not the bible, paint god as a vindictive, cruel, heartless entity. god doesnt make people suffer, god doesnt cause disasters, god doesnt send people to 'hell'.
on the other hand, god has provided answers to life's questions, a means to escape the problems that life in this world brings, and the instructions and guidance needed to take advantage of that provision. the only problem is, most people are so jaded by the crap that religions teach today that they dont give god and the bible a chance.


How can you (or a being) expect other beings, who have no concept of good and evil, to be expected to follow the rules. We are talking about an environment of amorality, and in an environment of such, disobeying an order is not "wrong," for there is no such concept yet. The rule had to be broken to be understood. Only after, A&E had gained knowledge of good and evil could they have been expected to know right from wrong.

If i bought a puppy and told it not to piss on the carpet, do you think it would understand? It is only after the puppy has pissed on the carpet and i have ridiculed it, or shown it that this is not desirable behaviour, that i can begin to expect the puppy to not piss on the carpet.

Now, before you say,"but were not dogs!" The analogy is sufficient, because many have said our understanding of god is analogous to a dog's understanding of ourselves.

[cal1082]

How can you (or a being) expect other beings, who have no concept of good and evil, to be expected to follow the rules. We are talking about an environment of amorality, and in an environment of such, disobeying an order is not "wrong," for there is no such concept yet. The rule had to be broken to be understood. Only after, A&E had gained knowledge of good and evil could they have been expected to know right from wrong.

If i bought a puppy and told it not to piss on the carpet, do you think it would understand? It is only after the puppy has pissed on the carpet and i have ridiculed it, or shown it that this is not desirable behaviour, that i can begin to expect the puppy to not piss on the carpet.

Now, before you say,"but were not dogs!" The analogy is sufficient, because many have said our understanding of god is analogous to a dog's understanding of ourselves.

I happen to believe humans have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong.

[dai the flu]

why do you have to break a rule in order to understand it?
they werent brainless. they were perfectly intelligent, free-thinking individuals.
they knew that god created them, that he created everything. he provided for them, gave them everything they could want, they had a relationship with him.
he gave them explicit instructions on life, their role, and his requirements for them. he told them exactly what not to do and told them in no uncertain terms what would happen to them if they didnt listen to him. they had no excuse for disobeying him. their minds were not blank slates with no concepts of life or reasoning. your puppy analogy does not fit.

[parallelism]

I happen to believe humans have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong.

...And that's why so many people belonging to so many different cultures have beliefs, morals and standards set so far apart from ours that we can't even begin accept them. After some time adapting to a certain type of society, I agree with you. Otherwise, one man's conception of right and wrong can be unmeasurably different than that of another.

[Jared Kaufman]

why do you have to break a rule in order to understand it?
they werent brainless. they were perfectly intelligent, free-thinking individuals.
they knew that god created them, that he created everything. he provided for them, gave them everything they could want, they had a relationship with him.
he gave them explicit instructions on life, their role, and his requirements for them. he told them exactly what not to do and told them in no uncertain terms what would happen to them if they didnt listen to him. they had no excuse for disobeying him. their minds were not blank slates with no concepts of life or reasoning. your puppy analogy does not fit.
Check your PMs, bro.

[cantnokdahustle]

why do you have to break a rule in order to understand it?
they werent brainless. they were perfectly intelligent, free-thinking individuals.
they knew that god created them, that he created everything. he provided for them, gave them everything they could want, they had a relationship with him.
he gave them explicit instructions on life, their role, and his requirements for them. he told them exactly what not to do and told them in no uncertain terms what would happen to them if they didnt listen to him. they had no excuse for disobeying him. their minds were not blank slates with no concepts of life or reasoning. your puppy analogy does not fit.


They were most certainly not "perfectly intelligent, free thinking individuals." They are depicted as overgrown children, they are in every sense "innocent." The reason they, in particular, had to break it to understand it, is because they had not any knowledge of good and evil and therefor moral discernment and therefor should not be morally culpable for disobeying god, unless of course you want to argue that disobeying god is not morally wrong/evil.

