Religion

[icon124]

Lately I've been thinking more and more about religion. I can't really say I belong to a certain religion because I feel they all have plenty of falicies. At the same time after plenty of thought and different philosophy angles I have come to believe that there has to be some sort of higher power out there. Over the years I really haven't been religious at all, and have always wondered if there was a God out there. Of course no one will ever be certain until the day comes (or not lol) but I do believe there is something out there. Although I feel most of the bibles out there could have been written and worded in whatever way anyone wanted to, and then all they would have to do is brainwash people into believing the word.

Anyway how do you guys feel about the hot topic of religion. Is a God out there watching over us, or is this all some sick science experience lol. Why have you come to the conclusion that you have? Is it just blind faith? Are you doing it because your family has done it for years and you were kind of just forced into it? (know a lot of people like that)...anyway explain

[Anti Federalist]

There is more to all of us than the "right here, right now".

There are further planes of existence than the "right here, right now".

There is much more happening than what we can perceive in the "right here, right now".

God the Creator works in all these realms, in manners, ways and means beyond our ken, even with guidance from holy writs, very advanced when one considers them, based on when and for whom they were written.

There is more to us than birth, work and worm food.

One of the most base evils of tyranny is that the search for spiritual truth is often one of the first freedoms ripped from oppressed peoples everywhere.

[Corydoras]

omg! Incoming! Duck!

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm an atheist. I believe that virtually every religion is a cult.

[Anti Federalist]

omg! Incoming! Duck!

:D:D:D

[SeekLiberty]

I'm an atheist. I believe that virtually every religion is a cult.

I'm a Deist. I believe that every organized religion is a cult. But then again, any form of collectivism, is a cult.

Anytime you have to sacrifice your individuality for the "good of the group/cause", you're in a cult. If government is not self-government (like our Founders intended), then it's a cult.

These forums even have the color of a cult. It sacrifices Liberty, the contest of Free and Open Public debate, in the name of the "good of the campaign." The secrecy of hiding 76,000+ messages in a private forum is cult-like behavior.

I can understand why some have nick-named blind Ron Paul followers as "Paulites." I've seen blind obedience to what Ron Paul has said, even though the statement was made under duress. These blind supporters (hero worshipers?) support him, even though they don't fully understand or practice the principles of Liberty themselves. In spite of that, I still appreciate that they support him. However, I wish they would work much harder at understanding Liberty, and the practice of Liberty. A few here are still obviously confused about it.

To me, Ron Paul is simply a good man, and an awesome Patriot of Liberty. He so happens to represent most, if not all, of my principles of Liberty. So I support him, as I would support any another individual who has similar values about Liberty.

To prop him up as some kind of savior, I will never do. That's cultism. Ron can't save our Country. He can help, but he can't do it alone. He's not our only hope either. Each individual can help a lot by simply knowing their Rights and the Law, and then exercising their Rights and enforcing the Law. Restoring a Free Republic is truly a grassroots effort that has to work from the "bottom" up with each individual.

As Ron Paul does, I also endorse We The People Radio Network for a great education on Liberty and restoring our Constitutional Republic.

http://www.wtprn.com/archives.html

- SL

[Hiki]

I do not believe in religion. I'm pretty young but I've seen a lot about religions and I simply cant follow them. It's the most awful bullshit on earth. I like the kind of believers who keep thy religion to thyself. Ron Paul is a great example of these, he doesn't make a number out of it and keeps it personal. That's what religion should be about, personal belief.
When it comes to a god, i'm between atheism and agnostic. I really dont know if there is a higher being, it's very likely. But gods in religions, that's a no-no for me. The God in the Bible for example is a terrible person and I do not want him in my life.

I dont believe we have a soul, but I do believe that there must be some higher consciousness. The human mind is just too beautiful and great to be electric impulses.

[yongrel]

Branch Davidian here.

[rpfreedom08]

You know I've been thinking the same thing for a while now. Now I may be paranoid but after reading lots and lots of information on the illuminati, freemasonry, bohemian grove, and the skull and bones or the order of death at yale university (I know I know, laugh it up) and seeing the most prominent political figures on earth worshiping Satan through these orders, I have to believe that they know something I do not. That being said if there is a devil to worship then there must be a god as well. It's getting more and more like I just don't choose to believe in God but with all these other people so strongly believing in Satan and deriving much of their "power" from him, that one has to logically come to the conclusion that if Satan is real then so is God. No?

[rpfreedom08]

I do not believe in religion. I'm pretty young but I've seen a lot about religions and I simply cant follow them. It's the most awful bullshit on earth. I like the kind of believers who keep thy religion to thyself. Ron Paul is a great example of these, he doesn't make a number out of it and keeps it personal. That's what religion should be about, personal belief.
When it comes to a god, i'm between atheism and agnostic. I really dont know if there is a higher being, it's very likely. But gods in religions, that's a no-no for me. The God in the Bible for example is a terrible person and I do not want him in my life.

I dont believe we have a soul, but I do believe that there must be some higher consciousness. The human mind is just too beautiful and great to be electric impulses.

So what tipped you off about God in the bible being so terrible? Was it him feeding people, healing people, turning the other cheek, forgiving people, dying on the cross for other people, saving people, being ridiculed and put to death by people, or was it the fact that T.V. evangelists, roman catholics (with their witch burnings, cruisades, and indulgances), muslims, and any other "perverted religions" that put a bad name on christianity? I mean all the things I've ever heard about what Jesus taught where always good things and that people perverting what God said is what ultimately led to most of the bad views people hold towards him today. I mean just because we have a jackass, neonazi, warcriminal, president that told everyone he was a christian doesn't make him a christian at all. Many people do things in the name of religion but it doesn't make them christians.

I emagine a true christian in office would have told the public about blowback and how the administrations before him overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and installed a military dictator in his place all for oil. This made people mad and now there is blowback. He would have probably went to war with afganistan just to make sure the attacking country was brought to justice and left it there.....Hum, sounds like Ron Paul.

I see nothing wrong with TRUE christianity.

[rpfreedom08]

To me, Ron Paul is simply a good man, and an awesome Patriot of Liberty. He so happens to represent most, if not all, of my principles of Liberty. So I support him, as I would support any another individual who has similar values about Liberty.

To prop him up as some kind of savior, I will never do. That's cultism. Ron can't save our Country. He can help, but he can't do it alone. He's not our only hope either. Each individual can help a lot by simply knowing their Rights and the Law, and then exercising their Rights and enforcing the Law. Restoring a Free Republic is truly a grassroots effort that has to work from the "bottom" up with each individual.

As Ron Paul does, I also endorse We The People Radio Network for a great education on Liberty and restoring our Constitutional Republic.

http://www.wtprn.com/archives.html

- SL


agreed.

[Truth Warrior]

This short excerpt from a recent article on finance fairly well expresses my long held viewpoint.


Politics and religion are both the same thing. They are both simply effective methods to control large masses of people. I just figured that one out not too long ago when I was into my learning the history of the world project. It has always been that way and always will be.

Church and state, merely the two separate wings of the same old evil tyranny bird.

[Hiki]

So what tipped you off about God in the bible being so terrible? Was it him feeding people, healing people, turning the other cheek, forgiving people, dying on the cross for other people, saving people, being ridiculed and put to death by people, or was it the fact that T.V. evangelists, roman catholics (with their witch burnings, cruisades, and indulgances), muslims, and any other "perverted religions" that put a bad name on christianity? I mean all the things I've ever heard about what Jesus taught where always good things and that people perverting what God said is what ultimately led to most of the bad views people hold towards him today. I mean just because we have a jackass, neonazi, warcriminal, president that told everyone he was a christian doesn't make him a christian at all. Many people do things in the name of religion but it doesn't make them christians.


No those are quite nice things, but the ones which tipped me off are stuff like being a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

No one knows the true nature of God. All manmade religions are tools of social and political control. If anyone claims to be writing or speaking God's words they are just yanking your chain for their own benefit.

[LittleLightShining]

I was raised Roman Catholic-- went to Catholic school and church. My parents stopped going to church because the priests were always crying about money. They would make a big deal if the donation envelopes didn't come in every week and my parents often felt humiliated. I left Catholic school in 8th grade because the priests would not answer my questions about dinosaurs. I was not allowed to make my Confirmation because my parents didn't consistently donate to the church. This left me feeling like church and Jesus were a scam to manipulate people into feeling guilty.

In high school I considered myself agnostic but could not deny the existence of The Creator. There was too much order and beauty in the natural world to have just appeared out of nothing. I felt a personal connection to the spirit of The Creator, but felt that Jesus was a tool of religion to control and subdue people. I started hanging around with people who were interested in Krishna and Buddhism and even though I admired the devotion of the followers I was raised Roman Catholic-- went to Catholic school and church. My parents moved away from going to church but still believing because the priests were always crying about money and they would make a big deal if the donation envelopes didn't come in every week. I left Catholic school in 8th grade because the priests would not answer my questions about dinosaurs. I was not allowed to make my Confirmation because my parents didn't consistently donate to the church.

In high school I considered myself agnostic but could not deny the existence of The Creator. There was too much order and beauty in the natural world to have just appeared out of nothing. I felt a personal connection to the spirit of The Creator, but felt that Jesus was a tool of religion to control and subdue people. I started hanging around with people who were interested in Krishna and Buddhism and even though I admired the devotion of the followers these faiths felt somehow empty to me.

One day two Mormon missionaries came to my workplace and began talking to me. I appreciated them taking the time to pray with me and their honest attempts to answer my questions. I went to church with them one time and I didn't like the separation of the men and the women. I also didn't agree with some of the doctrine they taught, but I realized that what I was missing was a personal relationship with God. I moved on from the Mormon missionaries but took with me a new understanding of Jesus. He became for me a friend and savior, a comforter and guide.

There came a point where I realized that the world doesn't make any sense to me outside of the context of Christianity. I'm not going to go into all of the details about why this is but I would be willing to discuss questions privately.

As I have gotten older and investigated other churches I have found that I am a misfit. Though I read my Bible and do believe it is infallible there is a disconnect for me between church culture and true religion. I think churches provide wonderful services for people, but I can't seem to find a place where I feel comfortable in my imperfectness. It's not because I seek to always be imperfect, but rather that I don't feel accepted an loved as Jesus accepts me and loves me. I guess I'm a stubborn person, but I need to come to conclusions on my own. Maybe there is a church somewhere for us, but so far we have had really bad experiences with churches and Christians in general, so we choose to read our Bibles, pray and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit without the help of other organized people-- though I love to talk about the Bible with anyone who is willing to come to the conversation with a good attitude, whether they believe or not. I always learn something new.

[Kade]

omg! Incoming! Duck!

Ha.

[Hiki]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

When it comes to hot topics, George Carlin always nails it :)

[rpfreedom08]

No those are quite nice things, but the ones which tipped me off are stuff like being a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Did that spawn from God or did that spawn from man's morbid interpretation of God's word?

[Hiki]

Did that spawn from God or did that spawn from man's morbid interpretation of God's word?

You can find definitions for all those adjectives in the Bible. Just read it, after all it's God's word right?

[rpfreedom08]

You can find definitions for all those adjectives in the Bible. Just read it, after all it's God's word right?


Look, what god taught and how people interprate those teachings are two completely differant things. I know that God spoke out against sodomy and sexual perversion but that's only because he understood where it would bring us as a civilization....Where we are today..

I truly believe that this country was founded on moral and religous beliefs and the further we have drifted from those beliefs the less free and more enslaved we have become.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm a Deist. I believe that every organized religion is a cult. But then again, any form of collectivism, is a cult.

Anytime you have to sacrifice your individuality for the "good of the group/cause", you're in a cult. If government is not self-government (like our Founders intended), then it's a cult.

These forums even have the color of a cult. It sacrifices Liberty, the contest of Free and Open Public debate, in the name of the "good of the campaign." The secrecy of hiding 76,000+ messages in a private forum is cult-like behavior.

I can understand why some have nick-named blind Ron Paul followers as "Paulites." I've seen blind obedience to what Ron Paul has said, even though the statement was made under duress. These blind supporters (hero worshipers?) support him, even though they don't fully understand or practice the principles of Liberty themselves. In spite of that, I still appreciate that they support him. However, I wish they would work much harder at understanding Liberty, and the practice of Liberty. A few here are still obviously confused about it.

To me, Ron Paul is simply a good man, and an awesome Patriot of Liberty. He so happens to represent most, if not all, of my principles of Liberty. So I support him, as I would support any another individual who has similar values about Liberty.

To prop him up as some kind of savior, I will never do. That's cultism. Ron can't save our Country. He can help, but he can't do it alone. He's not our only hope either. Each individual can help a lot by simply knowing their Rights and the Law, and then exercising their Rights and enforcing the Law. Restoring a Free Republic is truly a grassroots effort that has to work from the "bottom" up with each individual.

As Ron Paul does, I also endorse We The People Radio Network for a great education on Liberty and restoring our Constitutional Republic.

http://www.wtprn.com/archives.html

- SL

Well, at least he spoke the truth, not the same bullshit you find in every church in this country. It's good to pursue the truth. So why are you a deist?

[Hiki]

Well interpreting is a difficult case for me. I mean MAN reads the text and sees it in his own way, he interprates it in his own way. So when the original text is the word of GOD, a MAN interprates it in a way which he sees as good. So how can you really know then what the real meaning of that text and God's will is? You just assume that "Oh this is the way that He meant it to be!".
In the Bible, yes he teaches good things but then again some awful things aswell. Which ones should we follow? Which ones are the true ones? Then we just cherry pick the things we see as good and say "This is God's will." Who says that? You? So you determine what is good and what is the true meaning of God? I just cant think of anything else than BULLSHIT.

[rpfreedom08]

Well first off the bible was said to have been writen by men inspired by the holy spirit. This is what christians believe and I'm sure you don't believe it but christians do so really it's not these people interprating it but it's the holy spirit that wrote the bible. Now as far as what do we believe and what don't we believe I think it's rather simple (now I'm talking like I'm religious however I haven't gone to church in forever so you really shouldn't listen to me, lol) christianity is all about what is right and what is wrong. At the very core of everyone we have a very basic idea of what is right and wrong.

it's wrong to:
- kill
- lie
- steal
- cheat on your wife
- pray to false gods (being materialistic)
- covet your neighbors stuff ( I mean this is one of the biggest problems with our credit problems, everyone wants to pretend like they are rich because more than likely they want to show it off ).
- judge!

I think if people interprate the bible to hate any certain person or group for the way they are it goes against what christianity teaches. God may say that we are not to do something, but if someone is doing it we are not to judge and certainly not hate. You see what I'm saying?

[Truth Warrior]

Does anyone else here finding it exceedingly strange, interesting and curious that the biblical Judeo-Christian God seems to have no significant problem with the concept of human slavery? Some of his children owning some of his other children. Hmmmmm!

"By their fruits, ye shall know them." :)

[Hiki]

Well first off the bible was said to have been writen by men inspired by the holy spirit. This is what christians believe and I'm sure you don't believe it but christians do so really it's not these people interprating it but it's the holy spirit that wrote the bible. Now as far as what do we believe and what don't we believe I think it's rather simple (now I'm talking like I'm religious however I haven't gone to church in forever so you really shouldn't listen to me, lol) christianity is all about what is right and what is wrong. At the very core of everyone we have a very basic idea of what is right and wrong.

it's wrong to:
- kill
- lie
- steal
- cheat on your wife
- pray to false gods (being materialistic)
- covet your neighbors stuff ( I mean this is one of the biggest problems with our credit problems, everyone wants to pretend like they are rich because more than likely they want to show it off ).
- judge!

I think if people interprate the bible to hate any certain person or group for the way they are it goes against what christianity teaches. God may say that we are not to do something, but if someone is doing it we are not to judge and certainly not hate. You see what I'm saying?
Reply With Quote

Yeah I see and that's great. Those basic christian values are good but they ain't copyrighted christian. Numerous religions have those values, buddhism, islam and many others. And why does one need religion to give them a moral compass? I'm sure that everyone knows not to kill, lie (well of course at some points its reasonable to lie), steal or be dishonest. And isn't it everybodys own decision what they "worship"? If someone want to be materialistic and cling to money then go ahead, be my guest. And covet your neighbors good? That's what keeps the economy going, of course you shouldn't take it to a big level but every once in a while you see that your neighbour has something cool and you want that too, its perfectly fine.
I think that the song Faithless (http://www.lyricstime.com/rush-faithless-lyrics.html) by Rush pictures my position on these things.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rCz0-HY1TLU When it comes to the ten commandments which you listed, Carlin nails it.

[rpfreedom08]

I've heard all the Carlin stuff and while I do think he hits the nail on the head with politics and the way things are I think he is very wrong on his religious standpoint. I do not believe in keeping up with the jones' as that is just another form of collectivism that I try to stay away from. I also don't buy things just because they are a commercial either and I'm sure if this society banked off of me being the typical person that covets his neigbors crap and buys what he sees on tv. then yeah probably we wouldn't be a consumer nation.... Is that all that bad???

[SeekLiberty]

Well, at least he spoke the truth, not the same bullshit you find in every church in this country. It's good to pursue the truth. So why are you a deist?

I don't trust man's translation of the Bible, or man's interpretation of ancient history. I believe that "Intelligent Design" gave us all the faculty we need to live righteously, our reason. A book that some atheists may find interesting is "The Case for God."

- SL

[Truth Warrior]

I've heard all the Carlin stuff and while I do think he hits the nail on the head with politics and the way things are I think he is very wrong on his religious standpoint. I do not believe in keeping up with the jones' as that is just another form of collectivism that I try to stay away from. I also don't buy things just because they are a commercial either and I'm sure if this society banked off of me being the typical person that covets his neigbors crap and buys what he sees on tv. then yeah probably we wouldn't be a consumer nation.... Is that all that bad???

It is when 2/3 of the economy is consumer spending dependent.<IMHO>

[icon124]

To the people out there that read the bible...what bible exactly are you reading? And why have you chosen that? What makes you think it isn't just made up propaganda? Just curious because I want to read something...but something good not full of propaganda (if that even exists lol)

[Kade]

I don't trust man's translation of the Bible, or man's interpretation of ancient history. I believe that "Intelligent Design" gave us all the faculty we need to live righteously, our reason. A book that some atheists may find interesting is "The Case for God."

- SL

Williams or Collins?

I feed myself with anything, anything to convince me that I might be wrong, I hate to think that so many people are so heavily deluded, but I have no other conclusion.

[Kregener]

"Religion" is man-made, and indeed, is pretty awful...until you hold it up against godless atheism, then it is somewhat....better.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

"Religion" is man-made, and indeed, is pretty awful...until you hold it up against godless atheism, then it is somewhat....better.

Religion is better than "godless atheism"?

[yongrel]

godless atheism

thank you, Captain Redundancy Captain!

[Truth Warrior]

Religion is better than "godless atheism"?
Ah the good old comparative advantage, lesser of two evils, sellout and cop out rears it's ugly head yet once again. Where have I seen that one before? Isn't that really a very significant contributing factor to how we keep on getting ourselves into all of these messes?

False dichotomy.<IMHO>

[DeadtoSin]

I'm a Christian and I hate when people try to tell me lies and sell me on stuff that isn't true. I haven't been a Christian but for a few years. Perhaps it is simply my area, but the people I meet at church are typically genuine Christians. The American church is in a sad state of affairs. If the American Church were like the persecuted church in China, or the churches I visited in Zimbabwe then I think that you guys would be less apt to consider it a cult. I'm sad for how the American church has acted, and I apologize.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/17057952@N08/1812053477/

Here is me in Zimbabwe. A good portion of our time was spent there playing with the kids and having fun with them. If I didn't believe in a God who loved me and would take care of me, I'd have never gone to Zimbabwe. Those kids were so happy to have some people to visit them and talk to them.

I've encountered people who live out true and genuine Christianity, and they made a great impression on me.

[LittleLightShining]

To the people out there that read the bible...what bible exactly are you reading? And why have you chosen that? What makes you think it isn't just made up propaganda? Just curious because I want to read something...but something good not full of propaganda (if that even exists lol)
I read the King James version and the Living Bible. If something strikes me funny I cross reference it. If I still don't get it I pray for discernment and reread it again later. If that doesn't help I figure I don't need to understand it yet. I know it doesn't sound scholarly, but that's what faith is for.

[sophocles07]

Look, what god taught and how people interprate those teachings are two completely differant things. I know that God spoke out against sodomy and sexual perversion but that's only because he understood where it would bring us as a civilization....Where we are today..
So I am to assume from this you believe sodomy and sexual perversion a cause of degeneration in society?

It's so strange to read the phrase "what god taught"; it has a strange, grandfather-animism aspect to it.

[sophocles07]

I read the King James version and the Living Bible. If something strikes me funny I cross reference it. If I still don't get it I pray for discernment and reread it again later. If that doesn't help I figure I don't need to understand it yet. I know it doesn't sound scholarly, but that's what faith is for.

*Vomits*

[yongrel]

*Vomits*

And this is precisely why this forum has so much conflict.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING REASON for you to respond out of hand like this. It only perpetuates and worsens that bad blood here.

Just stop it.

[Dr.3D]

To the people out there that read the bible...what bible exactly are you reading? And why have you chosen that? What makes you think it isn't just made up propaganda? Just curious because I want to read something...but something good not full of propaganda (if that even exists lol)

All of the translations are pretty good but some offer different interpretations of the words. The only way to get the real meaning is to read the original Hebrew and Greek texts. Since most of us don't have the ability to read those, it is best to select several versions and when in doubt as to what one is saying, read the same chapter and verse from anther. I presently use the following versions for my studies.

The Complete Jewish Bible.
The King James Version.
The New American Standard Bible.
The New International Version.
The New Jerusalem Bible.
The New King James Version.
The New Revised Standard Version.
Young's Literal Translation.

And since the King James version was translated from the Latin Vulgate version and I can read Latin, I will resort to reading from it if I have further questions.

Basically, you don't need to worry very much about which version you read as they all pretty much contain the same message. There may be slight differences in how the wording is translated but not so much as to make a lot of difference, unless you are trying to write a paper for some class where they want some special determination about the translation of a passage.

I will tend to just read the New International Version if just looking up a passage.

[Anti Federalist]

And this is precisely why this forum has so much conflict.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING REASON for you to respond out of hand like this. It only perpetuates and worsens that bad blood here.

Just stop it.

Really.

Sophocoles, you honestly think that someone searching for discernment and spiritual enlightenment and writing about it a calm and reserved manner deserves a cyber barfing?

[LittleLightShining]

*Vomits*

Thanks for the defense, yongrel. There is a real lack of civility here at times.

Sophocles, I'm sorry what I said made you that sick. I meant you no offense, nor anyone else. I was answering the question. Have you not ever read something and just had to let it set for a bit because you didn't quite get it? Interestingly, when I have situations that come up like that when I read the Bible I often understand the passage on a few different levels. The Bible is an amazing book whether you believe it as the word of God (or believe in God) or not.

[yongrel]

The Bible is an amazing book whether you believe it as the word of God (or believe in God) or not.

Agreed. As an atheist who has read the Bible many times, I believe that the King James Bible is one of the finest literary works of the age. The poetry of the translations for that particular version is quite brilliant. My personal favourite quote comes from the King James:

"Man is born to trouble as sparks fly upward."

Good stuff.

[sophocles07]

And this is precisely why this forum has so much conflict.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING REASON for you to respond out of hand like this. It only perpetuates and worsens that bad blood here.

Just stop it.

Shut the fuck up. I’ll respond as impulse provides.


Really.

Sophocoles, you honestly think that someone searching for discernment and spiritual enlightenment and writing about it a calm and reserved manner deserves a cyber barfing?

Let’s examine the quote:


I read the King James version and the Living Bible. If something strikes me funny I cross reference it. If I still don't get it I pray for discernment and reread it again later. If that doesn't help I figure I don't need to understand it yet. I know it doesn't sound scholarly, but that's what faith is for.

My response to this kind of religious reaction is a metaphorical VOMITING, as I don’t consider this a search for enlightenment, but an enslaving of the self for no reason whatsoever. This should, if we are really that calm, not offend anyone, as it is my actual view on the thread topic.


There is a real lack of civility here at times.

Also, I think we’re overestimating the violence of my response. It was meant as an exhausted response to the kind of mentality you manifested.


Sophocles, I'm sorry what I said made you that sick. I meant you no offense, nor anyone else. I was answering the question. Have you not ever read something and just had to let it set for a bit because you didn't quite get it? Interestingly, when I have situations that come up like that when I read the Bible I often understand the passage on a few different levels. The Bible is an amazing book whether you believe it as the word of God (or believe in God) or not.

I agree with this. My problem with what you said is that you resign yourself to the irrational through an appeal to authority (the Bible as the word of god) though it is a self-claim within the object of examination. I have absolutely no problem with interpretation of texts. I would, though, view the Bible in the same light as I view Dante’s Commedia or Shakespeare; they are all literary texts—and you don’t have to agree with Dante out of faith just because he asserts something is true; the same should be said of the Bible.


I believe that the King James Bible is one of the finest literary works of the age. The poetry of the translations for that particular version is quite brilliant.

I agree with this. Jerome’s Vulgate is my favorite version; I think in most places he improves upon the original.

And, for a reading of Whitman's poetry, you really have to understand the prosody implied by the King James translation.

[yongrel]

Shut the fuck up. I’ll respond as impulse provides.

And there lies the roots of the problem. Maybe you should think before you post.

[Anti Federalist]

Sophocles wrote:


Shut the fuck up. I’ll respond as impulse provides.

Isn't the search for truth, discernment, the upward struggle for liberty and the potential for each individual to live life at it's fullest based on, first and foremost, the ability and the necessity to control our base impulses?

[amy31416]

And this is precisely why this forum has so much conflict.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING REASON for you to respond out of hand like this. It only perpetuates and worsens that bad blood here.

Just stop it.

Thanks yongrel, you beat me to it.

Sophocles, try to be respectful of fellow supporters. You're simply being arrogant.

[sophocles07]

And there lies the roots of the problem. Maybe you should think before you post.

Nah.


Isn't the search for truth, discernment, the upward struggle for liberty and the potential for each individual to live life at it's fullest based on, first and foremost, the ability and the necessity to control our base impulses?

To be honest, at first I had written "my mind" and then corrected it to "impulse."

Fortunate for me, this impulse is not rooted in baseness, but the desire for rational understanding of the world in all areas. If I had called him a cumbucket Trotskyist in response, that would have been base. Mine was merely mild my many malcontented muskrat whiners.

[Hiki]

What's up with these millions of different versions? I mean c'mon, its the holy text. Why cant you just have one literally translated version? Oh yeah, you really cant literally translate the original texts. I understand that the truly original versions were written in hebrew, and they had no vocals in it, and the text had no spaces in between words or anything, something like that they taught back in school.
So I can really imagine what mistranslations and errors the Bible must be filled with. Why do you have to bother at all with it?

[LittleLightShining]

I agree with this. My problem with what you said is that you resign yourself to the irrational through an appeal to authority (the Bible as the word of god) though it is a self-claim within the object of examination. I have absolutely no problem with interpretation of texts. I would, though, view the Bible in the same light as I view Dante’s Commedia or Shakespeare; they are all literary texts—and you don’t have to agree with Dante out of faith just because he asserts something is true; the same should be said of the Bible.


No, see you missed my point entirely. The Bible is the inspired word of God. When something doesn't make sense to me on first, second, twelfth reading I use my faith to seek discernment. So I'm now going above the tangible word to the Living Word for enlightenment. I do not read the Bible in the same way I would read any other literary text because to me it is much more than that. To you it isn't so I can see where you're coming from, though. I would be in a sad, sorry state if I attempted to assert anything was true simply because I read it, don't you think? It is through my seeking wisdom beyond my understanding that I find truth.

But then again, that's just me. I'm not here to evangelize or proselytize. I'm here to interact with (mostly) like-minded, thoughtful individuals.

[sophocles07]

No, see you missed my point entirely. The Bible is the inspired word of God. When something doesn't make sense to me on first, second, twelfth reading I use my faith to seek discernment.

No, I didn’t miss your point. This is the part that made me metaphorically vomit: that you base your life in the unproved belief that a literary text is the word of God simply because that literary text tells you it is the word of God.


I would be in a sad, sorry state if I attempted to assert anything was true simply because I read it, don't you think?

Yes. Yes you would.

[Anti Federalist]

Sophocoles wrote:


To be honest, at first I had written "my mind" and then corrected it to "impulse."

Fortunate for me, this impulse is not rooted in baseness, but the desire for rational understanding of the world in all areas. If I had called him a cumbucket Trotskyist in response, that would have been base. Mine was merely mild my many malcontented muskrat whiners.

Cumbucket Trotskyist? Malcontented muskrats?

That's funny...:cool:

[amy31416]

My response to this kind of religious reaction is a metaphorical VOMITING, as I don’t consider this a search for enlightenment, but an enslaving of the self for no reason whatsoever. This should, if we are really that calm, not offend anyone, as it is my actual view on the thread topic.



All right then, you are the judge who determines what is a search for enlightenment?

Here's some recommended reading for you, it's relatively short too: My Confessions by Tolstoy. It's the story of his journey towards spiritualism, and his distancing himself from the miseries of his elite, hyper-intellectual existence. There's a realization that no matter how much education, ya still don't know jack-shit about the purpose or lack thereof in life. Nobody does.

It's Tolstoy, so it's fantastically written. Enjoy, and open your mind.

[LittleLightShining]

No, I didn’t miss your point. This is the part that made me metaphorically vomit: that you base your life in the unproved belief that a literary text is the word of God simply because that literary text tells you it is the word of God.



Yes. Yes you would.

You're still missing the point. Faith is a muscle which is more difficult to exercise for some people than it is for others.

Why do you assume it is unproved? It's been proven time and again for me.

[sophocles07]

All right then, you are the judge who determines what is a search for enlightenment?
That's obviously my opinion, which I consider the truth.


Here's some recommended reading for you, it's relatively short too: My Confessions by Tolstoy. It's the story of his journey towards spiritualism, and his distancing himself from the miseries of his elite, hyper-intellectual existence. There's a realization that no matter how much education, ya still don't know jack-shit about the purpose or lack thereof in life. Nobody does.
I've read this, and most of Tolstoy. He also rejected Greek tragedy and Shakespeare; he's horrible in philosophy and religious areas. Literary merit is unquestionable though. I would recommend reading his philosophy only as a support for interpreting his novels and short stories.

It's Tolstoy, so it's fantastically written. Enjoy, and open your

[amy31416]

No, I didn’t miss your point. This is the part that made me metaphorically vomit: that you base your life in the unproved belief that a literary text is the word of God simply because that literary text tells you it is the word of God.



Help me understand why it offends you so greatly that this fellow supporter should have a belief in something that you don't?

[sophocles07]

You're still missing the point. Faith is a muscle which is more difficult to exercise for some people than it is for others.

Why do you assume it is unproved? It's been proven time and again for me.

Proof resides in empirical evidence; not "feelings" that something is true. The man in the insane asylum has had it "proved" in your sense 1,000 times that he is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ--usefully, this "revealed knowledge" is not knowledge at all; it is lunacy, which is also what believing the Bible is the word of God is.

[sophocles07]

Help me understand why it offends you so greatly that this fellow supporter should have a belief in something that you don't

I don't understand the willed delusion of the mind. Why does it repulse George Carlin? I'd venture to say he and I are close on this issue.

[LittleLightShining]

Sophocles, does Ron Paul make you vomit? Because he believes what I believe.

[amy31416]

I don't understand the willed delusion of the mind. Why does it repulse George Carlin? I'd venture to say he and I are close on this issue.

You're no George Carlin, sir. Carlin does not seek out people to go after. If Ron Paul's movement had gained a lot of people from the fundamentalist Christian group, you'd be the one on the receiving end of arrogance and summarily be dismissed. Even if this movement were associated with the bible crowd, I'd still be a part of it. I believe in the message and the Constitution. How about you?

What benefit do you gain from dictating what you think other people should believe in such hostile terms? How would you react to your beliefs being rejected so summarily by someone as arrogant as yourself?

[amy31416]

Sophocles, does Ron Paul make you vomit? Because he believes what I believe.

Excellent point LittleLightShining, and a good question to ask.

[Nirvikalpa]

Sophocles, does Ron Paul make you vomit? Because he believes what I believe.

+1

[icon124]

I knew that starting this thread was going to have someone come in here and be ignorant. Why can't we all just have a civilized debate, and not throw in meaningless comments. Thank you to the others who are helping me here. I will begin my research now. :)

All I'm asking for is your opinion on religion, not how you feel about others. Thank you again guys.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Excellent point LittleLightShining, and a good question to ask.

I think it's unfortunate that he believes in imaginary friends, but I never let that get between me supporting him. The good outweighs the bad, and I never took religion that seriously anyway, even as an atheist.

[OptionsTrader]

If I had been born on a planet that did not teach religion, I never would have had the inclination to invent these ideas. If my goal on that planet was to control the minds of my underlings, I would certainly invent a religious system for a means of control, if I were so inclined.

Everything in nature is perfectly understandable without requiring invisible gods. I do not require a god to describe why there is water on this earth, nor why lightning strikes, nor why 2 parents with brown eyes can give birth to a baby with blue eyes.

I am obviously in the minority in this country. I believe the U.S. statisitc is something on the order of 6% +/- a few percent for atheistis and agnostics. I have never had a problem with being in the overwhelming minority with regard to my beliefs. In my experience, when I have researched something like religion for many years, and I come to a conclusion that puts me in the minority, it reinforces my conviction.

[Theocrat]

Lately I've been thinking more and more about religion. I can't really say I belong to a certain religion because I feel they all have plenty of falicies. At the same time after plenty of thought and different philosophy angles I have come to believe that there has to be some sort of higher power out there. Over the years I really haven't been religious at all, and have always wondered if there was a God out there. Of course no one will ever be certain until the day comes (or not lol) but I do believe there is something out there. Although I feel most of the bibles out there could have been written and worded in whatever way anyone wanted to, and then all they would have to do is brainwash people into believing the word.

Anyway how do you guys feel about the hot topic of religion. Is a God out there watching over us, or is this all some sick science experience lol. Why have you come to the conclusion that you have? Is it just blind faith? Are you doing it because your family has done it for years and you were kind of just forced into it? (know a lot of people like that)...anyway explain

1. Everyone is "religious," believing something he or she holds as "truth" based on faith in some way.

2. There is no neutrality amongst belief systems in the world, whether they assume God's existence or not.

3. God's existence is proven by the impossibility of the contrary, which is to say that without God's existence, one cannot prove anything, for God is the precondition of intelligibility.

[amy31416]

1. Everyone is "religious," believing something he or she holds as "truth" based on faith in some way.

2. There is no neutrality amongst belief systems in the world, whether they assume God's existence or not.

3. God's existence is proven by the impossibility of the contrary, which is to say that without God's existence, one cannot prove anything, for God is the precondition of intelligibility.

1. I agree.

2. Not really sure what you mean. I'd be interested to hear it.

3. The only reason I'm not an atheist, strangely enough, is because of the contrary being possible, though I am agnostic. I think the area where we differ is the notion that God is the precondition of intelligibility. I believe that our intelligence is the result of evolution.

The only reason I think it's possible that there is a God in some form is because of the existence of matter and energy, it has to come from somewhere, but I think this "God" is something that we are incapable of understanding in the conventional sense. For, instance, you've probably heard that math is considered the language of God, and I believe this to have a lot of merit to it. Antoine Lavoisier and Ramanujan Srinivasa turned out to be my religious advisers. Plus, when you get really heavy into things like particle physics and quantum mechanics, you start drifting into the realm of metaphysics.

But somewhere, all things end up merging. I'm not saying that there's no merit to other schools of thought, we can never know anything for certain, but I do hope there's a god in some form.

[yongrel]

1. Everyone is "religious," believing something he or she holds as "truth" based on faith in some way.

2. There is no neutrality amongst belief systems in the world, whether they assume God's existence or not.

3. God's existence is proven by the impossibility of the contrary, which is to say that without God's existence, one cannot prove anything, for God is the precondition of intelligibility.

Your routine is getting a little old.

1. Well, now you're just playing word games. There is no merit to this argument, as it is based entirely on the ambiguous meanings of the words used.

2. Why yes, yes there is neutrality. It's called apatheism. Some people literally do not care. Why must you polarize the issue, when it need not be so? This is not an "Us versus Them" kinda deal. Theism and atheism are not equivalent to the Red Sox and the Yankees.

3. Oi vey. This argument is ever so flawed. The entirety of it is based on the claim that a) it is impossible for existence to be without God, b) that logic is impossible without God, and c) that God is the precondition for intelligibility. So to make your point, you are relying on 3 dubious assumptions. For this argument to hold water, you must prove the follwing: A) That it is impossible to exist without God, B) that logic is impossible without God, and C) that God is the precondition for intelligibility . Thusfar, you have not proven these things; you have merely said them. Saying something does not make it true.


Can we all just agree that it is wrong to force and bully our religious (or areligious) beliefs onto others? Why do we all feel the need to constantly deride those who do not share our religious (or lack thereof) convictions? Theocrat, why must you constantly wage this dogmatic pissing contest?

[sophocles07]

Sophocles, does Ron Paul make you vomit? Because he believes what I believe.

HE doesn’t make me vomit; I agree with everything he says. Like he says, though, his beliefs shouldn’t be in question.

If we were to debate religion, I would probably have the same reaction to his beliefs if they were straight-on Christian faith-based, yes.


You're no George Carlin, sir.

Yeah, because I claimed to be George Carlin.


Carlin does not seek out people to go after.

That’s ridiculous.


If Ron Paul's movement had gained a lot of people from the fundamentalist Christian group, you'd be the one on the receiving end of arrogance and summarily be dismissed. Even if this movement were associated with the bible crowd, I'd still be a part of it. I believe in the message and the Constitution. How about you?

My statements above should answer this question. YES.


What benefit do you gain from dictating what you think other people should believe in such hostile terms? How would you react to your beliefs being rejected so summarily by someone as arrogant as yourself?

I would ask why they reacted this way. If they pointed out something rationally obvious, I’d re-consider what I had believed.

[Theocrat]

2. Not really sure what you mean. I'd be interested to hear it.

What I mean by "neutrality" is the notion that one's own belief system is "starting from a blank slate," without any biases, presuppositions, personal inferences, and subjective experiences about truth, reality, morality, matters of faith, etc. Every person has these assumptions when they believe something or choose to believe in nothing. For instance, there is a tendency for some people, particularly those who have a naturalistic perspective of life, to think that they believe in the facts without any religious biases "to the left or to the right" of the truth in interpreting those facts. This is what I mean by "neutrality." Every belief system has "baggage" that it carries with it in making sense of the world and human experience; no one starts on a "middle ground," so to speak, when believing whatever it is he or she chooses to believe.