We, on the other hand, do not have to "break it to understand it," for we (most, not all of us) have knowledge of right and wrong.

[Jared Kaufman]

They were most certainly not "perfectly intelligent, free thinking individuals." They are depicted as overgrown children, they are in every sense "innocent." The reason they, in particular, had to break it to understand it, is because they had not any knowledge of good and evil and therefor moral discernment and therefor should not be morally culpable for disobeying god, unless of course you want to argue that disobeying god is not morally wrong/evil.

We, on the other hand, do not have to "break it to understand it," for we (most, not all of us) have knowledge of right and wrong.
That's not true. God, after giving them an abundance of trees to choose from, told them not to eat from that one particular tree and what would happen to them if they did. Adam and Eve were perfect humans with free will and knew exactly what they were doing. For example, when Satan, disguised as a serpent, initially began persuading Eve to disobey God, she stated what would happen to her if she did. The whole purpose of "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad" was to symbolize how "it wasn't for man to direct to his own step" and that they needed God to rule over them; in other words, God's sovreignty.

[parallelism]

why do you have to break a rule in order to understand it?
they werent brainless. they were perfectly intelligent, free-thinking individuals.
they knew that god created them, that he created everything. he provided for them, gave them everything they could want, they had a relationship with him.
he gave them explicit instructions on life, their role, and his requirements for them. he told them exactly what not to do and told them in no uncertain terms what would happen to them if they didnt listen to him. they had no excuse for disobeying him. their minds were not blank slates with no concepts of life or reasoning. your puppy analogy does not fit.

If you're stating that they were completely free-thinking individuals, you're negating your whole argument right there, buddy. According to most versions of this story, they were new to the world and were basically portrayed as adult kids. I'll completely agree that they were free-thinking, but then how does that statement lead to saying that they had no excuse for disobeying?

If they had the slightest clue as to what was right and what was wrong, it was all based on what God had told them. They had no grasp on the concept of consequence. That's exactly what Cantnokdahustle was saying.

While they could have been told that they were wrong, they didn't know what punishment was (they knew it was bad, maybe, but at that point had they even any knowledge of the word, "bad?"), what death was or what anything truly was. Although they knew that something was bound to happen to them for disobeying, could they have truly known the lengths of the outcome? (Please don't try telling anybody that A&E knew what death was; we don't even know what death is. It's the end of life, the body is no longer conscious, whatever. But there is no way for a living person to know the feeling or meaning of death. And we're obviously never going to have the opportunity to learn it from somebody who does know.)

The puppy analogy was more than accurate. It's human nature to feel the need to test the waters and discover consequences. That is their reason for "disobeying." I'm sure that at one point or another, you were clearly told to do one thing but you went and did another. Hell, I hope you've done that at least once. People want to discover things for themselves. We are curious, as dogs are, and as any other creature that exists is.

(This is where I am going to start straying away to a different topic. I'm just stating that right now so I don't throw people off.)

It's odd because in a way, it seems that the struggle for power as a religion works in the same was as a mob-war does. Said "god(s)" from each religion have people under their power (or possibly, rather, there are people who just believe they are under a certain god's power). There has been so much killing since the beginning of organized religion solely over which one is the right one. Even God's command is like a mob lord's command.

Basically it's, "Work for me, worship me. You don't have to listen to me and you don't have to do anything that I say. But know this: if you don't, you're fucked."

For me, personally, I just can't really stand for that. I can't feel justified in believing and supporting something that I can't see in front of me. Anybody who knows me in person knows that I'm perfectly okay with whatever anybody else wants to believe, but as for right now, religion just isn't really working for me.

[Jared Kaufman]

If you're stating that they were completely free-thinking individuals, you're negating your whole argument right there, buddy. According to most versions of this story, they were new to the world and were basically portrayed as adult kids.

If they had the slightest clue as to what was right and what was wrong, it was all based on what God had told them. They had no grasp on the concept of consequence. That's exactly what Cantnokdahustle was saying.