3. The only reason I'm not an atheist, strangely enough, is because of the contrary being possible, though I am agnostic. I think the area where we differ is the notion that God is the precondition of intelligibility. I believe that our intelligence is the result of evolution.

If God, Who is spiritual (immaterial) in nature, doesn't exist, and we assume that all there is material, tangible things in the world, then how do you account for or make intelligent immaterial things which we know exist and are important in our human experience, such as love, the laws of logic, the differences between right and wrong, mathematics, etc.? These things I've mentioned aren't physical in nature, possessing a body of their own, and they aren't considered to be persons, places, or things but are concepts or ideas which cannot be empirically proven in any scientific way.

If evolution or the evolutionary processes are the preconditions of intelligibility, then who decides what intelligence is? Is it the person who has the "most evolved brain" that decides? How can scientific laws and experimentation be established (which assume uniformity or consistency in nature) in a world of just random chance and blind processes which are ever-changing and are unaided by any personal, absolute Force?


I'm not saying that there's no merit to other schools of thought, we can never know anything for certain, but I do hope there's a god in some form.

How do you know that we can never know anything for certain? Are you certain about what you've stated here?

[Kade]

And this is precisely why this forum has so much conflict.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING REASON for you to respond out of hand like this. It only perpetuates and worsens that bad blood here.

Just stop it.


Yongrel, you are the most aggressive and underhanded person on these forums. Everything you say is some sort of sarcastic and nasty remark, rarely have you added anything useful or intelligent to the conversation. I find this comment remarkably ironic.

[icon124]

One last question for those that believe in God...where did God come from if he exists? Surely he just didn't come out of no where? How is there a God to begin with?

[yongrel]

Yongrel, you are the most aggressive and underhanded person on these forums. Everything you say is some sort of sarcastic and nasty remark, rarely have you added anything useful or intelligent to the conversation. I find this comment remarkably ironic.

Pot, meet kettle.

[banjojambo9]

It cracks me up when people refer to god as- he- like god has a sweaty ballsack between its legs .god has a gender ?

[amy31416]

It cracks me up when people refer to god as- he- like god has a sweaty ballsack between its legs .god has a gender ?

Oh my that is an incredibly visual way to deal with the god/gender issue. Thanks for the picture.....:eek:

[amy31416]

One last question for those that believe in God...where did God come from if he exists? Surely he just didn't come out of no where? How is there a God to begin with?

How can anyone possibly answer that unless they are God?

[yongrel]

How can anyone possibly answer that unless they are God?

Imagination?

[icon124]

How can anyone possibly answer that unless they are God?

so you believe in something...and you have no idea where it came from? Is that what you are saying?

[amy31416]

so you believe in something...and you have no idea where it came from? Is that what you are saying?

I never said I didn't believe in anything.

[Theocrat]

One last question for those that believe in God...where did God come from if he exists? Surely he just didn't come out of no where? How is there a God to begin with?

That's an interesting question, and it's one that usually comes up from people who are skeptical of God's existence. Let me start answering your question by asking you a question. Can you draw a four-sided triangle? If you're intelligent, you'll say no. Why? Because a triangle, by nature, doesn't have four sides; otherwise, it would no longer be a triangle.

In similar reasoning, God did not come from anywhere or anyone. Why? Because God, by His own nature and character, is eternal and immutable. He's always existed, and He doesn't change in His Being. In an earlier post on this forum thread, I stated that God is "the precondition of intelligibility." In one way, this means that God, as the uncreated Creator, is the first Cause in time, space, and matter, and His existence is necessary (as an absolute standard and source of all knowledge, reasoning, wisdom, and truth) in order to make sense of anything in our universe. Without God, we could not even comprehend the notions of origins in any realm of experience and knowledge, since we as finite beings were not present at the beginning of all things in the universe.

God Himself does not require a causal explanation, and in some instances, it would seem silly to even ask if He had a cause. It would be like asking if a triangle has four sides.

[menoname]

I just found out Jefferson wrote his own Bible. Wow. What religion was he?

[Truth Warrior]

I just found out Jefferson wrote his own Bible. Wow. What religion was he?

Rosicrucion, I believe that I read somewhere.

[amy31416]

I just found out Jefferson wrote his own Bible. Wow. What religion was he?

He was a Deist.

[menoname]

He was a Deist.

Just going over it now. lol, he cuts out alot of stuff.

[acptulsa]

I just found out Jefferson wrote his own Bible. Wow. What religion was he?

Worked for the Mormons. Of course, Jefferson was much more literate than Joseph Smith. Better writer, too.

[icon124]

That's an interesting question, and it's one that usually comes up from people who are skeptical of God's existence. Let me start answering your question by asking you a question. Can you draw a four-sided triangle? If you're intelligent, you'll say no. Why? Because a triangle, by nature, doesn't have four sides; otherwise, it would no longer be a triangle.

In similar reasoning, God did not come from anywhere or anyone. Why? Because God, by His own nature and character, is eternal and immutable. He's always existed, and He doesn't change in His Being. In an earlier post on this forum thread, I stated that God is "the precondition of intelligibility." In one way, this means that God, as the uncreated Creator, is the first Cause in time, space, and matter, and His existence is necessary (as an absolute standard and source of all knowledge, reasoning, wisdom, and truth) in order to make sense of anything in our universe. Without God, we could not even comprehend the notions of origins in any realm of experience and knowledge, since we as finite beings were not present at the beginning of all things in the universe.

God Himself does not require a causal explanation, and in some instances, it would seem silly to even ask if He had a cause. It would be like asking if a triangle has four sides.

I understand everything your saying...but sometimes you just don't sit down and wonder? I mean come on...I'm not knocking anything you say...but it's just me...I don't understand how he could be there for ever and ever and ever...and he is...just because...

[yongrel]

I just found out Jefferson wrote his own Bible. Wow. What religion was he?

He didn't write his own, per se. He went through and removed all of the items he deemed to be innaccurate. At least that's what I've always read. Don't take my word for it.

[menoname]

He didn't write his own, per se. He went through and removed all of the items he deemed to be innaccurate. At least that's what I've always read. Don't take my word for it.

I guess he just took the parts he agreed with and ommitted the rest. Imagine what he could of cut and paste with a computer.

[Corydoras]

It cracks me up when people refer to god as- he- like god has a sweaty ballsack between its legs .god has a gender ?

That is, in fact, a correct implication of the belief that Jesus Christ was both fully human and fully divine.

[rational thinker]

I just found out Jefferson wrote his own Bible. Wow. What religion was he?

He didn't write his own Bible, but rather ommitted the supernatural occurrences, which are, naturally, inaccurate. He was a Deist, by the way.

[rational thinker]

That's an interesting question, and it's one that usually comes up from people who are skeptical of God's existence. Let me start answering your question by asking you a question. Can you draw a four-sided triangle? If you're intelligent, you'll say no. Why? Because a triangle, by nature, doesn't have four sides; otherwise, it would no longer be a triangle.

In similar reasoning, God did not come from anywhere or anyone. Why? Because God, by His own nature and character, is eternal and immutable. He's always existed, and He doesn't change in His Being. In an earlier post on this forum thread, I stated that God is "the precondition of intelligibility." In one way, this means that God, as the uncreated Creator, is the first Cause in time, space, and matter, and His existence is necessary (as an absolute standard and source of all knowledge, reasoning, wisdom, and truth) in order to make sense of anything in our universe. Without God, we could not even comprehend the notions of origins in any realm of experience and knowledge, since we as finite beings were not present at the beginning of all things in the universe.

God Himself does not require a causal explanation, and in some instances, it would seem silly to even ask if He had a cause. It would be like asking if a triangle has four sides.


A.) You're assuming there is a god without providing any evidence as to why there need be one.
B.) You're definition of god is just your definition. You're making the assumption that a god must be eternal. You have provided no evidence as to why this is the case.
C.) God does require a causal explanation. If you are working on the basis of "where did the universe come from?" well then where did this god come from? If you are saying he is eternal, you are assuming that attribute. Now you must answer why his existence is necessary and why does he need to be eternal?

[icon124]

I don't know how or why, but for some reason I don't question the existence of God anymore. Somehow, I had my question answered. It felt like I was in an alternate reality or something, but in all honesty I got questions answered that I've been stuck on for a while now. This topic is really beyond anything on this forum (could discuss if others want to know). Anyway, to summarize, my main reason for not really believing a God could exist is because there is so much evil in the world. I often wondered why if there was an all-knowing and and all-powerful God why would this God let so much evil be in the world? Like I said somehow this answer came to me...and other answers as well...but this is the most important for this topic.

Without all of the evil in the world a God just wouldn't make sense. It came to me just like that. It's like saying without a left there wouldn't be a right. Does that make sense to you guys?

[amy31416]

Without all of the evil in the world a God just wouldn't make sense. It came to me just like that. It's like saying without a left there wouldn't be a right. Does that make sense to you guys?

Makes a heck of a lot more sense than all of the convoluted arguments of Descartes, Kant, Leibniz et al.

I like to think of it this way: for every proton, there's an electron. For all matter, there is anti-matter (we just don't know where it is yet.)

[amy31416]

Here's something that I found very interesting:

http://www.philosophyquotes.net/cgi-bin/god_game1.cgi?num=0&hits=0&bullets=0&bulletcount=0&hitcount=0


Here's my analysis, I have a little work to do!:

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

[icon124]

Makes a heck of a lot more sense than all of the convoluted arguments of Descartes, Kant, Leibniz et al.

I like to think of it this way: for every proton, there's an electron. For all matter, there is anti-matter (we just don't know where it is yet.)

yeah...like I said I felt like someone was connecting with me and giving me these answers. Don't know...really hard to explain...but for some reason my questions (that I've been stuck on for a while) were all answered during this period. Wierd but true haha

[amy31416]

yeah...like I said I felt like someone was connecting with me and giving me these answers. Don't know...really hard to explain...but for some reason my questions (that I've been stuck on for a while) were all answered during this period. Wierd but true haha

Honestly, I think that's the way it works with faith. We don't understand it, but somehow it resonates with us as truth. I haven't had that moment and remain agnostic, but I don't doubt that it happens for some people. It's, I guess, a revelation and as valid as any scientific revelation, just without all the annoying math and proving business. (No, not being sarcastic.)

What's important to me is how someone interprets that revelation into how they live their lives and treat other people.

[Theocrat]

A.) You're assuming there is a god without providing any evidence as to why there need be one.

I gave a transcendental proof of God's existence in which I stated that God is the precondition of intelligibility. In other words, without God's existence, it's impossible to prove anything in any absolute or objective way.


B.) You're definition of god is just your definition. You're making the assumption that a god must be eternal. You have provided no evidence as to why this is the case.

My evidence for God's eternal nature comes from the Bible (not my own personal opinion), His own divine and specific revelation about Himself. For instance, Psalm 90:2 in the Bible says, "Before the mountains were brought forth or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." There are many other evidences I could give, but this passage should suffice.


C.) God does require a causal explanation. If you are working on the basis of "where did the universe come from?" well then where did this god come from? If you are saying he is eternal, you are assuming that attribute. Now you must answer why his existence is necessary and why does he need to be eternal?

The assumption of your question is that God's existence requires that He also had an origin. Asking if the universe had a beginning and whether God had a beginning are two different questions because they involve two distinct entities. As I've mentioned before, God is eternal by His own nature and character, whereas the universe is not.

Let's assume that God did have a beginning. Then one might eventually ask where did that thing or being which "created" God come from. Then that would lead inevitably to the next question of where the thing or being which "created" God come from. On and on this would go unto infinity. So, rationally, it would seem to me that there has to be a point where you stop at a first and ultimate Cause, Who by nature is uncaused. That is one reason why I said God does not require a causal explanation.

The problem I believe the average naturalist has is exactly on this point of origins in their view of the universe. What was the first thing, event, or person that initiated the beginning of all things both living and non-living in the universe? Naturalists have struggled with that question for a long time, concluding one of three things:

1. The universe came from nothing, which is simply absurd.
2. The questions of origins are non-important (and even stupid to ask), which they are definitely not.
3. No one can know for sure the origin of the universe, which is a self-refuting statement.

All faith systems in the world, including "Atheism," struggle with this issue of origins, except for Christianity. The reason this is, among many, is that the Christian religion is the only one which can make sense of how an infinite and immutable Being like God can create time and finite creatures without Himself being subject to time and the finite world.

[sophocles07]

I gave a transcendental proof of God's existence in which I stated that God is the precondition of intelligibility. In other words, without God's existence, it's impossible to prove anything in any absolute or objective way.

This doesn't mean anything.

[Kotin]

i believe in Christian Spirituality and the teachings of Jesus Christ, i deplore most christian collectivism so i dont go to a church anymore. but i believe whole-heartedly in Jesus as my Saviour and Lord and my role model.

[Theocrat]

This doesn't mean anything.

Assuming the presuppositions of your own belief system, you have just proven my point by this statement, sophocles07. Thanks.

[icon124]

sophocles07 face it...theocrat has you cornered. It doesn't matter what you say...as long as Theocrat has that belief of intelligibilty you could never prove his opinion wrong lol...that doesn't mean you have to believe it though :)

[Hiki]

Erm... I'm not very good in english so could somebody explain to me in common tongue what the hell theocrat is talking about?

[Kade]

Erm... I'm not very good in english so could somebody explain to me in common tongue what the hell theocrat is talking about?

You can't know anything for sure unless you admit to Theocrat that his version of reality is correct.

[FreeTraveler]

If you throw out logic, you're left with opinion. If opinion is all that is left, then the truth is defined by the smoothest speaker, or the one who can cow others into believing he's speaking "truth." This is the reason that governments and churches are no friend of the process of scientific discovery.

Theocrat is the logical progression of giving up your ability to reason and depending on someone's opinion as fact.

It amazes me when people who refuse to accept the concept of natural selection over eons have no trouble accepting an all-powerful being who has always existed and will alway exist. At least there is some proof of the former.

[Kade]

If you throw out logic, you're left with opinion. If opinion is all that is left, then the truth is defined by the smoothest speaker, or the one who can cow others into believing he's speaking "truth." This is the reason that governments and churches are no friend of the process of scientific discovery.

Theocrat is the logical progression of giving up your ability to reason and depending on someone's opinion as fact.

It amazes me when people who refuse to accept the concept of natural selection over eons have no trouble accepting an all-powerful being who has always existed and will alway exist. At least there is some proof of the former.

QFT.

Aww, reason is so truly refreshing. It brings a tear to my eye... seriously.

[Theocrat]

Erm... I'm not very good in english so could somebody explain to me in common tongue what the hell theocrat is talking about?

I was basically saying that God is the necessary starting Point in order for there to be absolute standards and objective truth in the universe.


You can't know anything for sure unless you admit to Theocrat that his version of reality is correct.

You must be blind because I never wrote anything of the sort. I said no one can know anything for sure in any absolute, authoritative way without assuming God's existence at the forefront. My version of reality is moot; I'm focused on the truth of God's reality as based on His divine, personal, and specific revelation, the Holy Bible.


If you throw out logic, you're left with opinion. If opinion is all that is left, then the truth is defined by the smoothest speaker, or the one who can cow others into believing he's speaking "truth." This is the reason that governments and churches are no friend of the process of scientific discovery.

Theocrat is the logical progression of giving up your ability to reason and depending on someone's opinion as fact.

It amazes me when people who refuse to accept the concept of natural selection over eons have no trouble accepting an all-powerful being who has always existed and will alway exist. At least there is some proof of the former.

I believe in logic and reason, but these things don't justify themselves. They are measured by the standards of God's thinking, and they reflect how He expects us humans, who are created in His image and likeness, to think and reason in order to make sense of the world He created as well as His own character.

No one can scientifically prove the laws of logic because they don't function in that way. As abstract, universal, and invariant entities, the laws of logic are experienced in a much different way than physical/biological bodies. You can't put the laws of logic in a test tube or look at them underneath a microscope, for instance. The laws of logic cannot be observed in any empirical sense in the natural world, yet they are meaningful in how humans think and make rational judgments. Because we have souls which are immaterial (spiritual) like the laws of logic, we can use the laws of logic to make sense of the world as uniform standards of reasoning.

But, if we assume there is no God (thus, eliminating the absolute Standard or Origin for all realms of knowledge in the universe) and assume that all the universe is is natural, physical, and tangible entities subject to random chance and impersonal forces and changes, then how then do you justify or make sense of logic, morality, or even laws in general which are, by their own nature, immaterial (not able to be utilized with the five senses), universal (applicable everywhere or understood by all), and invariant (non-changing)? I submit to you, once again, that it is only the Christian religion which can rightly answer and account for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature in a absolute and objective way, due to the revealed and divine nature of our God, Who is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

[FreeTraveler]

No one can scientifically prove the laws of logic because they don't function in that way.

This is undoubtedly the most absurd statement I have ever read on any bulletin board or forum, and I've been on the 'net for over 25 years.

Logic is how physical laws, such as the law of gravity, are derived. If you doubt the physical manifestation of logic, go take a long walk off a short pier, and let me know how that goes.

[jmdrake]

omg! Incoming! Duck!


Incoming ducks
http://www.lockwood-art.com/gl-012.jpg

Originally developed under the codename Blue Duck, Ikara was a successful design from Australia. Its role was to deliver a Mk 44 or 46 homing torpedo to a target area faster than a helicopter. With a range of around 11 miles Ikara enhanced the anti-submarine capabilities of small warships.

http://www.skomer.u-net.com/projects/images/ikara.jpg

Bad pun I know.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Theocrat]

This is undoubtedly the most absurd statement I have ever read on any bulletin board or forum, and I've been on the 'net for over 25 years.

Logic is how physical laws, such as the law of gravity, are derived. If you doubt the physical manifestation of logic, go take a long walk off a short pier, and let me know how that goes.

Maybe you didn't read the rest of the paragraph in which I wrote that statement, but I explained in broad strokes why the laws of logic cannot be scientifically proven. Also, I think you're confusing the laws of logic with scientific laws. The former are used as standards to measure arguments and how one reasons, whereas the latter are used as standards of measuring and understanding the physical realms of the universe.

[Dr.3D]

Is it ok to shout "fire" in a crowded theater...if the theater is actually on fire?

Having worked for a time in a movie theater, I found even if there were to be a fire, they had a code word in the theater for the word fire. They would say something like, 'Mr. Strife is back stage.". This would mean there was a fire back stage. So I guess it is not a good idea to shout fire in a crowded theater. It is best to try for an orderly evacuation.

[Hiki]

Mr Theocrat, you're now engaging in philosophy which I would categorize as "stupid and absolutely pointless philosophy". Believe me, I just had the first course of philosophy in high school and even though we had some interesting stuff there, we also had these absolutely ridicolous debates.

What you're now describing is the impossibility of science to prove the existence of logic. Well, what is love? (Baby dont huurt mee.. Sorry:p) Science also cant explain love because it's not a material entity. Logic, love, anger, reason, moral... The list goes on of these entities which dont exist in a sense where we could prove these things with a scientific method. But then again numbers dont exist in a material sense aswell. You cant prove that "three" exists scientifically, you cant describe "three". And I really cant remember what "-ism" this stuff represented in philosophy but I do remember that it was the most awful stuff I've ever had to deal with in school. Does evolve your ability to THINK though, which is why I think philosophy is a very important subject in school.

And again I cant see how these things prove the existence of god. And we atheists are no more different from you christians expect for one more god in a looooong list of gods, Jahve.

e. http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/gods-we-dont-believe-in.jpg Yes I know Buddha isn't a god but otherwise it's a neat list.

[justatrey]

I think most religions require faith. My understanding of faith is that it requires the acceptance of beliefs which are not demonstrable through experimentation, logic, or reason.

So basically I think religion is something people practice more often to comfort themselves rather than to find out what the truth is. I'm more concerned about truth than comforting myself so I don't practice religion. If the truth is that we are here simply by chance and when we die we sieze to exist and simply go into the ground and decompose then so be it. I'd rather figure this out than fool myself into believing that some all-knowing all-loving creature put us here, everything happens for a reason, and I'm going to live in eternal paradise when I die.

With that said, I have no clue what the truth is.

[jmdrake]

Having worked for a time in a movie theater, I found even if there were to be a fire, they had a code word in the theater for the word fire. They would say something like, 'Mr. Strife is back stage.". This would mean there was a fire back stage. So I guess it is not a good idea to shout fire in a crowded theater. It is best to try for an orderly evacuation.

LOL. Talk about thread redirection. Yes orderly evacuations are better than disorderly ones. And it's nice that employees have "codewords" so that they can work together smoothly. On the flip side people have died from others being "overly calm". Look at 9/11. Forget the conspiracy theories for a minute. People who had already evacuated tower two were told "go back to work". Sure hindsight is "20/20" but I would have given people the day off simply based on general principle. Or the email that was sent out after the first Virginia Tech shooting telling students to go on with classes even though 2 students had already been shot and nobody was sure whether or not the gunman had left campus.

Anyway, my sig is based on the fallacy of the "crowded theater" analogy when it comes to free speech. Sometimes you don't have time for "orderly evacuations". That's why there are air raid sirens, tornado sirens etc. If you lived in Israel facing an incoming missile strike and people in your theater died because you didn't inform them in a timely manner that would be as bad as someone getting trampled. The real for me is if someone is acting in good faith. Maybe their actions didn't have the best possible result but were they acting in good faith? Telling lies is not protected speech (after all there are laws against perjury, libel and slander). But telling the truth as you believe it should always be protected even if there are possible negative consequences to the truth.

And for the record the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy was first used to justify the government prosecuting someone for speaking out against a war. :mad:

Regards,

John M. Drake

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

want to find God for real???

turn everything off; tv, computer, eyelids (close them), radio, books, people, dogma, Ron Paul, RPFs, everything. If you find it uncomfortable to be in the dark alone by yourself, follow that feeling.

sit comfortably and become aware of only your breath. 'God' has always been with you. Find out who you truly are to know.

[Theocrat]

Mr Theocrat, you're now engaging in philosophy which I would categorize as "stupid and absolutely pointless philosophy". Believe me, I just had the first course of philosophy in high school and even though we had some interesting stuff there, we also had these absolutely ridicolous debates.

What you're now describing is the impossibility of science to prove the existence of logic. Well, what is love? (Baby dont huurt mee.. Sorry:p) Science also cant explain love because it's not a material entity. Logic, love, anger, reason, moral... The list goes on of these entities which dont exist in a sense where we could prove these things with a scientific method. But then again numbers dont exist in a material sense aswell. You cant prove that "three" exists scientifically, you cant describe "three". And I really cant remember what "-ism" this stuff represented in philosophy but I do remember that it was the most awful stuff I've ever had to deal with in school. Does evolve your ability to THINK though, which is why I think philosophy is a very important subject in school.

And again I cant see how these things prove the existence of god. And we atheists are no more different from you christians expect for one more god in a looooong list of gods, Jahve.

e. http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/gods-we-dont-believe-in.jpg Yes I know Buddha isn't a god but otherwise it's a neat list.

I see religion and philosophy as being similar to one another. Everyone has some philosophy by which he or she understands truth in the universe and lives his or her life. Even those who hate or believe in no philosophy have a philosophy, which is a philosophy of non-belief in philosophy or its importance.

In the Christian worldview, those gods listed in your link are simply false gods (idols) invented by sinful men in rebellion against the one true God, Yahweh, and they are in violation of the First (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:2,%203;&version=9;) and Second (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:4-6;&version=9;) of the Ten Commandments. God has declared in His word, "Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me" (Isaiah 46:9). Jesus also declares, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me" (John 14:6). So it's pretty clear, at least in the Christian worldview, that our God is the only true God. People may not like that nor agree with it, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter.

For clarity's sake, I'll just say that the Christian claims about God (as revealed in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible) are absolutely and objectively true of God's nature and character, necessary to understand anything in the universe, and those who reject those claims are reduced to absurdity. This means that the God of the Bible is and remains true whether you or I believe it or not because its verity is not contingent upon our assent to its propositions, practices, or lack thereof.

[LittleLightShining]

I think most religions require faith. My understanding of faith is that it requires the acceptance of beliefs which are not demonstrable through experimentation, logic, or reason.

So basically I think religion is something people practice more often to comfort themselves rather than to find out what the truth is. I'm more concerned about truth than comforting myself so I don't practice religion. If the truth is that we are here simply by chance and when we die we sieze to exist and simply go into the ground and decompose then so be it. I'd rather figure this out than fool myself into believing that some all-knowing all-loving creature put us here, everything happens for a reason, and I'm going to live in eternal paradise when I die.

With that said, I have no clue what the truth is.

I'm not trying to play the guilt card or the fear card here, but what if you're wrong? What if the whole point of existence is faith?

[OptionsTrader]

The human mind is just too beautiful and great to be electric impulses.

How far down the neural complexity ladder do you need to go such that you could believe the lifeform does not require an omnipotent being to have created its nervous system of information processing?


Chimpanzee?
Dolphin?
Gorilla?
Hamster?
Frog?
Earthworm?
Flatworm?
Single celled organisms?
Quasi-alive viruses?
The marvelous Water molecule whose chemical structure polarity allows different chemicals in the ocean to be manipulated in nearly infinite ways allowing for nearly infinite combination trials over billions of years?
Quarks with spin (bits of information)?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Humans are master of the world. I would like to conquer the universe, that would be good. We can't sit on Earth forever, you know. I'm a believer in evolution and I think that people shouldn't be forced into anything, weather it be religion or evolution, even the Pledge of Allegiance.

[OptionsTrader]

Thanks yongrel, you beat me to it.

Sophocles, try to be respectful of fellow supporters. You're simply being arrogant.

I see that there are a few topics on this forum where you call some people arrogant when you disagree. A natural response to vocal opposition perhaps. I find it interesting.

[Dr.3D]

How far down the neural complexity ladder do you need to go such that you could believe the lifeform does not require an omnipotent being to have created its nervous system of information processing?


Chimpanzee?
Dolphin?
Gorilla?
Hamster?
Frog?
Earthworm?
Flatworm?
Single celled organisms?
Quasi-alive viruses?
The marvelous Water molecule whose chemical structure polarity allows different chemicals in the ocean to be manipulated in nearly infinite ways allowing for nearly infinite combination trials over billions of years?
Quarks with spin (bits of information)?


Even the amoeba needs to have a creator. Otherwise, entropy would prohibit it from existing .

[OptionsTrader]

Even the amoeba needs to have a creator. Otherwise, entropy would prohibit it from existing .

You don't want to go down that road...you know where it ends...you have been down it before....

[Dr.3D]

You don't want to go down that road...you know where it ends...you have been down it before....

Seems I must have forgotten going down that road.

Evolution is not a lie, we see it when bacteria develop a resistance to antibiotics. It is the method organisms adapt to changes in the environment.

I don't however, believe evolution is how life was created.
The change from disorder to order is not what we observe when studying physics. Such a change would be in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Since we always observe entropy in non biological systems (organisms), it does not make sense, disorder would somehow change to order without a coordinated external source of energy applied with the purpose of bringing the organism into existence.

In a world void of organisms, it would be necessary to construct an organism in order for one to exist. Once in existence, the organism would only be able to adapt to the environment if it had been constructed with the ability to reproduce.

Now if we observe the organisms ability to survive (live) and reproduce, we may understand how the organism is able to evolve (adapt to the environment).

Since we have now defined what causes organisms to be able to evolve, we understand what evolution is.

Evolution is the ability of an organism to live and adapt to the environment. This ability is an attribute of the organism, not the manner in which it was brought into existence.

[justatrey]

I'm not trying to play the guilt card or the fear card here, but what if you're wrong? What if the whole point of existence is faith?

In other words, what if the whole point of existence is the acceptance of beliefs which are not demonstrable through experimentation, logic, or reason?

What kind of an existence is that and who would create such a thing? But to answer your question, if it turns out that was the whole point of existence then I guess I missed the boat because there was no way to know this is the case.

I couldn't feel guilty about it though because I announced many years ago to "anyone out there listening" that if he/she/it exists and would like me to believe in it to please let me know. So far I haven't received an answer.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I see that there are a few topics on this forum where you call some people arrogant when you disagree. A natural response to vocal opposition perhaps. I find it interesting.

Yeah, I see that a lot.

[OptionsTrader]

I am afraid you do not understand entropy. This is, however, a humerous and vastly popular misrepresentation of entropy and attempting to use science as "proof" of a supreme being is hypocritical. Those who believe in God like to shun science when science illustrates that the existence of God is not testable and there is zero scientific proof of the necessity of a God, however they are quick to bastardize the second law of thermodynamics at will.

[Hiki]

OptionsTrader:
How far down the neural complexity ladder do you need to go such that you could believe the life form does not require an omnipotent being to have created its nervous system?

Yeah I know and I dont believe that there is some unspoken magical being. I believe in evolution and natural selection but what I meant was that the human mind is really an extraordinary thing that I personally think there's more to it than chemical and eletrical impulses, I just cant go with the materialistic point of view. It's not soul/god-related but some kind of higher consciouness.


Theocrat:
I see religion and philosophy as being similar to one another. Everyone has some philosophy by which he or she understands truth in the universe and lives his or her life. Even those who hate or believe in no philosophy have a philosophy, which is a philosophy of non-belief in philosophy or its importance.

In the Christian worldview, those gods listed in your link are simply false gods (idols) invented by sinful men in rebellion against the one true God, Yahweh, and they are in violation of the First and Second of the Ten Commandments. God has declared in His word, "Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me" (Isaiah 46:9). Jesus also declares, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me" (John 14:6). So it's pretty clear, at least in the Christian worldview, that our God is the only true God. People may not like that nor agree with it, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter.

You're correct about the relationship of philosophy and religion, we discussed god in the philosophy class. I would take more philosophy if it wasn't for learning all those -isms and philosphers and their thoughts.

But you see many of those gods existed loong before christianity or any of the desert dogmas even came to being. And the only reason you're here debating on behalf of Yahweh, is because you happened to be brought up in a christian family or society. If you would have been born in ancient Denmark or Scandinavia in general, you would believe in Thor and numerous other gods alongside Ragnarok. If you would've been born in some tribe in Africa you would believe in the great Ju-Ju up the mountain. Or here in Finland, our national-epic tells the story of a Great Bird (Sotka) laying an egg which spawned the whole world and alongside that you would believe in Ahti, Ukko Ylijumala and many others. Or in ancient Greece there was Zeus and the wide array of gods. There are hundreds of religions all with their own gods and stories, dozens of religions with their Holy Books claiming to be the truth.
And besides all the religions in the Middle-East seem to have a lot in common, the Egypt mythology, the Sumerian mythology alongside with Judeo-Christianity and Islam all have a lot of same stories. It's nothing more than that, just local mythology and stories to explain all the strange things which primitive people back then couldn't explain. Christianity and Islam have just been taken a bit too far.

[Dr.3D]

I am afraid you do not understand entropy. This is, however, a humerous and vastly popular misrepresentation of entropy and attempting to use science as "proof" of a supreme being is hypocritical. Those who believe in God like to shun science when science illustrates that the existence of God is not testable and there is zero scientific proof of God, however they are quick to bastardize the second law of thermodynamics at will.

Please be so kind as to explain how I bastardized the second law of thermodynamics. Do you ever see the opposite of entropy in anything non living?

[OptionsTrader]

Yeah I know and I dont believe that there is some unspoken magical being. I believe in evolution and natural selection but what I meant was that the human mind is really an extraordinary thing that I personally think there's more to it than chemical and eletrical impulses, I just cant go with the materialistic point of view. It's not soul/god-related but some kind of higher consciouness.


It is a natural response, for many people, to want to believe that.

[OptionsTrader]

Nothing's more hot topics than a thread titled "Religion" lol....

We can all agree on that!

[Hiki]

It is a natural response, for many people, to want to believe that.

Yeah I guess so. The materialistic point of view is just so dull and boring. And I DO BELIEVE so, I honestly dont know but I believe so. In a way i'm religious :D

It's just that evolution isn't complete. It has some gaps and the overall picture is as hard to believe as the creation. I mean everything here is the product of random chance and natural selection? Everything has evolved from bacteria? It's really something a human mind cant really understand, not mine at least. But I do believe in evolution, even though the amount of time that is related to it (Earth is 4,5billion years old) is beoynd my understanding (I have a habit of getting annoyed anytime I see HUGE numbers).
But science is a moving process, always learning more. And when science comes up with the final, all-explaining answer then I will believe in evolution 100%, I guess i'm at 90% at the moment.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yeah I guess so. The materialistic point of view is just so dull and boring. And I DO BELIEVE so, I honestly dont know but I believe so. In a way i'm religious :D

It's just that evolution isn't complete. It has some gaps and the overall picture is as hard to believe as the creation. I mean everything here is the product of random chance and natural selection? Everything has evolved from bacteria? It's really something a human mind cant really understand, not mine at least. But I do believe in evolution, even though the amount of time that is related to it (Earth is 4,5billion years old) is beoynd my understanding (I have a habit of getting annoyed anytime I see HUGE numbers).
But science is a moving process, always learning more. And when science comes up with the final, all-explaining answer then I will believe in evolution 100%, I guess i'm at 90% at the moment.

Is your religion complete? Seems like there's no evidence for any of it.

[OptionsTrader]

Yeah I guess so. The materialistic point of view is just so dull and boring. And I DO BELIEVE so, I honestly dont know but I believe so. In a way i'm religious :D

It's just that evolution isn't complete. It has some gaps and the overall picture is as hard to believe as the creation. I mean everything here is the product of random chance and natural selection? Everything has evolved from bacteria? It's really something a human mind cant really understand, not mine at least. But I do believe in evolution, even though the amount of time that is related to it (Earth is 4,5billion years old) is beoynd my understanding (I have a habit of getting annoyed anytime I see HUGE numbers).
But science is a moving process, always learning more. And when science comes up with the final, all-explaining answer then I will believe in evolution 100%, I guess i'm at 90% at the moment.

I think you are where a lot of young people are. I was never there because it was never natural for me to explain anything with a God. I never would have conjured up this idea if left to my own devices alone on a desert island from cradle to grave. I also never believed there were any WMDs in Iraq, because I never saw the proof. If only more people in the world demanded proof before believing assertions.

[Hiki]

Is your religion complete? Seems like there's no evidence for any of it.

It's not a religion :D If you ever get into metaphysics in philosophy, then you'll understand why I think this. I really cant remember the -ism for this. I'm pretty sure that science can explain this but for me the human mind is so extraordinary that I believe there is some higher kind of consciouness.

But just like Bill Maher said, "Why cant you just say, I DONT KNOW." And that's right, I DONT KNOW.

[Hiki]

I think you are where a lot of young people are. I was never there because it was never natural for me to explain anything with a God. I never would have conjured up this idea if left to my own devices alone on a desert island from cradle to grave. I also never believed there were any WMDs in Iraq, because I never saw the proof. If only more people in the world demanded proof before believing assertions.

Well yeah I'm only 16 for christs sakes :D In a few years I'll find my place in this matter, but right now I'm balancing on the thin line between atheism and agnostism.

[Kade]

Well yeah I'm only 16 for christs sakes :D In a few years I'll find my place in this matter, but right now I'm balancing on the thin line between atheism and agnostism.

Good path.

[amy31416]

I think you are where a lot of young people are. I was never there because it was never natural for me to explain anything with a God. I never would have conjured up this idea if left to my own devices alone on a desert island from cradle to grave. I also never believed there were any WMDs in Iraq, because I never saw the proof. If only more people in the world demanded proof before believing assertions.

George W. Bush was kind enough to try to get you that proof of WMD's and now you complain? ;)

Seriously though, there can't be proof for everything and we can't all individually investigate every single thing before we have an opinion.

The only common thread as to our individual views on the world is education. We all need, first and foremost, for critical thinking skills to be taught to all people, and at a much younger age. Why can't there be an elementary school version of logic, cause and effect and investigation? Because too many school children would start doubting Santa Claus?

This country tanks without it. Oh, and to stay sort of on-topic, religiously, I don't care what anyone believes as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. We all have a unique experience of the world.

[Kade]

George W. Bush was kind enough to try to get you that proof of WMD's and now you complain? ;)

Seriously though, there can't be proof for everything and we can't all individually investigate every single thing before we have an opinion.

The only common thread as to our individual views on the world is education. We all need, first and foremost, for critical thinking skills to be taught to all people, and at a much younger age. Why can't there be an elementary school version of logic, cause and effect and investigation? Because too many school children would start doubting Santa Claus?

This country tanks without it. Oh, and to stay sort of on-topic, religiously, I don't care what anyone believes as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. We all have a unique experience of the world.

Saying Jesus bodily rose from his own death is a statement that can be tested.

It fails.

Saying the Earth is 6,000 years old is a statement that can be tested.

It fails.

Saying that the Hebrew were in Egypt trapezing about as slaves is a statement that can be tested.

It fails.

I can go on... the problem is really about Popper's excellent falsifiability in scientific inquiry. The questions that can't be answered, most notably appeals to supernaturalism, are not scientific, and therefore for most, unknowable.

Just give an example of a truth statement of religion that is testable. If it passes the test, I'll believe.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Saying Jesus bodily rose from his own death is a statement that can be tested.

It fails.

Saying the Earth is 6,000 years old is a statement that can be tested.

It fails.

Saying that the Hebrew were in Egypt trapezing about as slaves is a statement that can be tested.

It fails.

I can go on... the problem is really about Popper's excellent falsifiability in scientific inquiry. The questions that can't be answered, most notably appeals to supernaturalism, are not scientific, and therefore for most, unknowable.

Just give an example of a truth statement of religion that is testable. If it passes the test, I'll believe.

Saying socialism can work

It fails.

But I agree with your position on religion, even though I know you have a love for interventionist economics.

[LittleLightShining]

In other words, what if the whole point of existence is the acceptance of beliefs which are not demonstrable through experimentation, logic, or reason?

Yes.


What kind of an existence is that and who would create such a thing? But to answer your question, if it turns out that was the whole point of existence then I guess I missed the boat because there was no way to know this is the case. Well, God. If you read Genesis, he created humans and gave them free will. This includes the the choice of whether or not to believe in him. The beauty of faith is that it is so simple yet so confounding.


I couldn't feel guilty about it though because I announced many years ago to "anyone out there listening" that if he/she/it exists and would like me to believe in it to please let me know. So far I haven't received an answer.Are you sure?

[rpfreedom08]

Saying Jesus bodily rose from his own death is a statement that can be tested.