While they could have been told that they were wrong, they didn't know what punishment was (they knew it was bad, maybe, but at that point had they even any knowledge of the word, "bad?"), what death was or what anything truly was.

The puppy analogy was more than accurate. It's human nature to feel the need to test the waters and discover consequences. That is their reason for "disobeying." I'm sure that at one point or another, you were clearly told to do one thing but you went and did another. Hell, I hope you've done that at least once. People want to discover things for themselves. We are curious, as dogs are, and as any other creature that exists is.

It's odd because in a way, the struggle for power as a religion works in the same was as a mob-war does. Said "god(s)" from each religion have people under their power (or possibly, rather, there are people who just believe they are under a certain god's power). There has been so much killing since the beginning of organized religion solely over which one is the right one. Even God's command is like a mob lord's command.

Basically it's, "Work for me, worship me. You don't have to listen to me and you don't have to do anything that I say. But, know that if you don't, you're fucked."
God told them they could eat from EVERY tree but one and what would happen to them if they disobeyed. Seeing as they had no clue what death was, God explained it to them. This brings us back to the part where when Satan was tempting Eve she flat out said she would die if she did it.

[cantnokdahustle]

God told them they could eat from EVERY tree but one and what would happen to them if they disobeyed. Seeing as they had no clue what death was, God explained it to them. This brings us back to the part where when Satan was tempting Eve she flat out said she would die if she did it.

I don't think your quite grasping the argument:

1) Adam and Eve were humans without knowledge of good and evil.

2) god, in its infinite wisdom, told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

3) god expected adam and eve to follow his command.

4*added premise) disobeying "god" is considered morally wrong/evil.

4) Adam and eve did not know, yet, that disobeying god's command was evil, as they had yet to eat from the tree.

5) simply commanding and expecting, of beings who have no sense of right and wrong, is futile.

6) telling them they would die explains only a consequence (I am not arguing, at the moment, that they could or could not understand the concept of death).

7) It does not, however, give adam and eve "knowledge of good and evil."

8*) therfore, adam and eve could not be held morally responsible for disobeying god.

*Post has been edited to add premise (4) and conclusion (8). "Free Will" means nothing without the knowledge of good and evil.

[parallelism]

God told them they could eat from EVERY tree but one and what would happen to them if they disobeyed. Seeing as they had no clue what death was, God explained it to them. This brings us back to the part where when Satan was tempting Eve she flat out said she would die if she did it.

I will make sure to read more into this forum and consider anything that you've said. As for right now, I just want to let you know that I've revised my post and clarified it a bit.

[cal1082]

I don't think your quite grasping the argument:

1) Adam and Eve were humans without knowledge of good and evil.

2) god, in its infinite wisdom, told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

3) god expected adam and eve to follow his command.

4) Adam and eve did not know, yet, that disobeying god's command was evil, as they had yet to eat from the tree.

5) simply commanding and expecting, of beings who have no sense of right and wrong, is futile.

6) telling them they would die explains only a consequence (I am not arguing, at the moment, that they could or could not understand the concept of death).

7) It does not, however, give adam and eve "knowledge of good and evil."

Lets assume that they know what the concept of "death" is. Do you not believe they could figure out right/wrong judging by the consequence of there actions?

[cantnokdahustle]

Lets assume that they know what the concept of "death" is. Do you not believe they could figure out right/wrong judging by the consequence of there actions?

That is the whole point, they had not been given the idea of right and wrong/good and evil, in fact they were specifically forbidden that knowledge. And since, by this view, we are only able to figure out what god has given us, or in this instance, what it has enticed us with, then no, they could not "put 2 and 2 together."

If they had knowledge of good and evil apriori, then why have a tree of knowledge of good and evil? It renders the tree completely irrelevent.

[parallelism]

Lets assume that they know what the concept of "death" is. Do you not believe they could figure out right/wrong judging by the consequence of there actions?