It fails.



How can that be tested?

[LittleLightShining]

I think you are where a lot of young people are. I was never there because it was never natural for me to explain anything with a God. I never would have conjured up this idea if left to my own devices alone on a desert island from cradle to grave. I also never believed there were any WMDs in Iraq, because I never saw the proof. If only more people in the world demanded proof before believing assertions.
How do you know what you would believe if you were left to your own devices on a desert island from cradle to grave?Isn't that an assertion?

[Kade]

How can that be tested?

By trying to raise another guy from the dead with the technology at the time. :cool:

[JosephTheLibertarian]

By trying to raise another guy from the dead with the technology at the time. :cool:

But there is no evidence that "Jesus" even existed.

[OptionsTrader]

How do you know what you would believe if you were left to your own devices on a desert island from cradle to grave?Isn't that an assertion?

No. I know it because even in a society that has pushed this belief on me, I have not believed it. My brain rejected the invented tale outright. It is a logical conclusion that I would never invent it myself...

[justatrey]

Yes.
Well, God. If you read Genesis, he created humans and gave them free will. This includes the the choice of whether or not to believe in him. The beauty of faith is that it is so simple yet so confounding.

There is a big problem with this. We can agree on the fact that we have free will, but your next statement is nonsense:

"This includes the the choice of whether or not to believe in him."

I absolutely hate it when believers in anything make this argument! You cannot choose to believe in something. I can't wake up tomorrow and make a decision to believe in God. This is not part of free will!

For example, if I tell you that you must believe that you have 4 arms and 3 heads or you will go to hell, can you choose to believe it? What if I tell you to choose to believe the sky is orange? Beliefs are not a choice. I know these are extreme examples because you would be asked to believe in something that you know is false, but the same is true of something you are just unsure of. Suppose you are not really sure if there is life on other planets. Can you choose to believe there is? Of course not, because you're not sure. You can say you believe, but that is much different than actually believing.

This is precisely why it would be immoral for a creator to punish his own creation for not "choosing" to believe in him. Its impossible!


Are you sure?

I'm positive.

[Hiki]

But there is no evidence that "Jesus" even existed.

Yes there is! There's that Josephus guy!! But... Yeah he has been known to be a fraud for years.. My bad..

What about those Roman guys?! Right, they only mentioned about him with the name "Chrestus" in a couple of sentences... My bad again...

It's funny how people say that Jesus is a HISTORICAL figure, but in the end it seems like that neither that is true. Funny how my teacher in religion keeps pointing out to these sources to justify Jesus' excistence... We did watch Zeitgeist pt1 but she rejected that stuff, well it was obvious wasn't it?

[LittleLightShining]

There is a big problem with this. We can agree on the fact that we have free will, but your next statement is nonsense:

"This includes the the choice of whether or not to believe in him."

I absolutely hate it when believers in anything make this argument! You cannot choose to believe in something. I can't wake up tomorrow and make a decision to believe in God. This is not part of free will!

For example, if I tell you that you must believe that you have 4 arms and 3 heads or you will go to hell, can you choose to believe it? What if I tell you to choose to believe the sky is orange? Beliefs are not a choice. I know these are extreme examples because you would be asked to believe in something that you know is false, but the same is true of something you are just unsure of. Suppose you are not really sure if there is life on other planets. Can you choose to believe there is? Of course not, because you're not sure. You can say you believe, but that is much different than actually believing. Free will is free will (http://www.answers.com/topic/will?cat=biz-fin).

Yes, you can.
Your first proposition is ludicrous. There is a physical body to see and examine. The truth is self-evident.

The second, about the sky being orange causes me to put to the test what I know about colors and the names we give them. Maybe orange is blue. Maybe blue is orange. Maybe it's all a word game. But when you look at it, you see it, you recognize it. You know it for what it is, even if you've maybe been calling it the wrong name all along. Like my toddler-- he calls apples bapples. Someday he'll call them apples. But bapples are apples to him regardless of the title we give them.

I'm not sure if there is life on other planets. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever. Do I think there is, though, even though I have no conclusive evidence that there is? Yes. Why wouldn't there be? Why would earth, with all of the planets and stars in the whole of the universe be the only one capable of supporting some sort of life, so many different types of life? Can you prove there isn't? Nope. I can choose to believe. Why can't I?


This is precisely why it would be immoral for a creator to punish his own creation for not "choosing" to believe in him. Its impossible!

I'm positive.I'm going to admit to you that this is the first statement on this thread so far that has caused me to have to sit back and really think hard. It is not that he punishes people for simply 'not choosing to believe'. I think that's not quite the whole of it. It is prideful rejection that he punishes.

I think maybe that your questioning was like a test. Come on, God, if you're real prove it to me, kind of thing. Maybe? I don't want to come across like a know it all here. But there is a big difference between humbly asking the creator of the universe for a glimmer of light, believing that you might get an answer and challenging God to show you some fireworks. With faith as small as a mustard seed anything can happen.

[Theocrat]

But you see many of those gods existed loong before christianity or any of the desert dogmas even came to being. And the only reason you're here debating on behalf of Yahweh, is because you happened to be brought up in a christian family or society. If you would have been born in ancient Denmark or Scandinavia in general, you would believe in Thor and numerous other gods alongside Ragnarok. If you would've been born in some tribe in Africa you would believe in the great Ju-Ju up the mountain. Or here in Finland, our national-epic tells the story of a Great Bird (Sotka) laying an egg which spawned the whole world and alongside that you would believe in Ahti, Ukko Ylijumala and many others. Or in ancient Greece there was Zeus and the wide array of gods. There are hundreds of religions all with their own gods and stories, dozens of religions with their Holy Books claiming to be the truth.
And besides all the religions in the Middle-East seem to have a lot in common, the Egypt mythology, the Sumerian mythology alongside with Judeo-Christianity and Islam all have a lot of same stories. It's nothing more than that, just local mythology and stories to explain all the strange things which primitive people back then couldn't explain. Christianity and Islam have just been taken a bit too far.

Firstly, I find your argument here to be strangely familiar to an argument once postulated by Richard Dawkins (A.K.A. Dicky D. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw) :D) about religion just being a cultural thing, as if that has anything to do with the truth or falsity of the religious belief itself.

Secondly, I find it very unwise on your part to assume that I believe Christianity to be true just because I, presumably, was raised in a Christian family or society. The fact of the matter is you don't know where I was raised, nor what my background is. Perhaps I was raised in a tribe in the deepest, remotest part of Africa. Maybe I was raised up in a Middle Eastern society, and later on became convinced of the truths of Christianity. The point is cultures don't necessarily guarantee that the religious beliefs of those cultures will be retained by the citizens of those cultures. People can change their minds about their beliefs, as is demonstrated recently here in America with the uprise of secular humanism. All I can tell you is that I don't believe the Christian God is true just because someone or some society forced it down my throat. As an analytical thinker, I've come to submit to the precious truths of the Christian religion by virtue of scientific data, logical studies, long nights of prayer, asking Christian leaders questions, debating the skeptics, and a host of other ventures. God has revealed Himself to me in a very real and verifiable way, so it's simply a lie for people to say that God hasn't given any proof of His existence because I see it every single day of my life, through good and bad times.

Finally, it can perfectly be the case that all those other superstitions which hold that their gods are the true gods are false, with the exception of Christianity. It would be a bold statement, but, nonetheless, it can be true. As one who has studied the evidences and arguments for the truth of the Christian God, I can assure you that this is the case. No other belief system has brought more prosperity, learning, and charity to millions of groups of people than Christianity. No other faith system has the amount of evidences from science, archeology, prophecy, etc. to affirm its validity than the Christian religion. Constitutional republics have been started and inspired by Christianity. Capitalism has flourished because of the principles of Christianity. Hospitals and orphanages have been established as a result of Christianity. Great centers of education and higher learning have come about because of Christianity. Advances in sciences and technology have been formed through having a Christian worldview of the universe. The list goes on and on. This world has been transformed and reformed because wherever Christianity has been the religion of its people. Like I said, no other faith system has had the kinds of success and blessings to people than the Christian faith.

When you say Christianity and Islam have been taken too far, I have to ask you what you mean by that. So, indulge me, Hiki.

[Theocrat]

But there is no evidence that "Jesus" even existed.

Oh, yeah, let's not even think about using the Bible as a source of evidence or historical reference that proves Jesus existed... :rolleyes: I mean, how ridiculously biased can you get here?

[Dr.3D]

Oh, yeah, let's not even think about using the Bible as a source of evidence or historical reference that proves Jesus existed... :rolleyes: I mean, how ridiculously biased can you get here?

Responding to this kind of thread is a big waste of time.
The people you are talking to wouldn't acknowledge God if He came right up to them and said here I am.

[justatrey]

Free will is free will (http://www.answers.com/topic/will?cat=biz-fin).

Yes, you can.
Your first proposition is ludicrous. There is a physical body to see and examine. The truth is self-evident.

The second, about the sky being orange causes me to put to the test what I know about colors and the names we give them. Maybe orange is blue. Maybe blue is orange. Maybe it's all a word game. But when you look at it, you see it, you recognize it. You know it for what it is, even if you've maybe been calling it the wrong name all along. Like my toddler-- he calls apples bapples. Someday he'll call them apples. But bapples are apples to him regardless of the title we give them.

Sorry for my bad examples. Ok you could argue the "color" of the sky I guess, but you know for certain you don't have 3 heads right? Despite having free will, you can't possibly choose to believe you have 3 heads, no matter how hard you try. Its impossible. I think we agree on this much.



I'm not sure if there is life on other planets. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever. Do I think there is, though, even though I have no conclusive evidence that there is? Yes. Why wouldn't there be? Why would earth, with all of the planets and stars in the whole of the universe be the only one capable of supporting some sort of life, so many different types of life? Can you prove there isn't? Nope. I can choose to believe. Why can't I?

You can't because in reality you "have absolutely no idea whatsoever". How do you transform having no idea into having a belief? I would love to know how this is done. I honestly think you would have to find a way to stop thinking rationally. Ok heres another bad analogy:

Suppose I hold a coin in my hand that you can't see. It is either 1 oz gold or a silver dollar. There is a 50% chance of both, so you truly have NO idea whatsoever. Is it possible to choose to believe I'm holding the gold coin? I would say only for an irrational person. It certainly wouldn't be for me. Any rational person's reasoning ability will not allow them to believe this. I could say I believe it, and repeat that I believe it over and over but deep down I would know that those are just words; the truth is that I'm just as clueless as I was before I started professing a belief in something I can't possibly know.



I'm going to admit to you that this is the first statement on this thread so far that has caused me to have to sit back and really think hard. It is not that he punishes people for simply 'not choosing to believe'. I think that's not quite the whole of it. It is prideful rejection that he punishes.

I think maybe that your questioning was like a test. Come on, God, if you're real prove it to me, kind of thing. Maybe? I don't want to come across like a know it all here. But there is a big difference between humbly asking the creator of the universe for a glimmer of light, believing that you might get an answer and challenging God to show you some fireworks. With faith as small as a mustard seed anything can happen.

I was raised Catholic and believed everything until my teens when I started to question things. I'm just a logical person so questioning things comes natrually. I can't believe something just because I'm told its true - its literally impossible. Anyways, I began asking for some reassurance but not in an arrogant "prove yourself" kind of a way, more like a humble "please help me" kind of way. I was always told "knock and the door shall be opened", but I knocked and knocked and the door always stayed shut. What I'm really clueless about though isn't the God described in the Bible, its just a question whether or not there is "something" out there.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Oh, yeah, let's not even think about using the Bible as a source of evidence or historical reference that proves Jesus existed... :rolleyes: I mean, how ridiculously biased can you get here?

The Bible is a bunch of uncited garbage. You're telling me to examine the Bible as if it's fact, while it itself cannot prove anything that it says. Maybe I should study Dianetics (big to Scientologists) and then use that as proof that psychiatry is evil. LOL

The Bible needs to make sense, which it does not. I'm a little too old for imaginary friends.

[allyinoh]

The Bible is a bunch of uncited garbage. You're telling me to examine the Bible as if it's fact, while it itself cannot prove anything that it says. Maybe I should study Dianetics (big to Scientologists) and then use that as proof that psychiatry is evil. LOL

The Bible needs to make sense, which it does not. I'm a little too old for imaginary friends.

The Bible doesn't make sense? So, love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, treat others as you would be treated, etc doesn't make sense? Okay, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Don't murder, don't steal, yeah you're right that really doesn't make any sense at all. Why would God command us to love our neighbors, not to murder, and to follow the Golden Rule?

So my question is, what is everyone's proof that the Bible is false and that God doesn't exist?

[LittleLightShining]

You can't because in reality you "have absolutely no idea whatsoever". How do you transform having no idea into having a belief? I would love to know how this is done. I honestly think you would have to find a way to stop thinking rationally.I guess I shouldn't have said "no idea whatsoever" because I do have an idea. It makes no logical sense to me why there shouldn't be life of some sort on other planets. It may be unlike anything you and I would consider life. But then again, the life on this planet varies so greatly. Consider the amoeba and the human and the blade of grass and the venus flytrap. The idea that there is no life on other planets is more irrational to me than believing that there is despite having no physical proof.


Ok heres another bad analogy:

Suppose I hold a coin in my hand that you can't see. It is either 1 oz gold or a silver dollar. There is a 50% chance of both, so you truly have NO idea whatsoever. Is it possible to choose to believe I'm holding the gold coin? I would say only for an irrational person. It certainly wouldn't be for me. Any rational person's reasoning ability will not allow them to believe this. I could say I believe it, and repeat that I believe it over and over but deep down I would know that those are just words; the truth is that I'm just as clueless as I was before I started professing a belief in something I can't possibly know. Ok, I see what you're saying here. But what if there was some little hint that it was gold and not silver? Then my belief would make sense, right? Your question presupposes that just because I can't see God that there is no way that I, being a rational thinker, should believe in him. However, you're removing from the equation my own personal proof and the written word of the Bible since it's irrelevant to you personally. Once I really started reading the pieces started falling into place.



I was raised Catholic and believed everything until my teens when I started to question things. I'm just a logical person so questioning things comes natrually. I can't believe something just because I'm told its true - its literally impossible. Anyways, I began asking for some reassurance but not in an arrogant "prove yourself" kind of a way, more like a humble "please help me" kind of way. I was always told "knock and the door shall be opened", but I knocked and knocked and the door always stayed shut. What I'm really clueless about though isn't the God described in the Bible, its just a question whether or not there is "something" out there.

Well, this makes sense. I was raised Catholic, too. See post #15 in this thread, if you care to. I explained a bit of where I came from. Unfortunately I think the Catholic Church has done more to hurt Christianity than any other single institution on the planet. Catholics are generally very generous, community-oriented people, but they have been removed from the true word and being raised Catholic, you and I have never been encouraged to read it for ourselves. I'm not trying to go on an anti-Catholic rant here, I'm not completely against it, but I distrust anyone that tells me I should believe in certain things just because they believe they have the authority to do so. I don't expect you to believe in God because I do. It's something you have to come to on your own. When you come to it, the point of humble recognition, that you do not have all the answers, no one on this earth does, that's when the curtain in your heart opens and the light comes in. Once you can begin to see how dusty and stale it is in there then you can begin to clean it up and when you've got most of the dirt and trash taken care of you can open the window and let the breeze in.

I think it's really hard for atheists to let go of the brain for just a little while so they can listen to their hearts.

"But he without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6

"But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the winds and tossed." James 1:6

[OptionsTrader]

The Bible doesn't make sense? So, love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, treat others as you would be treated, etc doesn't make sense? Okay, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Don't murder, don't steal, yeah you're right that really doesn't make any sense at all. Why would God command us to love our neighbors, not to murder, and to follow the Golden Rule?

So my question is, what is everyone's proof that the Bible is false and that God doesn't exist?

That's a slippery slope I do not think you want to go down. But since you opened Pandora's box, let's go there.

You are basically saying that the bible is a great guidebook for good behavior. I vehemently disagree. The thing is, you cannot pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to use. If the bible is a great guidebook for good behavior, then all of the recommendations in the bible should be followed and all of the recommendations in the bible should be great examples of good behavior. You picked out a few examples, but which are you going to pick out and which are you going to ignore? And how do you know which ones to ignore if the book is the word of god?

Stoning to death disobedient children, selling your youngest daughters into slavery, put to death anyone working on Sunday, touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, stone your brother for planting different crops side by side, & burn your mother for wearing clothing made of two different threads.

The bible is a collection of myths (myths with many similarities to the myths told by previous civilizations) written by man and editted by committee and many gospels were not included at the whim of man.

I challenge believers to find writings (not the bible) by historians and authors at the time at which the events are supposed to have occurred not decades or centuries later that provide evidence of the existence of the 20 most popular characters in the bible. That is how the process works. It is up to the theorist to support their theory with evidence, it is not up to the skeptic to prove a negative.

A: "Ghosts exist!"
B: "Prove it with evidence"
A: "I cannot, you simply must believe. Prove ghosts do not exist!"
B: "Sigh"

[familydog]

The Bible doesn't make sense? So, love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, treat others as you would be treated, etc doesn't make sense? Okay, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Don't murder, don't steal, yeah you're right that really doesn't make any sense at all. Why would God command us to love our neighbors, not to murder, and to follow the Golden Rule?

So my question is, what is everyone's proof that the Bible is false and that God doesn't exist?

There is no "proof" either way. It's all about faith. The spiritual require faith that there is something beyond the empiracle world, and the non-spiritual require faith that there isn't because science has yet "disprove" an existance of a greater being.

[Kade]

Responding to this kind of thread is a big waste of time.
The people you are talking to wouldn't acknowledge God if He came right up to them and said here I am.

That's not true.

Each one of us here openly agree that if a GOD revealed himself in some useful manner, in any way, we would acknowledge it.

You are the ones who refuse to consider the possibility that you are wrong.

[Hiki]

http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/hprajani/phun/god-v-satan.png

e. Yes, God is a psychopath, and I normally dont want to be friend to a guy like that, no matter how much good they've done.

[OptionsTrader]

Add to that chart the number of people that have been killed in his name...

[Dr.3D]

That's not true.

Each one of us here openly agree that if a GOD revealed himself in some useful manner, in any way, we would acknowledge it.

You are the ones who refuse to consider the possibility that you are wrong.

I still await an answer to my post #127.

[Theocrat]

The Bible is a bunch of uncited garbage. You're telling me to examine the Bible as if it's fact, while it itself cannot prove anything that it says. Maybe I should study Dianetics (big to Scientologists) and then use that as proof that psychiatry is evil. LOL

The Bible needs to make sense, which it does not. I'm a little too old for imaginary friends.

Your whole argument here is based on subjective, personal opinion, which I find funny. You want objective proof for the Bible to be true, yet you appeal to and conclude with a subjective opinion on the matter. The truth of the matter is the Bible has impeccable credentials. Anyone who has taken the time to study the manuscript evidence of the Bible will know that, at least on a historical level, the Bible has reliable testimonies.

You've stated that the Bible doesn't make sense. Maybe to you it doesn't, but this is just speculation. Millions upon millions of people who have read the Bible have had their lives changed, questions answered, and God's presence bestowed on them because of the truth and clarity from the Scriptures. I think your problem is you look at the Bible as just another book. It is a supernatural book, and it is the one book in the world which has the power to change individuals and societies both externally and internally. I come to you as a witness that this is true, and that the Bible is indeed the very word of the living God.

The real proof of the Bible's supernatural power and illumination comes when one not only reads its pages but also inculcates its previous precepts through humble and self-sacrificial obedience to the One Who is the object of those pages, namely, God. It is the promises of Scripture which attest to its own authority and accuracy as being the true revelation of God.

[dawnbt]

To the people out there that read the bible...what bible exactly are you reading? And why have you chosen that? What makes you think it isn't just made up propaganda? Just curious because I want to read something...but something good not full of propaganda (if that even exists lol)

I read the NIV Study Bible. It reads in todays dialect without the thou's, thy's, and thee's making it easier to understand. I was instructed to start at the New Testiment and then continue on to the Old. It really is an inspiring read. Never thought I would get as far through the Bible as I have, but some nights I can't put it down.

I was raised going to church but never felt anything. I stopped going as a teen and popped in once in awhile when my life was really going down the tubes and then left again as I felt it did nothing for me. I went through many years of doubt and suspicion when it came to religion and found myself to be much more spiritual than religious. The problem is that many religions distrort the text and meanings of the bible for their own good. Whatever gets the people in the doors...we'll tell them it's ok. My sister who was a hard core partier and what-not decided to turn her life around for not only herself, but her son. After talking to a co-worker she decided to attend his Apostolic church and since became a minister and not only talks the talk, but walks the walk. I admired her for this and finally decided to attend. I had been "searching" for a church that spoke the true gospel and with her church I have.
The way I see it, it doesn't hurt to have faith, believe in a higher power, be a better person, and live a better life. If my faith were to wind up being "wrong" what did I really have to lose? I'm happier, my marriage is stronger, and I am finally at peace with not only my life, but the happenings of the world today. Fighting temptation ain't easy, but the benefits are undeniable. I judge no one and respect everyones opinion as I have shared many of the same struggles and doubts. JMHO.

[Kade]

I still await an answer to my post #127.

I didn't respond to you at post #127... OptionsTrader did...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Your whole argument here is based on subjective, personal opinion, which I find funny. You want objective proof for the Bible to be true, yet you appeal to and conclude with a subjective opinion on the matter. The truth of the matter is the Bible has impeccable credentials. Anyone who has taken the time to study the manuscript evidence of the Bible will know that, at least on a historical level, the Bible has reliable testimonies.

You've stated that the Bible doesn't make sense. Maybe to you it doesn't, but this is just speculation. Millions upon millions of people who have read the Bible have had their lives changed, questions answered, and God's presence bestowed on them because of the truth and clarity from the Scriptures. I think your problem is you look at the Bible as just another book. It is a supernatural book, and it is the one book in the world which has the power to change individuals and societies both externally and internally. I come to you as a witness that this is true, and that the Bible is indeed the very word of the living God.

The real proof of the Bible's supernatural power and illumination comes when one not only reads its pages but also inculcates its previous precepts through humble and self-sacrificial obedience to the One Who is the object of those pages, namely, God. It is the promises of Scripture which attest to its own authority and accuracy as being the true revelation of God.

Let me make it clear for you: I object to it because there is no evidence backing it up. If I ask for evidence, you point me to the Bible. uh... what if it's a book of lies? Written by man after all! You need evidence before you can believe in something. Well, you don't, but then how can you turn around and tell me that there are gaps in the evolution argument? Look at the gap in your own belief? One big gap LOL. The Bible reminds me on the Grand Canyon.

[Kade]

Let me make it clear for you: I object to it because there is no evidence backing it up. If I ask for evidence, you point me to the Bible. uh... what if it's a book of lies? Written by man after all!

That logic is too sound for Theocrat.

[Hiki]

I think every reasonable man should question a book saying things like humans living up to 900 years, a talking snake, a magical appletree, a talking donkey, a burning and talking bush, a rib-woman, humans being made by blowing air into dust, a cosmic jewish zombie and so on...
The bible does have a bit of historical accuracy, mostly when it comes to the Roman ages in the New Testament.

[Theocrat]

Let me make it clear for you: I object to it because there is no evidence backing it up. If I ask for evidence, you point me to the Bible. uh... what if it's a book of lies? Written by man after all! You need evidence before you can believe in something. Well, you don't, but then how can you turn around and tell me that there are gaps in the evolution argument? Look at the gap in your own belief? One big gap LOL. The Bible reminds me on the Grand Canyon.

The following comes from the archeological work of Dr. Richard M. Fales.



Archaeology and History Attest to the Reliability of the Bible

The Bible is still the world's best seller, and has been translated into more than 1400 languages. It was written over a period of 1500 years by kings, statesmen, prophetic seers, intellectuals, and commoners. All 66 books of the Bible are uniquely in harmony and agreement with each other.

In contrast to the fans of the Bible, critics looking for the flyspeck in the masterpiece allege that there was a long span of time between the events recorded in the New Testament and the writing down of those events. Then they say another gap exists archaeologically between the earliest copies made from the autographs of the New Testament. In reality, the alleged spaces and so called gaps exist only in the minds of the critics.

Notice how no other ancient book's text is questioned or maligned like that of the Bible. For instance, Aristotle's Ode to Poetics was written between 384-322BC. Our earliest copy of this work dates 1100AD, and we find there are only 49 extant manuscripts. Note that the gap between the original writing and the earliest copy is 1400 years. A second example is Plato's Tetralogies, written 427-347 BC. Our earliest copy is 900 AD, and there are only 7 extant manuscripts to study. The gap between the original and the earliest copy is 1200 years. What about the New Testament? Jesus was crucified in 30 AD. The New Testament was written between 48-95 AD. The oldest mss date to the last quarter of the first century, and the second oldest 125 AD. This gives us a narrow gap of 35 to 40 years from the originals written by the apostles. From the early centuries, we have some 5300 Greek mss of the New Testament. Altogether, including Syriac, Latin, Coptic and Aramaic, we have a whopping total of 24,633 texts of the ancient New Testament to confirm the wording of the New Testament scriptures. So the bottom line is, there was no great time period between the events of the New Testament and the New Testament writings. Nor is there a great lapse of time between the original writings and the oldest copies. This means that with the great body of mss evidence, it can also be proved, beyond a doubt, that the New Testament says exactly the same things today as it originally did nearly 2000 years ago.

Critics also charge that there are not ancient writings about Jesus outside the New Testament. This is another ridiculous claim. Writings that confirm his birth, ministry, death, and resurrection are found in Flavius Josephus (AD 93), the Babylonian Talmud (70-200 AD), Pliny the Younger's letter to the Emperor Trajan in about 100 AD, the Annals of Tacitus (115-117 AD), Mara Bar Serapion (sometime after 73 AD), and Suetonius' Life of Claudius and Life of Nero (120 AD). Another point of contention arises when critics of the have knowingly or unknowingly misled people by implying that Old and New Testament books were either left out of or were added into the canon of scriptures at the great ecumenical councils of the churches which met in 336, 382, 397, and 419 AD. As a matter of fact, one result of these gatherings was to confirm the Church's belief that the books already in the Bible were divinely inspired. So, what we actually find, then, was that the Church, at these meetings, neither added to nor did they take away from the books of the Bible. At the time of the early church's ecumenical councils, the 39 Old Testament books had already been accepted, and the New Testament, as it was written, simply grew up with the ancient church. Each document being accepted as it was penned in the first century was then passed on to Christians of the next century. So, this foolishness about the Roman Emperor Constantine dropping books from the Bible is simply uneducated rumor.

Prophecies that already have been fulfilled from both the Old and New Testaments also add credibility to the text of the Bible.. The scriptures predicted the rise and fall of great empires like Greece and Rome (Daniel 2:39, 40). It also foretold the destruction of cities like Tyre and Sidon in Isaiah 23. Tyre's demise is recorded by ancient historians, who tell how Alexander the Great lay siege to the city for seven months. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon failed in a 13-year attempt to capture the seacoast city and completely destroy its inhabitants. During the siege of 573 BC, much of the population of Tyre moved to its new island home approximately ½ mile from the land city. Here it remained surrounded by walls as high as 150 feet until judgment fell in 332 BC with the arrival of Alexander the Great. The siege lasted seven months, and during that time he fulfilled the remainder of Zechariah's and Ezekiel's prophecy concerning the city at sea by completely destroying Tyre, killing 8,000 of its inhabitants and selling 30,000 of its population into slavery. With Alexander's wrath almost complete, he now dragged 4,000 desperate souls to the beach and viciously crucified them. How could he reach the island that was a ½ mile at sea with an army of infantry and calvary? He fulfilled the details of the prophecy (Zechariah 9:4 and Ezekiel 26:12) and scraped up the dust and rubble of the old land city of Tyre, just like the Bible predicted, and cast them into the sea, building a 200-foot-wide causeway out to the island. Alexander's death and the murder of his twin sons was also foretold in the scripture. Another starling prophecy was Jesus' detailed prediction of Jerusalem's destruction, and the further spreading of the Jewish diaspora throughout the world, which is recorded in Luke 21. In 70 AD, not only was Jerusalem destroyed by the future emperor of Rome, Titus, but another prediction of Jesus Christ in Matthew 24:1-2 came to pass. The destruction and complete devastation of the temple of God.

In the book of Daniel, the Bible prophesied and promised the coming of the one and only Jewish Messiah prior to the temple's demise. There is only one candidate that fits this biblical scenario just prior to 70 AD. The Old Testament prophets declared he would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2) to a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), who would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zech. 1:12-13). The Bible further states that he would die by crucifixion (Psalm 22) and be buried in a rich man's tomb. (Isaiah 53:9). There was only one person that fits all of the messianic prophesies of the Old Testament who lived before 70 AD: Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Mary.

Yes, the Bible is an amazing book. It was not written as a book of science, yet it contains many amazing scientific facts. When the rest of the world believed the earth was flat or was supported on the shoulders of the mythical god Atlas, or said that it rested on the back of an elephant who stood on the back of a turtle that was swimming in a great endless sea, the Jewish prophets wrote that (Job 26:7)M, "God hangeth the earth upon nothing," and implied that the world was round (Isaiah 40:22) when it said, "It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth."
Read the Bible for yourself! Don't rely on others who have told you what they think it says. It is altogether possible that an individual religious leader's interpretation is at best just that, just another man's interpretation. Don't get your facts from secondhand sources --- read the Scriptures for yourself --- and do it with an open mind.


CHARTS


Comparison Ancient Literature/Ancient New Testament (http://www.drfalesbaa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=30)
Early Citations of the New Testament Found in the Ancient
Writings of the Church Fathers (http://www.drfalesbaa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=30)


I could give more examples which attest to the historical/archaeological accuracy of the Bible from other authors and sources, but I just want you to know that the evidence is out there, and all you have to do is look for it instead of standing back, presuming that there is none. Do some homework and be diligent! God is nigh, my friend, and He has been pleased to provide evidence for the truth of His own divine revelation. This isn't rocket science, after all.

[Theocrat]

That logic is too sound for Theocrat.

How do you prove logic, Kade? You still can't account for logic in any objective, rational, or absolute way in your humanistic religion.

[Dr.3D]

I didn't respond to you at post #127... OptionsTrader did...

That's just the point, he didn't!
Unless you can point out where he answered my question, I still await a response.

Till there is an answer to that question, I'll rest my case!

[OptionsTrader]

That's just the point, he didn't!
Unless you can point out where he answered my question, I still await a response.

Till there is an answer to that question, I'll rest my case!

What question? There's 17 pages of nonsense, please restate the question :)

[Theocrat]

I think every reasonable man should question a book saying things like humans living up to 900 years, a talking snake, a magical appletree, a talking donkey, a burning and talking bush, a rib-woman, humans being made by blowing air into dust, a cosmic jewish zombie and so on...
The bible does have a bit of historical accuracy, mostly when it comes to the Roman ages in the New Testament.

I think every rational, moral, and wise man should question a religion which teaches that the universe exploded from nothing, non-life produced life, plants and animals are related, chemicals can think on their own, humans evolved from apes, there are no absolutes in morality, law, science, and truth (among other things), no one can know if there's a God, Charles Darwin was a genius, America was founded on "Atheism," and other laughable absurdities. This religion is dangerous, and needs to be stopped at all costs, before more human minds are lost in irrationality and more human lives destroyed by immorality.

[Dr.3D]

I am afraid you do not understand entropy. This is, however, a humerous and vastly popular misrepresentation of entropy and attempting to use science as "proof" of a supreme being is hypocritical. Those who believe in God like to shun science when science illustrates that the existence of God is not testable and there is zero scientific proof of the necessity of a God, however they are quick to bastardize the second law of thermodynamics at will.


Please be so kind as to explain how I bastardized the second law of thermodynamics. Do you ever see the opposite of entropy in anything non living?

Here it is again.

[Kade]

How do you prove logic, Kade? You still can't account for logic in any objective, rational, or absolute way in your humanistic religion.

Technically, we only need to go with what works. Logic works, so it is used. Pray for Rushdoony to come back to life, and if he does, I'll be a believer.

[Kade]

Here it is again.

What's the question about entropy? I'll answer it for you.

[Laughingcow]

I think every rational, moral, and wise man should question a religion which teaches that the universe exploded from nothing, non-life produced life, plants and animals are related, chemicals can think on their own, humans evolved from apes, there are no absolutes in morality, law, science, and truth (among other things), no one can know if there's a God, Charles Darwin was a genius, America was founded on "Atheism," and other laughable absurdities. This religion is dangerous, and needs to be stopped at all costs, before more human minds are lost in irrationality and more human lives destroyed by immorality.

I heard that Darwin reconciled himself to God on his death and in affect denounced his own teachings. But I'm not sure if thats true, I'll check it out.

[Dr.3D]

Even the amoeba needs to have a creator. Otherwise, entropy would prohibit it from existing .


You don't want to go down that road...you know where it ends...you have been down it before....


Seems I must have forgotten going down that road.

Evolution is not a lie, we see it when bacteria develop a resistance to antibiotics. It is the method organisms adapt to changes in the environment.

I don't however, believe evolution is how life was created.
The change from disorder to order is not what we observe when studying physics. Such a change would be in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Since we always observe entropy in non biological systems (organisms), it does not make sense, disorder would somehow change to order without a coordinated external source of energy applied with the purpose of bringing the organism into existence.

In a world void of organisms, it would be necessary to construct an organism in order for one to exist. Once in existence, the organism would only be able to adapt to the environment if it had been constructed with the ability to reproduce.

Now if we observe the organisms ability to survive (live) and reproduce, we may understand how the organism is able to evolve (adapt to the environment).

Since we have now defined what causes organisms to be able to evolve, we understand what evolution is.

Evolution is the ability of an organism to live and adapt to the environment. This ability is an attribute of the organism, not the manner in which it was brought into existence.


I am afraid you do not understand entropy. This is, however, a humerous and vastly popular misrepresentation of entropy and attempting to use science as "proof" of a supreme being is hypocritical. Those who believe in God like to shun science when science illustrates that the existence of God is not testable and there is zero scientific proof of the necessity of a God, however they are quick to bastardize the second law of thermodynamics at will.


Please be so kind as to explain how I bastardized the second law of thermodynamics. Do you ever see the opposite of entropy in anything non living?

Here is the gist of the entire subject I was discussing.

[OptionsTrader]

What's the question about entropy? I'll answer it for you.

LOL is he on that still?

[Dr.3D]

LOL is he on that still?

LOL, yes I am.

[Theocrat]

Technically, we only need to go with what works. Logic works, so it is used.

Yeah. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Mao Tse Dong, and Nero just loved that philosophy, Kade... ;)

[Laughingcow]

I heard that Darwin reconciled himself to God on his death and in affect denounced his own teachings. But I'm not sure if thats true, I'll check it out.

I guess this was just a rumor, and it was vehemently repudiated by his children.

[Kade]

Even the amoeba needs to have a creator. Otherwise, entropy would prohibit it from existing .

Evolution does not make a statement of the "creation" process. It does not stipulate how the universe came into being, or how life came into being. It does provide an interesting map to that end for life, but for now, what we know is that precursors to life, like transcribed enzymes of RNA and RNA poolymerase and early ATP style Adenosine triphosphates had a large role.

An amoeba is not tied to entropy. Entropy is merely the useful energy of a system. Because the sun provides an nearly unmeasurable amount of energy, in regards to life, there is no gap between the process of evolution and life. In other words, entropy is not a problem in any regards to life on a planet that receives such large amounts of energy from the sun.

[Kade]

Yeah. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Mao Tse Dong, and Nero just loved that philosophy, Kade... ;)

Didn't look like it worked. Dogma is a bitch.

[Dr.3D]

Evolution does not make a statement of the "creation" process. It does not stipulate how the universe came into being, or how life came into being. It does provide an interesting map to that end for life, but for now, what we know is that precursors to life, like transcribed enzymes of RNA and RNA poolymerase and early ATP style Adenosine triphosphates had a large role.

An amoeba is not tied to entropy. Entropy is merely the useful energy of a system. Because the sun provides an nearly unmeasurable amount of energy, in regards to life, there is no gap between the process of evolution and life. In other words, entropy is not a problem in any regards to life on a planet that receives such large amounts of energy from the sun.

Still, this sidesteps the issue of how life began.

[Theocrat]

Technically, we only need to go with what works. Logic works, so it is used.

Hey, their dogmas worked. For them as absolute rulers and dictators, it was logical for them to kill the lesser species, so they did. Don't you just love humanistic, pragmatical reasoning and utilitarian authoritarianism! :rolleyes:

[Kade]

Still, this sidesteps the issue of how life began.

We don't really know for sure. Give us a hypothesis and we will test it. If a deity/creator helped, there would be proof. And it would beg the question, where exactly did the creator come from?

I didn't sidestep anything. I answered your question. The amoeba and entropy is hardly a criticism of evolution.

Where did life come from? active non-organic chemicals with active organic chemicals...

Where did they come from? Star matter.

Where did that come from? Who knows. We have an idea, but it's hard to prove and it's vastly complicated. If there were a god, to then make the leap that this god is

1. A man
2. Had a son
3. Made a heaven and hell
4. Wrote an inaccurate account of his anger and trials in a book misquoted and butchered through time
5. Cares whether you worship him or not.
6. Shows human emotion

So, if you think a "creator" compares to Christ, know that the stance is very flawed.

[Kade]

Hey, their dogmas worked. For them as absolute rulers and dictators, it was logical for them to kill the lesser species, so they did. Don't you just love humanistic, pragmatical reasoning and utilitarian authoritarianism! :rolleyes:

Even those atrocities are better and more humane then the atrocity of hell.

I only "love" anything that promotes tolerance and plurality.
You do not.

[Dr.3D]

We don't really know for sure. Give us a hypothesis and we will test it. If a deity/creator helped, there would be proof. And it would beg the question, where exactly did the creator come from?

I didn't sidestep anything. I answered your question. The amoeba and entropy is hardly a criticism of evolution.

Where did life come from? active non-organic chemicals with active organic chemicals...

Where did they come from? Star matter.

Where did that come from? Who knows. We have an idea, but it's hard to prove and it's vastly complicated. If there were a god, to then make the leap that this god is

1. A man
2. Had a son
3. Made a heaven and hell
4. Wrote an inaccurate account of his anger and trials in a book misquoted and butchered through time
5. Cares whether you worship him or not.
6. Shows human emotion

So, if you think a "creator" compares to Christ, know that the stance is very flawed.