Supposedly, Jesus died because of his actions.
Was he wrong in doing so?

[ghostyouare]

This is the way I see it: Alright, now if you have a set destiny, that mean god already knows how everyone is going to end up and where everyone is going to go. If you were given free will, how is it certain you'd end up at the destiny given by god? How is god sure you won't stray from the path? But if you have that set destiny, that mean god puts people in hell. That's not too loving.
I had the biggest problem understanding this. But after awhile it made sense. God knows everything because everything happends at once to him. Time isn't linear to him, it's ever-present. The person that existed before time isn't exactly bound to the same laws of time.

I'm sorry if I'm not making sense, I'm tired still.

Sorry, it's too early for me to keep one straight thought.
So why does everyone refer to god as a man? Isn't that kind of sexist and shit?
And I just also don't see how Christians can view their god as more truthful than the gods of ancient Romans and Greeks. All rely on faith
We refer to him has he/him and any other masculine form because it's a natural thing, we could call him a she but then we'd just be back in the same spot and if we called him a shem that'd be kinda insulting.

The roman and greeks believed that their gods threw lightning bolts. Their explanation for everything they didn't understand was it was a god doing it. I know it sounds like Christians do the same thing but everything we've put in the bible for the way things aren't like "lightning comes from a man on a cloud throws lightning bolts and horses are running around creating thunder." There's a bit more intelligence in the abrahamic faiths.

[ghostyouare]

How can you (or a being) expect other beings, who have no concept of good and evil, to be expected to follow the rules. We are talking about an environment of amorality, and in an environment of such, disobeying an order is not "wrong," for there is no such concept yet. The rule had to be broken to be understood. Only after, A&E had gained knowledge of good and evil could they have been expected to know right from wrong.
Do you have to understand why something is wrong inorder to not do it? They unconciously sinned in away but

If i bought a puppy and told it not to piss on the carpet, do you think it would understand? It is only after the puppy has pissed on the carpet and i have ridiculed it, or shown it that this is not desirable behaviour, that i can begin to expect the puppy to not piss on the carpet.
That's a terrible example. A puppy doesn't understand a thing you've said. It's mental capacity is lacking. Adam and Eve understood what they were told, they might not understand WHY but they knew what they weren't supposed to do.

Now, before you say,"but were not dogs!" The analogy is sufficient, because many have said our understanding of god is analogosus to a dog's understanding of ourselves.
I'm going to completely disregard this because it's retarded.


Clavinists do not believe in free will, and they are most certainly xtian.
Yet they don't have any reason to believe in that. I despise the thought of predestination. I really dislike some of the different demoninations in the faith.

[mps]

Satanism is the best 'relgion' in my opinion, as it does not subscribe to the notion of an anthropomorphic deity or some 'being' who must be worshiped. Plus I really like the philosophy of Satanism, and how it really promotes induviduality, creativity, questioning of everything, common sense and free thinking.

[berk18]

1) Adam and Eve were humans without knowledge of good and evil.

2) god, in its infinite wisdom, told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

3) god expected adam and eve to follow his command.

4*added premise) disobeying "god" is considered morally wrong/evil.

4) Adam and eve did not know, yet, that disobeying god's command was evil, as they had yet to eat from the tree.

5) simply commanding and expecting, of beings who have no sense of right and wrong, is futile.

6) telling them they would die explains only a consequence (I am not arguing, at the moment, that they could or could not understand the concept of death).

7) It does not, however, give adam and eve "knowledge of good and evil."

8*) therfore, adam and eve could not be held morally responsible for disobeying god.



Do you really think the author of Genesis meant to imply that Adam and Eve didn’t know disobeying God was wrong? It’s ultimately a matter of interpretation of a few sentences, but it seems to me that the knowledge of good and evil represents a divine knowledge (Genesis 3:22), one that need not have been known to understand that disobeying God was wrong. I don’t see anyone really being swayed by this particular argument, although you’re getting at something good on a higher level.