Well, since a pocket watch is less complicated than an amoeba, I should be able to set the brass, iron, carbon and such in a pile and hope someday it would become a pocket watch? And then later, the pocket watch through being able to reproduce it will someday evolve into a laptop computer?

Since only living things do not undergo entropy, it is highly unlikely such a thing would come to pass. So it begs the question, where did a living thing come from in the first place for evolution to be able to work? A living thing can not evolve from something that is not living.

[Theocrat]

Even those atrocities are better and more humane then the atrocity of hell.

(lol) I want you to go back and reread what you just posted because it sounds to me like you're justifying what those brutes did in their regimes to millions of people.


I only "love" anything that promotes tolerance and plurality.
You do not.

Way to be intolerant of my supposed "intolerance," Kade. ;) Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. What is love, by the way, Kade?

[Theocrat]

Well, since a pocket watch is less complicated than an amoeba, I should be able to set the brass, iron, carbon and such in a pile and hope someday it would become a pocket watch? And then later, the pocket watch through being able to reproduce it will someday evolve into a laptop computer?

It can happen only if you believe in Richard Dawkins's imaginary friend, the "blind watchmaker," who just so happens to be related to the "headless engineer."


Since only living things do not undergo entropy, it is highly unlikely such a thing would come to pass. So it begs the question, where did a living thing come from in the first place for evolution to be able to work? A living thing can not evolve from something that is not living.

Amen, and amen.

[Kade]

Well, since a pocket watch is less complicated than an amoeba, I should be able to set the brass, iron, carbon and such in a pile and hope someday it would become a pocket watch? And then later, the pocket watch through being able to reproduce it will someday evolve into a laptop computer?

Since only living things do not undergo entropy, it is highly unlikely such a thing would come to pass. So it begs the question, where did a living thing come from in the first place for evolution to be able to work? A living thing can not evolve from something that is not living.

Paley has been utterly refuted, just so you know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

[Kade]

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. What is love, by the way, Kade?

Love is all that exists in opposition to your reality.

[LittleLightShining]

Love is all that exists in opposition to your reality.Ok, you're going to have to elaborate on this because it makes no sense at all.

[Kade]

Ok, you're going to have to elaborate on this because it makes no sense at all.

It's a joke. I'm trying to be light-hearted.

[LittleLightShining]

It's a joke. I'm trying to be light-hearted.Oh, ok. I wasn't expecting that :p

[Dr.3D]

Paley has been utterly refuted, just so you know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

The so called refutations are solely based on the idea of evolution. If there were no living thing to evolve, there would be no evolution to take place.

To this day, mankind has not been able to make anything able to evolve. To be able to evolve, it must be able to reproduce and adapt to changes in the environment. We could go on from what they were saying in that article so far as to wonder about the vast and supposed infinite expanse of space and where it came from.

I only wish to focus on this one thing however and that is how did the first living thing come into existence? While we know from observation entropy does not permit things to go from disorder to order, how did something able to defy the law of entropy suddenly exist?

As you stated before, evolution does not address this issue, so we are still left with the question as to how life (something able to evolve and does not undergo entropy) was started in a world where entropy was the rule.

[Hiki]

I think every rational, moral, and wise man should question a religion which teaches that the universe exploded from nothing, non-life produced life, plants and animals are related, chemicals can think on their own, humans evolved from apes, there are no absolutes in morality, law, science, and truth (among other things), no one can know if there's a God, Charles Darwin was a genius, America was founded on "Atheism," and other laughable absurdities. This religion is dangerous, and needs to be stopped at all costs, before more human minds are lost in irrationality and more human lives destroyed by immorality.

Now you're making a mistake. I believe you're referring to science which has nothing to do with religion. Definition for science: "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world." Definition for religion: "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."
I can see that you're a pretty intelligent and old man (or woman), so you should challenge someone who knows precisely what he's talking about. But when it comes to the "Big Bang", I dont believe it. I just can't believe that the universe began when matter came out of nowhere and exploded. Then one might suggest that matter has always existed, and I once read somewhere where a guy suggested that the universe keeps expanding until a point where it starts to shrink and the whole process goes all over again.
When it comes to evolution, it makes sense. Although you should debate Dawkins as I'm not very fond of biology. And as I understand it, chemicals dont think, they form chains of molecules and when they float around in water they easily do this. And how plants and animals are related, is the fact that first was bacteria, and bacteria then proceeded to develop into these different lifeforms.
And yes, you can find the exactly same chromosomes from modern humans and chimpanzees and many other ape-species, ours are just more evolved. And besides, if you take a chimpanzee, make it taller and have it stand straight, take off the fur and it it's pretty close to a human. And again if you go to the cell-level, there's so much in common with apes and humans that you should automatically think that they are related. Didn't god make us different from animals eh? But again, I hate biology so I'm not the guy you should debate.

Why Darwin had his idea for the "origin of species", was because of his trip to a group of islands. He would study the islands and find the same kind of bird on each island, expect they were all a bit different. Their beaks were different, all were adapted to the island they were living on. So this made Darwin wonder that maybe these birds have evolved during a long time and adapt to their surroundings.

Yes, stop knowledge, stop this reasoning and science, after all science has done no good and it's always a good thing not to think and question.

[LittleLightShining]

When it comes to evolution, it makes sense. Although you should debate Dawkins as I'm not very fond of biology. And as I understand it, chemicals dont think, they form chains of molecules and when they float around in water they easily do this. And how plants and animals are related, is the fact that first was bacteria, and bacteria then proceeded to develop into these different lifeforms.
And yes, you can find the exactly same chromosomes from modern humans and chimpanzees and many other ape-species, ours are just more evolved. And besides, if you take a chimpanzee, make it taller and have it stand straight, take off the fur and it it's pretty close to a human. And again if you go to the cell-level, there's so much in common with apes and humans that you should automatically think that they are related. Didn't god make us different from animals eh? But again, I hate biology so I'm not the guy you should debate.

Why Darwin had his idea for the "origin of species", was because of his trip to a group of islands. He would study the islands and find the same kind of bird on each island, expect they were all a bit different. Their beaks were different, all were adapted to the island they were living on. So this made Darwin wonder that maybe these birds have evolved during a long time and adapt to their surroundings.

Yes, stop knowledge, stop this reasoning and science, after all science has done no good and it's always a good thing not to think and question.

If you look at the creation narrative and the order of events this all makes sense. Darwin's theory of evolution and subsequent evolutionary scientific theory is simply taking God out of the picture. You don't find it remotely miraculous that all this life has roots in the same thing? Which is God.

I'm no biologist and admit now that I am ill-prepared to debate this topic in-depth.

I wish all of you critical thinkers would take on a study of Bible prophecy. It can be (sometimes) hard to discuss and debate with Christians who have long held beliefs and have been conditioned to believe in things like the pre-Tribulation rapture. Prophecy and Jesus' own words are my favorite parts of the Bible to study and discuss.

[amy31416]

The so called refutations are solely based on the idea of evolution. If there were no living thing to evolve, there would be no evolution to take place.

To this day, mankind has not been able to make anything able to evolve. To be able to evolve, it must be able to reproduce and adapt to changes in the environment. We could go on from what they were saying in that article so far as to wonder about the vast and supposed infinite expanse of space and where it came from.

I only wish to focus on this one thing however and that is how did the first living thing come into existence? While we know from observation entropy does not permit things to go from disorder to order, how did something able to defy the law of entropy suddenly exist?

As you stated before, evolution does not address this issue, so we are still left with the question as to how life (something able to evolve and does not undergo entropy) was started in a world where entropy was the rule.

One point of disagreement: We have been able to make living things evolve. I've done it myself with e-coli and a PCR. We've been doing it for thousands of years with selective breeding of animals and plants. We manipulate the environment, and the species changes and adapts or perishes. (Yeah, I've killed my fair share of bacterial colonies as well--oops!)

I think it's a good question, how did the first living thing come into existence? Molecular Biology was a few years ago, but the theory that I'm trying to recall from the course is that in the "primordial stew" molecules formed and were broken, then were formed again due to the charges of the elements (such as carbon) as you know from talking about entropy, the lowest energetic state is the one that is favored, and an ionic form of any element is in a high energy state, and so, forms bonds to return to the lower E state. Carbon, as you know, needs to form 4 bonds in order to be low E. Lighting strikes in the primordial stew and everything is shaken up, everything is in high E ionic states, bonds form, you start getting chains of carbons, and so on and so forth until larger and larger molecules start forming, eventually forming the first "cells", then the first mitochondria, the cell incorporates the mitochondria and starts taking on the vague appearance of life.

There's the Miller and Urey experiments that showed that amino acids could be formed in a similar manner by running an electric current through some of the basic gases believed to be present. There's also a deep sea vent theory which holds a lot of merit.

So, in my opinion, if you're looking for the answer to "how did life start" and you want to ascribe that to God, the scientists will probably disagree with you and point to the many ways that you can replicate the probable early conditions on this planet and make the building block molecules in a laboratory.

Perhaps the question to be asked is where the matter and energy (interchangeable) originated from. That's the one question that there is, as far as I know, no scientific theory for. And that, I think, is one of the simplest, yet most profound questions when it comes to religion and science. It may also be the meeting point.

[LittleLightShining]

Perhaps the question to be asked is where the matter and energy (interchangeable) originated from. That's the one question that there is, as far as I know, no scientific theory for. And that, I think, is one of the simplest, yet most profound questions when it comes to religion and science. It may also be the meeting point.Amy, I do believe you've hit on something here. Thanks for your insight.

[Dr.3D]

One point of disagreement: We have been able to make living things evolve. I've done it myself with e-coli and a PCR. We've been doing it for thousands of years with selective breeding of animals and plants. We manipulate the environment, and the species changes and adapts or perishes. (Yeah, I've killed my fair share of bacterial colonies as well--oops!)

I think it's a good question, how did the first living thing come into existence? Molecular Biology was a few years ago, but the theory that I'm trying to recall from the course is that in the "primordial stew" molecules formed and were broken, then were formed again due to the charges of the elements (such as carbon) as you know from talking about entropy, the lowest energetic state is the one that is favored, and an ionic form of any element is in a high energy state, and so, forms bonds to return to the lower E state. Carbon, as you know, needs to form 4 bonds in order to be low E. Lighting strikes in the primordial stew and everything is shaken up, everything is in high E ionic states, bonds form, you start getting chains of carbons, and so on and so forth until larger and larger molecules start forming, eventually forming the first "cells", then the first mitochondria, the cell incorporates the mitochondria and starts taking on the vague appearance of life.

There's the Miller and Urey experiments that showed that amino acids could be formed in a similar manner by running an electric current through some of the basic gases believed to be present. There's also a deep sea vent theory which holds a lot of merit.

So, in my opinion, if you're looking for the answer to "how did life start" and you want to ascribe that to God, the scientists will probably disagree with you and point to the many ways that you can replicate the probable early conditions on this planet and make the building block molecules in a laboratory.

Perhaps the question to be asked is where the matter and energy (interchangeable) originated from. That's the one question that there is, as far as I know, no scientific theory for. And that, I think, is one of the simplest, yet most profound questions when it comes to religion and science. It may also be the meeting point.

Perhaps I made a mistake in my wording... what I meant was, mankind has not created anything that lives and is able to evolve.

[amy31416]

Amy, I do believe you've hit on something here. Thanks for your insight.

You're welcome. It's something that's kept me up many nights thinking.

[amy31416]

Perhaps I made a mistake in my wording... what I meant was, mankind has not created anything that lives and is able to evolve.

Yet.

[Dr.3D]

Yet.

Yet....... the point is... even when we have tried in the laboratory to do what supposedly happened by itself in nature, we have not yet been able to replicate such an event. We also have to remember, those molecules need to be able to survive entropy in order to progress beyond the most primitive of organic substances. The ability for them to reproduce would have to have happened at a specific time as an event or the organic molecules would have suffered entropy before they could become capable of self reproduction.

[allyinoh]

That's a slippery slope I do not think you want to go down. But since you opened Pandora's box, let's go there.

You are basically saying that the bible is a great guidebook for good behavior. I vehemently disagree. The thing is, you cannot pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to use. If the bible is a great guidebook for good behavior, then all of the recommendations in the bible should be followed and all of the recommendations in the bible should be great examples of good behavior. You picked out a few examples, but which are you going to pick out and which are you going to ignore? And how do you know which ones to ignore if the book is the word of god?

Stoning to death disobedient children, selling your youngest daughters into slavery, put to death anyone working on Sunday, touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, stone your brother for planting different crops side by side, & burn your mother for wearing clothing made of two different threads.

The bible is a collection of myths (myths with many similarities to the myths told by previous civilizations) written by man and editted by committee and many gospels were not included at the whim of man.

I challenge believers to find writings (not the bible) by historians and authors at the time at which the events are supposed to have occurred not decades or centuries later that provide evidence of the existence of the 20 most popular characters in the bible. That is how the process works. It is up to the theorist to support their theory with evidence, it is not up to the skeptic to prove a negative.

A: "Ghosts exist!"
B: "Prove it with evidence"
A: "I cannot, you simply must believe. Prove ghosts do not exist!"
B: "Sigh"

I wasn't asking you to prove a negative. I am lazy and don't want to reread this whole thread and was simply asking if someone wanted to answer what their bases for not believing is.

Sorry you took it that way.

[allyinoh]

I think every reasonable man should question a book saying things like humans living up to 900 years, a talking snake, a magical appletree, a talking donkey, a burning and talking bush, a rib-woman, humans being made by blowing air into dust, a cosmic jewish zombie and so on...
The bible does have a bit of historical accuracy, mostly when it comes to the Roman ages in the New Testament.

There is a talking donkey in the Bible? Where? And a magic appletree? Where's that too?

[LittleLightShining]

There is a talking donkey in the Bible? Where? And a magic appletree? Where's that too?The donkey is from the story of Balaam in Numbers chapter 22. That's a really important one to know when you read prophecy. I think the reference to the magic-apple was from Genesis and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

[Hiki]

The donkey is from the story of Balaam in Numbers chapter 22. That's a really important one to know when you read prophecy. I think the reference to the magic-apple was from Genesis and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Yeah I heard about the donkey in some video in youtube and everyone knows the magical appletree in the garden of Eden when the talking snake convinces the rib-woman to eat from it.

[Hiki]

http://english.martinvarsavsky.net/christianity-thumb.jpg

This really describes the idea of Christianity in a nutshell.

[allyinoh]

The donkey is from the story of Balaam in Numbers chapter 22. That's a really important one to know when you read prophecy. I think the reference to the magic-apple was from Genesis and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Oh thanks I never heard of the talking donkey. lol

As far as the "apple" tree, there really to my knowledge wasn't anythign magical about it and the Bible never states that it is an apple tree. =) But who knows, it's been a while since I've read the Bible.

[LittleLightShining]

Hiki, now you're just being an antagonistic ass. You don't need to post provocative and offensive statements and pictures to make your point. Have you run out of points to make on your own that you must now stoop to that?

[allyinoh]

http://english.martinvarsavsky.net/christianity-thumb.jpg

This really describes the idea of Christianity in a nutshell.

Yeah, don't think so.

[Dr.3D]

This really describes the idea of Christianity in a nutshell.


Psalm 14:1 NKJ Psalm 14:1 To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.

Does this describe people who post things like that?

[Theocrat]

http://english.martinvarsavsky.net/christianity-thumb.jpg

This really describes the idea of Christianity in a nutshell.

You know, I find it funny how you can believe the captioned words at the bottom of that picture which were written by men, but you won't even go to the full revelation in the Bible for that same reason in order to understand the entire story of why Jesus Christ died on the cross and arose for the sins of the world, beginning in the book of Genesis.

Hiki, you have a lot of growing up to do. You don't even realize this, but your own denial of God actually affirms what the Bible says about people like you, namely, that the message of the cross is foolishness to those who perish. How you can make a mockery of the greatest act of grace God has ever bestowed upon mankind is such a tragedy that it really makes me sad. How dare you.

May God have mercy on your soul, young man. May God have mercy on your soul.

[sophocles07]

You know, I find it funny how you can believe the captioned words at the bottom of that picture which were written by men, but you won't even go to the full revelation in the Bible for that same reason in order to understand the entire story of why Jesus Christ died on the cross and arose for the sins of the world, beginning in the book of Genesis.

Hiki, you have a lot of growing up to do. You don't even realize this, but your own denial of God actually affirms what the Bible says about people like you, namely, that the message of the cross is foolishness to those who perish. How you can make a mockery of the greatest act of grace God has ever bestowed upon mankind is such a tragedy that it really makes me sad. How dare you.

May God have mercy on your soul, young man. May God have mercy on your soul.

BLAH BLAH FUCKING BLAH

[Dr.3D]

*Shakes the dust from his feet and moves on.*

[Theocrat]

BLAH BLAH FUCKING BLAH

I didn't know apes could talk.

[Dr.3D]

I didn't know apes could talk.

Apparently, you rattled his cage. :D

[Theocrat]

Apparently, you rattled his cage. :D

Nice.

[LibertyEagle]

Is it really necessary to Christian-bash? This only serves to further divide our movement. If you don't believe in God, fine. Please do not bash other people's faiths.

Hopefully, we all remember that Dr. Paul and his wife are both Christians, so when you bash Christianity, you are also bashing Dr. Paul's faith.

[AutoDas]

Is it really necessary to Christian-bash? This only serves to further divide our movement. If you don't believe in God, fine. Please do not bash other people's faiths.

Hopefully, we all remember that Dr. Paul and his wife are both Christians, so when you bash Christianity, you are also bashing Dr. Paul's faith.

You theocrats take attacks on your religion personally. The attacks are on your religion. Stop coming to the defense of your faith since you do supposedly have the almighty God on your side.

[Dr.3D]

You theocrats take attacks on your religion personally. The attacks are on your religion. Stop coming to the defense of your faith since you do supposedly have the almighty God on your side.

We only try to stand between God and those who will later come under His wrath.
The time is short and we are trying to help those who have not yet found Him, to do so before it is too late.

Don't blame us for taking pity on you.

Would you rather we just shake the dust from our feet and let Him take out His wrath on you when the time comes?

[LibertyEagle]

You theocrats take attacks on your religion personally. The attacks are on your religion. Stop coming to the defense of your faith since you do supposedly have the almighty God on your side.

Most people take it quite personally when you bash their faith or their God.

If you want this movement to be successful, you might consider another tack. There are many, many good Christian Americans, just as there are Jewish Americans, atheists, agnostics, muslims, etc. Isn't the idea that we join together to regain our liberty, after all? What purpose is being served by insulting a fellow American's faith? It is this kind of shortsighted and ill-advised behavior that drove many to other candidates. Personally, I always found this rather peculiar behavior of a supposed Ron Paul supporter to demonstrate, since the person they purported to support was himself a Christian.

Liberty means that we can all choose who we worship, or whether to worship at all.

[amy31416]

You theocrats take attacks on your religion personally. The attacks are on your religion. Stop coming to the defense of your faith since you do supposedly have the almighty God on your side.

I'm agnostic and I happen to agree with Liberty Eagle on this. What is the point in bashing someone else's faith? It's similar to bashing someone's heritage. Plus, it only serves to divide this movement. I have absolutely no problem with a Christian Ron Paul supporter, nor do I have a problem with an atheist RP supporter.

In fact, I have a hell of a lot of respect for those people in this movement. They could have easily gone with Huckabee simply based on faith, but they didn't--and it wasn't so they could get their religion bashed here, it was because they are smart people who realize the value of Paul's message. They are not sheep, they are not stupid because they believe in God--they are a part of this movement, and you should treat them with their due respect, even if you may disagree on one thing.