The roman and greeks believed that their gods threw lightning bolts. Their explanation for everything they didn't understand was it was a god doing it. I know it sounds like Christians do the same thing but everything we've put in the bible for the way things aren't like "lightning comes from a man on a cloud throws lightning bolts and horses are running around creating thunder." There's a bit more intelligence in the abrahamic faiths.



“It was you who drove back Sea by your might…It was you who cut openings for springs and torrents; it was you who dried up ever-flowing streams…it was you who established the luminaries and the sun…it was you who made summer and winter.” Psalm 74

“By his power he stilled the Sea…by his wind the heavens were made clear.” Job 26:12

Now we understand these passages in a more mystical and poetic sense, but you’d be hard pressed to show me that the ancient Israelites honestly believed their God to be less anthropomorphic (until the time of the prophets, anyway) than the Greeks or Romans. Let’s not portray the pagans as childish storytellers, and let’s not pretend that the founders of Judaism had any “more intelligence” than their contemporaries. How this religion developed, with its more transcendent deity, has nothing to do with the religion itself, but with a religious movement that, by my light, originated in the post-Amarna period in Egypt. Religion was becoming “modernized,” and the Abrahamic faiths happened to survive to see more modern interpretations. Nothing more.

[parallelism]

Now we understand these passages in a more mystical and poetic sense, but you’d be hard pressed to show me that the ancient Israelites honestly believed their God to be less anthropomorphic (until the time of the prophets, anyway) than the Greeks or Romans. Let’s not portray the pagans as childish storytellers, and let’s not pretend that the founders of Judaism had any “more intelligence” than their contemporaries. How this religion developed, with its more transcendent deity, has nothing to do with the religion itself, but with a religious movement that, by my light, originated in the post-Amarna period in Egypt. Religion was becoming “modernized,” and the Abrahamic faiths happened to survive to see more modern interpretations. Nothing more.

Yes.
Well put.

[berk18]

And, to the thread starter, we can't go back in time and know that Jesus resurrected anymore than we can go back in time and see the origin of the universe. Both are equally fantastic, and would be equally miraculous in my eyes. Fortunately, there are lots of scholarly works available about religion from all times and periods. All of the "philosophical" arguments brought up here have been around and discussed for a long time. All of the historical "inconsistencies" as well. I would say, if you're having trouble with your faith, figure out how much we can know with a little bit of reading, and go from there. If you don't care enough to do that, you probably shouldn't profess any religion too strongly anyway.

[xThursdayxPTWx]

God's pretty cool. But fuck religion and the clergy.

[mps]

And, to the thread starter, we can't go back in time and know that Jesus resurrected anymore than we can go back in time and see the origin of the universe. Both are equally fantastic, and would be equally miraculous in my eyes. Fortunately, there are lots of scholarly works available about religion from all times and periods. All of the "philosophical" arguments brought up here have been around and discussed for a long time. All of the historical "inconsistencies" as well. I would say, if you're having trouble with your faith, figure out how much we can know with a little bit of reading, and go from there. If you don't care enough to do that, you probably shouldn't profess any religion too strongly anyway.

But you can provide evidence today that serves as concrete proof to explain this event. You cannot do so with anything to do with 'jesus'.

[dai the flu]

im so burnt out on this subject i cant even hardly stand reading through all the posts i miss. but anyway, adam and eve knew exactly what death was. they saw death and dying in the animal kingdom, they understood what happened. all actions and consciousness ceased and the body went back to the ground. they understood 'from dust you are and to dust you will return.'

[dai the flu]

But you can provide evidence today that serves as concrete proof to explain this event. You cannot do so with anything to do with 'jesus'.
once again we're back to this 'concrete proof'. i understand all the theories about the universe expanding and hubbles law and redshift and all that...but what does that prove? that somehow proves theres no creator? no it doesnt. it doesnt prove anything except the fact that we can crunch all the numbers we want and see the effects of something but we still dont know the reason or the force behind it all. impress us all you want with your numbers and calculations, but when it comes right down to it, you still havent proven anything. you still dont know "the origin of the universe".

[berk18]

But you can provide evidence today that serves as concrete proof to explain this event. You cannot do so with anything to do with 'jesus'.
I'll give you the expansion and acceleration of the universe. I know about background radiation and Hubble's Constant. What I won't give you are actual fluctuations out of nothing. We can't show how it happened (how could we?), and it seems based on the assumption that the universe must have a mechanical cause.
I, personally, don't believe in Jesus as the son of God. There are some good questions though. Why would his early followers be willing to die for a resurrection they knew never happened? Peter and Paul were possibly martyred. Peter allegedly knew Jesus, and Paul knew the apostles. Why such strong faith in a known fairytale? We can't say the Bible isn't true because it has supernatural events. It goes something like this:
1) The Bible has fantastic events, like walking on water, rising from the dead, and curing the sick miraculously.
2) People can't do those things.
3) Therefore, God, who in theory could make people do those things, doesn't exist.
I don't know, I don't think we have a flawless case either way. How about you?

^Somehow, the poster above me read my mind in a lot of ways. That's cool.

[Mercy Medical]

This thread is getting out of control.

[jusscali]

wow this is crazy. i saw the lengths of some of the statements and knew not to get too involved.

i guess my thoughts on the matter can be summed up easily in one statement.

ill believe it when i see it :)

bring the crusades with you if you must, but im a stubborn fucker :) i stand as the only god in my universe

[mps]

once again we're back to this 'concrete proof'. i understand all the theories about the universe expanding and hubbles law and redshift and all that...but what does that prove? that somehow proves theres no creator? no it doesnt. it doesnt prove anything except the fact that we can crunch all the numbers we want and see the effects of something but we still dont know the reason or the force behind it all. impress us all you want with your numbers and calculations, but when it comes right down to it, you still havent proven anything. you still dont know "the origin of the universe".

Nobody knows the origin of the Universe yet, but there is proof against a divine creator. I already wrote a really long post about it before, but it seems like no one is interested and just dismisses what they don't understand.

[mps]

I'll give you the expansion and acceleration of the universe. I know about background radiation and Hubble's Constant. What I won't give you are actual fluctuations out of nothing. We can't show how it happened (how could we?), and it seems based on the assumption that the universe must have a mechanical cause. I, personally, don't believe in Jesus as the son of God. There are some good questions though. Why would his early followers be willing to die for a resurrection they knew never happened? Peter and Paul were possibly martyred. Peter allegedly knew Jesus, and Paul knew the apostles. Why such strong faith in a known fairytale? We can't say the Bible isn't true because it has supernatural events. It goes something like this:
1) The Bible has fantastic events, like walking on water, rising from the dead, and curing the sick miraculously.
2) People can't do those things.
3) Therefore, God, who in theory could make people do those things, doesn't exist.
I don't know, I don't think we have a flawless case either way. How about you?

^Somehow, the poster above me read my mind in a lot of ways. That's cool.

I don't quite get what you're trying to say here, care to expand? Oh, and the Universe CANNOT have a cause. Stephen Hawking's wave-function accounts for the reason that the Universe is uncaused, and I'm not about the argue with Hawking.

[berk18]

Nobody knows the origin of the Universe yet, but there is proof against a divine creator. I already wrote a really long post about it before, but it seems like no one is interested and just dismisses what they don't understand.
I will admit, I'm not familiar with wave functions. This is interesting, since I took Astro in the fall with a professor who really specializes in cosmology. I doubt he would have neglected to mention such absolute proof against a cause of the universe. In fact, he held just the opposite, namely that the universe has a finite age. I understand Hawking is universally accepted as brilliant. I also understand that he's generally considered to have more "out-there" theories. That his theory takes the observable evidence into account shouldn't surprise us, but that doesn't mean it's right. The Ptolemaic system could predict retrograde motion as well as the Copernican. So, for the time being, I'll side with what seems to be the majority of the scientific community.