If Ron Paul posted in this thread about his belief in Jesus, would you attack his religion? Try to convert him to atheism? It's part of the reason why he's been so steadfast in his Congressional seat. It's part of the reason he realizes the importance of Constitutional values.

Let's have a little more respect for each other.

[AutoDas]

Convert to atheism ? LOL I'm done talking with you if you think atheism is a religion

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Convert to atheism ? LOL I'm done talking with you if you think atheism is a religion

0wned +1

[familydog]

Convert to atheism ? LOL I'm done talking with you if you think atheism is a religion

Our government thinks it is :)

[Dr.3D]

Our government thinks it is :)

Yes, here is an example.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874


Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group
Posted: August 20, 2005
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com



A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."

"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."

"It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited," Fahling said.

[Dr.3D]

Here is another view on the subject.

http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/atheismisareligion.html


The Religion Of Atheism

By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Pastor - InternetChurchOfChrist.org
Director - LoveAllPeople.org

Updated slightly, March 20, 2008

A person's religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three largest "monotheistic" religions, with belief one God, Creator Of The Universe.

Some religions are "polytheistic," with belief in many gods, each with different functions.

Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.

Some Atheists, for their own political reasons, assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion. This allows them to spread their Atheistic beliefs freely in societies which insist on "separation of church and state."

But this is like saying that "black," (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color. A few years ago, the car I drove was a big, old Chevrolet, whose color was black. In common practice throughout the world, "black" is understood to be a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, "Atheism" is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary.

If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.

If Atheism is a religion, then it must be subject to the same legal restrictions imposed by governments on all other religions. In particular, in the United States, the teaching of Atheism must be prohibited wherever the teaching of Christianity is prohibited.

But where is Atheism being taught? Atheism is being taught, by default, in all places where other religions cannot be taught, particularly in the public schools.

When the State mandates that the Theory of Evolution be taught as fact, that is establishing the religion of Atheism, because the Theory of Evolution asserts that all life forms are created not by God, but by pre-existing natural processes. This is pure Atheism! If we are not created by God, then there might as well be no God, for all the difference He makes.

The mere fact that many scientists are Atheists does not entitle them to establish Atheism as our State Religion!

When the State prohibits free discussion of God in the classroom, that is establishing the religion of Atheism. Wherever the State permits Atheistic ideas to be spread but prohibits Theistic ideas, that is establishing the religion of Atheism.

Therefore I urge you to understand clearly in your mind that Atheism is a religion, just as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are religions. And any restrictions placed on Christianity, Judaism, or Islam must also be placed on Atheism. Atheism must not be allowed to slip through its little loophole any longer, by pretending it is not a religion.

Blessings to you in the name of the One God, Creator of the Universe.

Rev. Bill McGinnis, Editor
INTERNET DAILY CHAPEL
www.InternetDailyChapel.org

[amy31416]

Convert to atheism ? LOL I'm done talking with you if you think atheism is a religion

Definitions of convert on the Web:

* change the nature, purpose, or function of something; "convert lead into gold"; "convert hotels into jails"; "convert slaves to laborers"
* change from one system to another or to a new plan or policy; "We converted from 220 to 110 Volt"
* change religious beliefs, or adopt a religious belief; "She converted to Buddhism"

Would it or would it not be changing someone's religious beliefs?

Way to avoid the topic of slamming someone's religion though, you know you have no good reason to do so. Why don't you respond to why it's so important to you to disrespect other supporters in this movement? Why is it a good idea to flame someone else's beliefs?

And Joseph--the Libertarian? What happened to "Live and let live?" Forget that aspect of your political leanings?

I, for one, am glad to have Christians, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, etc here. And I resent anyone who turns them off to this movement because of their religion. It's as bad as being racist, in my opinion.

Are you here to unite or to divide?

And, as the kids say--owned

[Theocrat]

Convert to atheism ? LOL I'm done talking with you if you think atheism is a religion

Humanist Manifesto I (http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html)

[Dr.3D]

Humanist Manifesto I (http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html)

I especially like this part:

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation — all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

[sophocles07]

I didn't know apes could talk.

Learn something new everyday.

Try it, Christian.


Humanist Manifesto I


So you give us a link and that’s a proof that atheism is a “religion”?

What does atheism mean? A (separated from, away from) + Theos (God)—Separated from god; i.e., without God.

This is obviously a general category for those who do not believe in God(s); this general category can then take 1,000 etc different manifestations based on person, ideology, etc.

So saying “atheism” is a religion—something defined by the OED in their most particular definition (one must avoid definitions, obviously, like “A state of life bound by monastic vows” etc):

“Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life."

Unless you want to stretch "religion" to mean "any set of ideas about the universe" (which includes nihilists, every scientist, and every person in the world) then "atheism" is not a religion. Plus the obvious point that you are generalizing a wide body of people under a blanket term.

[Hiki]

You know, I find it funny how you can believe the captioned words at the bottom of that picture which were written by men, but you won't even go to the full revelation in the Bible for that same reason in order to understand the entire story of why Jesus Christ died on the cross and arose for the sins of the world, beginning in the book of Genesis.

Hiki, you have a lot of growing up to do. You don't even realize this, but your own denial of God actually affirms what the Bible says about people like you, namely, that the message of the cross is foolishness to those who perish. How you can make a mockery of the greatest act of grace God has ever bestowed upon mankind is such a tragedy that it really makes me sad. How dare you.

May God have mercy on your soul, young man. May God have mercy on your soul.

Cosmic: ("Of or relating to the universe, especially as distinct from Earth.", "inconceivably extended in space or time") I think we all can agree that God fills the definition of "cosmic", and as Jesus is basically God then we can agree that Jesus is cosmic. I've been taught that Jesus, God and The Holy Spirit are all one, and as God made Mary pregnant, I think we can all agree that Jesus "was his own father". Jesus was jewish and he rose from the dead and walked on the earth so he's a zombie (=a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force). Belief in Him gives you eternal life. We all eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood symbolically when we perform the Lord's Supper in church, so therefore we "symbolically eat his flesh". We can't talk to Jesus face-to-face, we cant write Him a letter and we cant talk to him with a telephone, so we must "telepathically (=Communication through means other than the senses, as by the exercise of an occult power.) tell him we accept him as our master". As Eve was convinced by a talking snake to eat from the *magical tree, she then became a sinner and humanity fell into sin, aka "an evil force in our soul", that's what Jesus does doesn't He?
So that "insulting picture" does have sense in it, and it is backed up by the Bible.

I'm really sorry if I insulted somebody, I just think that the idea of christianity is ridiculous, and even though the whole cross-thing and "dying for the sins of humanity" is very flattering (well God did kill his own Son, and at the same time Jesus was God so he kinda engaged in sadomasochism), do we really need to excuse for being human? I mean the nature of humans is questioning so do we really need to excuse for that fricking appletree?

And yeah I know the Bible says that atheists are fools, as presented in this video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU).

*Why it is magical is because when Adam and Eve ate from it, they acquired "sin" and knowing of "bad and evil", so I think you could call something like that magical. And why I say it is a appletree is, because anywhere I see a picture of it, it's always shown as an appletree.

[allyinoh]

This is the problem. People want all walks of life to join this movement, and people preach individualism, but it's the type of people in this thread who have pushed away the potential Christian vote (which might I add that a lot of people in this country consider themselves Christians) to Huckabee or someone else.

I am a Christian and have been my whole life. To me, Jesus is awesome. Everything I have is because of Him. However, if you are not a Christian, I am not going to judge you and make you feel "guilty" because you do not have the same FAITH as me. I'm not a religious person and I don't like organized religion. With Jesus, it's not a religion, it's a relationship.

But anyway, my faith has taught me to be understanding and to be respectful and that's how I am. I have always respected the faith's of other people even if they are not the same as mine and that's what I expect from people as well. Unfortunately, especially here lately, there has been absolutely no respect for the Christian RP supporters on this board.

I think I'll try to look for another pro-Ron Paul board that is more friendly towards Christians.

[Hiki]

This is the problem. People want all walks of life to join this movement, and people preach individualism, but it's the type of people in this thread who have pushed away the potential Christian vote (which might I add that a lot of people in this country consider themselves Christians) to Huckabee or someone else.

I am a Christian and have been my whole life. To me, Jesus is awesome. Everything I have is because of Him. However, if you are not a Christian, I am not going to judge you and make you feel "guilty" because you do not have the same FAITH as me. I'm not a religious person and I don't like organized religion. With Jesus, it's not a religion, it's a relationship.

But anyway, my faith has taught me to be understanding and to be respectful and that's how I am. I have always respected the faith's of other people even if they are not the same as mine and that's what I expect from people as well. Unfortunately, especially here lately, there has been absolutely no respect for the Christian RP supporters on this board.

I think I'll try to look for another pro-Ron Paul board that is more friendly towards Christians.

My oh my... Relax mate. This has really been a fruitful debate and I'm proud to have been a part of it. And a debate this is, if you join it you have to take it. Besides this thread lies under "Off Topic: HOT TOPICS", I think everyone understands that personal beliefs might get attacked or questioned here. Nobody is forced to come here and read this thread.

I respect everyone's religion as long as they keep it to themselves, as long as they don't push it to other people and keep their religion off the governments and law.
I haven't read every thread on this forum but I cant see that religious people would've been treated badly. But this thread is all about debating these things so I'm not surprised if someone gets offended by arguments here, specially when their personal beliefs which effect their whole lives are under debate.

Peace.

[allyinoh]

My oh my... Relax mate. This has really been a fruitful debate and I'm proud to have been a part of it. And a debate this is, if you join it you have to take it. Besides this thread lies under "Off Topic: HOT TOPICS", I think everyone understands that personal beliefs might get attacked or questioned here. Nobody is forced to come here and read this thread.

I respect everyone's religion as long as they keep it to themselves, as long as they don't push it to other people and keep their religion off the governments and law.
I haven't read every thread on this forum but I cant see that religious people would've been treated badly. But this thread is all about debating these things so I'm not surprised if someone gets offended by arguments here, specially when their personal beliefs which effect their whole lives are under debate.

Peace.

Well I'm not getting excited. I put my opinion out there, I have that right don't I? I don't think anyone's personal beliefs should be "expected" to be attacked or questioned, they should be respected.

It's one thing to ask questions to better understand, but there's a difference between understanding and attacking/insulting.

I just am a little disgusted by the pure lack of respect going on in this forum as of lately.

[Hiki]

Well I'm not getting excited. I put my opinion out there, I have that right don't I? I don't think anyone's personal beliefs should be "expected" to be attacked or questioned, they should be respected.

It's one thing to ask questions to better understand, but there's a difference between understanding and attacking/insulting.

I just am a little disgusted by the pure lack of respect going on in this forum as of lately.

Yes you do. Still this is under "Hot Topics" and religion is pretty much the hottest topic out there. SO, I think that it's reasonable to assume that personal beliefs get debated here, and in a debate you debate for your cause and sometimes it can get pretty nasty in a debate, and I dont think that somehow religion should get some special status in a debate. And afterall, religion has effected people, who have nothing to do with that certain religion, throughout history and even today. So it's completely acceptable to question a thing like that, and if you're a part of it even with good intentions, then you should be prepared for the possible insult towards your beliefs.

[allyinoh]

Yes you do. Still this is under "Hot Topics" and religion is pretty much the hottest topic out there. SO, I think that it's reasonable to assume that personal beliefs get debated here, and in a debate you debate for your cause and sometimes it can get pretty nasty in a debate, and I dont think that somehow religion should get some special status in a debate. And afterall, religion has effected people, who have nothing to do with that certain religion, throughout history and even today. So it's completely acceptable to question a thing like that, and if you're a part of it even with good intentions, then you should be prepared for the possible insult towards your beliefs.

Well you can justify insulting people all you want, but I refuse to insult other people because they don't think the way I do.

However, I will correct people or question things they say when it comes to Christianity. I am a Christian first and foremost. When I see the Bible being taken out of context, I will let someone know.

My whole thing comes from the fact that people like to talk about individualism and not labeling people, yet I am starting to believe that it's not possible for some people as they will always put labels on people who aren't like them.

And also, there is a way that you can question things in the Bible without being insulting. Example:

"I don't understand how a whale could swallow a man and he live in it's belly for days and survive."

"I am having a hard time understanding why if God is this great god, why he allows suffering?"

So those are a couple examples of things that people have asked me. Those aren't insulting. Those are honest questions from someone who is not a Christian where they would lead into a good discussion. They are questioning things in the Bible but in a way that would make me want to actually respond to them and even if they aren't going to convert, they still get the answers to their questions.

Honestly though, I'm tired of trying to discuss Christianity (not religion) with people who do not want to have a discussion but want to sling mud.

[Dr.3D]

Unless you want to stretch "religion" to mean "any set of ideas about the universe" (which includes nihilists, every scientist, and every person in the world) then "atheism" is not a religion. Plus the obvious point that you are generalizing a wide body of people under a blanket term.

I'll accept this definition. Everybody has a religion. There are many scientists who are Christian as well as Atheist. There is no problem with generalizing a wide body of people under a blanket term if everybody in the world has a religion.

Here is a page showing some of the major religions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/

[Theocrat]

Learn something new everyday.

Try it, Christian.

God teaches me something new everyday, but you wouldn't know anything about that because you're spiritually dead.


So you give us a link and that’s a proof that atheism is a “religion”?

No, I posted a link to a copy of the Humanist Manifesto I, which conclusively proves that "Atheism" is religious. Just read the document for yourself, and you'll see that you, too, share their beliefs as an "atheist."


What does atheism mean? A (separated from, away from) + Theos (God)—Separated from god; i.e., without God.

This is obviously a general category for those who do not believe in God(s); this general category can then take 1,000 etc different manifestations based on person, ideology, etc.

So saying “atheism” is a religion—something defined by the OED in their most particular definition (one must avoid definitions, obviously, like “A state of life bound by monastic vows” etc):

“Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life."

Unless you want to stretch "religion" to mean "any set of ideas about the universe" (which includes nihilists, every scientist, and every person in the world) then "atheism" is not a religion. Plus the obvious point that you are generalizing a wide body of people under a blanket term.

I'm not stretching anything in the definitions of "atheism" nor religion. You are. For some reason you feel uncomfortable with the truth that "Atheism" is a religious belief, but does your feelings change the facts? I think not. Deal with it, and admit it. All humans are religious because we were created to worship something or someone, whether it's material or immaterial.

[amy31416]

All this pissing match because I said "convert" to atheism? This is entirely ridiculous, I wasn't making an assertion that atheism is or isn't a religion, the word "convert" means to "change."

And all of ya'll completely ignored the point--which was to say that we aren't going to change anyone's beliefs on this message board, nor should that be one of the goals.

The other point was to try to respect other people's differences, even if you don't agree with them.

I think you guys just like to bicker about minutiae. Have fun, it's a waste of time.

[Theocrat]

All this pissing match because I said "convert" to atheism? This is entirely ridiculous, I wasn't making an assertion that atheism is or isn't a religion, the word "convert" means to "change."

And all of ya'll completely ignored the point--which was to say that we aren't going to change anyone's beliefs on this message board, nor should that be one of the goals.

The other point was to try to respect other people's differences, even if you don't agree with them.

I think you guys just like to bicker about minutiae. Have fun, it's a waste of time.

Hey! Stop trying to convert us into not changing each other's beliefs on these forums! ;)

[Dr.3D]

Let's look at this another way.

Suppose we were to check the meaning of religiously.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religiously

scrupulously and conscientiously faithful [fervent, zealous]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religiously

religiously - with extreme conscientiousness; "he came religiously every morning at 8 o'clock"

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861740303_1861770157/nextpage.html

religiously [ ri líjjəssli ]

adverb
Definition:

1. conscientiously: carefully and conscientiously

2. involving religion: in a way that relates to religion or to a particular religion


http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/religiously


Adv. 1. religiously - by religion; "religiously inspired art"
Synonyms: sacredly
2. religiously - with extreme conscientiousness; "he came religiously every morning at 8 o''clock"
Synonyms: scrupulously, conscientiously


http://define.com/religiously

Religiously \Re*li"gious*ly\, adverb In a religious manner. --Drayton.

From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

religiously

adverb

1: by religion; "religiously inspired art" [syn: {sacredly}]

2: with extreme conscientiousness; "he came religiously every morning at 8 o'clock" [syn: {scrupulously}, {conscientiously}]


http://www.allwords.com/word-religiously.html


religiously
adverb

1. In the manner of religion.
2. always, Always.

It is odd he gets so many cavities since he brushes his teeth , every night, rain or shine.


Notice how the word religiously can mean more than something involving theology?

I can be religious about brushing my teeth every morning.
I can be religious about making sure I get to work on time every working day.

Being religious is something one does religiously.

An Atheist would be very religious about not believing in God.

If it is something he does every day without fail, then he is religious about doing it. One can not say, I am an Atheist some of the time and not at other times. If one did do such a thing, then he would not be religiously Atheist.

If Atheism is not a religion, then I suppose some days, the self professed Atheist would turn away from being an Atheist and be something else.

[amy31416]

Hey! Stop trying to convert us into not changing each other's beliefs on these forums! ;)

Hahaha. My most profound apologies. ;)

[OptionsTrader]

Is it really necessary to Christian-bash? This only serves to further divide our movement. If you don't believe in God, fine. Please do not bash other people's faiths.

Hopefully, we all remember that Dr. Paul and his wife are both Christians, so when you bash Christianity, you are also bashing Dr. Paul's faith.

Is it really necessary a mod to interject that a thread is too hot in hot topics? A threaad titled "Religion" is by its very nature going to be a debate. This thread is largely on topic.

[OptionsTrader]

Most people take it quite personally when you bash their faith or their God.

Pointing out fallacies and flaws is not bashing is it honest discourse. If one cannot handle fact based debate I suggest that one not read a thread titled "Religion" in the hot topics forum.

[Hiki]

Poiting out fallacies and flaws is not bashing is it honest discourse. If one cannot handle fact based debate I suggest that one not read a thread titled "Religion" in the hot topics forum.

Exactly.

Why I'm "bashing" here, is because of all the monstrous things that have been done in the name of God and religion, because I've seen films like Jesus Camp and Fitna, because laws done on a religious basis still exist, because every now and then I have to read on the news where a child has died because of a terrible disease while the parents were just praying. One example of these was from Britain where a Jehovas Witness (or whatever it's in english) died while giving birth. She died of blood loss because Jehovas don't accept blood transfusion, I can just imagine what bullshit they will tell to the children when they grow up. I have absolutely no respect for people like this.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg&feature=related

[familydog]

Exactly.

Why I'm "bashing" here, is because of all the monstrous things that have been done in the name of God and religion, because I've seen films like Jesus Camp and Fitna, because laws done on a religious basis still exist, because every now and then I have to read on the news where a child has died because of a terrible disease while the parents were just praying. One example of these was from Britain where a Jehovas Witness (or whatever it's in english) died while giving birth. She died of blood loss because Jehovas don't accept blood transfusion, I can just imagine what bullshit they will tell to the children when they grow up. I have absolutely no respect for people like this.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg&feature=related

I take it you are an avid fan of Rosseau and Robespierre.

[Hiki]

I take it you are an avid fan of Rosseau and Robespierre.

Never heard of them.

[familydog]

Never heard of them.

Then you must have been a Jacobin in a former life. Read up son.