[dai the flu]

Nobody knows the origin of the Universe yet, but there is proof against a divine creator. I already wrote a really long post about it before, but it seems like no one is interested and just dismisses what they don't understand. i read your post on the subject, and i still dont get how this proves anything. you have all these calculations and measurements and wave function laws and expansion and blah blah blah...and it all leads down to "we dont know where the universe came from"
but then you take that and interpret it as "we dont know where the universe came from, but i know it wasnt god".

this isnt anywhere close to concrete proof, like you keep promising to give us.


now once again im leaving for the night, i wont be able to reply again until morning. goodnight.
and just for the record, i respect your opinions on this, dont take anything i say or any argument i make to be a personal attack on you. i understand you feel strongly about this, so do i, and i read all your posts respectful of your beliefs on this. i think fairly soon we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[cantnokdahustle]

Do you really think the author of Genesis meant to imply that Adam and Eve didn’t know disobeying God was wrong? It’s ultimately a matter of interpretation of a few sentences, but it seems to me that the knowledge of good and evil represents a divine knowledge (Genesis 3:22), one that need not have been known to understand that disobeying God was wrong. I don’t see anyone really being swayed by this particular argument, although you’re getting at something good on a higher level.



I am not terribly interested in what the hapless and incompetent scribe, whether it was god directly or some divinely inspired drunkard, meant to write. I am, however, immensley interested in the logical consequences of what he or she did write.

[berk18]

I am not terribly interested in what the hapless and incompetent scribe, whether it was god directly or some divinely inspired drunkard, meant to write. I am, however, immensley interested in the logical consequences of what he or she did write.

Then maybe you have an argument against fundamentalism. Maybe. But that's a pretty small segment of believers, and proving them wrong doesn't disprove Judaism. There is an ambiguity, not a contradiction, in what the author wrote. You're attacking their God, so you have to attack what they thought about him. I think it's more likely, from context, and from later interpretation by the people actually practicing the religion in antiquity (ie the prophets), that the people who wrote this didn't, through the ommission of a detail, mean to say that God punished people who didn't know they were doing wrong.

[cantnokdahustle]

Then maybe you have an argument against fundamentalism. Maybe. But that's a pretty small segment of believers, and proving them wrong doesn't disprove Judaism. There is an ambiguity, not a contradiction, in what the author wrote. You're attacking their God, so you have to attack what they thought about him. I think it's more likely, from context, and from later interpretation by the people actually practicing the religion in antiquity (ie the prophets), that the people who wrote this didn't, through the ommission of a detail, mean to say that God punished people who didn't know they were doing wrong.

Yes, that's it "god" left the most important piece of information it was supposed to give to us be left up to thousands of different interpretations. It also decided to apparently allow for subsequent versions of it's rules to be left in the hands of the incompetent. Brilliant bloody idea. How very wise, of this infinitely wise being.

Not to even mention that Judaism outright stole the damned myth from the Babylonian tradition of Adapa and the South wind, though with much different consequences (and subsequently the xtians bastardized the myth further).

[berk18]

Yes, that's it "god" left the most important piece of information it was supposed to give to us be left up to thousands of different interpretations. It also decided to apparently allow for subsequent versions of it's rules to be left in the hands of the incompetent. Brilliant bloody idea. How very wise, of this infinitely wise being.
1. The Bible doesn't have to be written by God, or by a divinely inspired person, to express true religion. The Bible doesn't actually claim divine inspiration in any passages I can remember. Only certain statements are said to come from God. Is the following possible? God gives a revelation to Moses. Moses passes it on to the people. The people write down the Bible, based off of what Moses told them. Bam! A way a true religion could be expressed in an errant form. How can we know what that true religion was? By examining the text and the history to figure out what the authors believed. This is, conveniently, the same way one might decide a religion is false.

2. The author didn't omit the "most important piece of information" if it is easily gathered from context. Anyway, isn't the "most important piece of information" the fact that Adam and Eve disobeyed God? That detail is included.

3. Maybe God just didn't want to stop his truths from falling into the wrong hands? To act in such a way puts a damper on free will, as I see it.

4. If you're going to grad school in religious studies, it'd really behoove you to be less sarcastic and angry towards religion. There are lots of Christians smarter than you, and they'll argue circles around you if you make emotional, baseless claims (see above) and faulty arguments (re: Saying in your conclusion that someone is not morally culpable when moral culpability did not find its way into your premises.)

Not to even mention that Judaism outright stole the damned myth from the Babylonian tradition of Adapa and the South wind, though with much different consequences (and subsequently the xtians bastardized the myth further).
I am well aware of Near Eastern parallels with Genesis, and I think it's a good way to discredit the truth of the Bible (see pt. 1 above). It is not, however, relevant to the philosophical question of whether the god of Judaism mistreated his creation or not. Arguments from history: Good. Sketchy philosophical arguments that have been addressed since Origen, just make atheists and other non-believers look bad.

[irishpunk14]

I'm a christian.

[cantnokdahustle]

1. The Bible doesn't have to be written by God, or by a divinely inspired person, to express true religion. The Bible doesn't actually claim divine inspiration in any passages I can remember. Only certain statements are said to come from God. Is the following possible? God gives a revelation to Moses. Moses passes it on to the people. The people write down the Bible, based off of what Moses told them. Bam! A way a true religion could be expressed in an errant form. How can we know what that true religion was? By examining the text and the history to figure out what the authors believed. This is, conveniently, the same way one might decide a religion is false.

2. The author didn't omit the "most important piece of information" if it is easily gathered from context. Anyway, isn't the "most important piece of information" the fact that Adam and Eve disobeyed God? That detail is included.

3. Maybe God just didn't want to stop his truths from falling into the wrong hands? To act in such a way puts a damper on free will, as I see it.

4. If you're going to grad school in religious studies, it'd really behoove you to be less sarcastic and angry towards religion. There are lots of Christians smarter than you, and they'll argue circles around you if you make emotional, baseless claims (see above) and faulty arguments (re: Saying in your conclusion that someone is not morally culpable when moral culpability did not find its way into your premises.)


I am well aware of Near Eastern parallels with Genesis, and I think it's a good way to discredit the truth of the Bible (see pt. 1 above). It is not, however, relevant to the philosophical question of whether the god of Judaism mistreated his creation or not. Arguments from history: Good. Sketchy philosophical arguments that have been addressed since Origen, just make atheists and other non-believers look bad.


forgive me, i am unaware of how to separate your quote; the numbers match yours.

1) I think Deuteronomy 12:32 will do fine in just about every translation. Come on, you had to have known that was coming. http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/12-32.htm

2) I apologize for not stating this more clearly, but by "most important piece of information" I meant the bible/Torah/Quran in their (seperate) *entirities (I.E. "their books" being the most important piece of information given to "us" by "god").

Also, It most certainly is a blatant contradiction, to say that a being has knowledge of right and wrong, and also to say that they are with out knowledge of right and wrong until they have eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (-A * A). No ommission gets rid of this, unless it is, "oh, but disregard what i just said."

3) Children born with mental retardation also puts a bit of a "damper on free will." If god's words are allowed to be tampered with, then it is ridiculous to suggest that any of it is true.

4) Not angry, just sarcastic. Lots of human beings smarter than myself, absolutely. Arguing in circles is not exactly a desirable way to gain anything from a dialectic, so yes, I hope lots of religious folks will be arguing in circles, (see Cartesian Circle or circular reasoning, looked upon rather unfavorably). "Baseless claims," please enlighten the ignorant atheist of his claims that lack any basis?
I freely admit that the semi-"proof" was done entirely on the fly (though not sans education on the matter, nor basis), it was meant only to more clearly lay out the argument. Positing it as a proof was indeed poor judgment on my part.


and the last little blurb there) It works just fine if your ultimate goal is to discredit the validity of the narrative. No where have I stated that these arguments are in any way, shape, or form "new" or "ground breaking."

*probably not a word.