Having now read many threads and contributed to a few, I thought I would like to make a few observations from soemeone who contributes from this side of 'the pond' (England).

1. Obvious really but the USA is not the world. Many times what goes on there is extrapolated into what happens everywhere. This can be erroneous in the extreme! More of you need to get about more or at least admit that you have no experience of elsewhere.

2. Neither truth nor correct judgment are a function of numbers of believers. (You voted in Bush not once but twice and we in the UK have probably done things as (no perhaps not quite as) stupid).

3. There are many variants of christainity in regard not only to practice but also some beliefs. Many (most) of these are outside of the USA - see 1. This implies that what you see of 'christians' in the USA may or may not necessarily apply elsewhere in the whole rest of the world.

4. Roman Catholic beliefs are based on tradition and scripture in that order (their defiinition). Whilst they are as entitled to their beliefs as the next man or woman, Roman Catholic theology should not be confused with scripture. They may not necessarily accord.

5. The Southern Baptist Church has still not managed to get rid of the infiltration of freemasonry, because of the great strength of the latter and the number of freemasons in the church. This applies in part to the Church of England but the C of E official position is that christianity and freemasonry are incompatible. This is probably a far more serious threat than any anything to do with homosexuality.

6. To an outsider, the US church seems strangely racially segregated. The white conservative wings seem to be very into the 'American Dream'. This is essentially based on the worship of money and is totally incompatible with christianity as espoused in the Bible.

7. The hatred shown soemtimes by some of these same conservatives towards homosexuals, those working in abortion clinics etc. is total anathema to any true evangelical bible believing christian. God loves everyone. His love is not withdrawn whatever you do and it is not for other people to pass judgement. It is even more wrong for them to hate people or hurt people just because they believe that they are doing wrong. This is not in accordance with christianity at all ('love your neighbour as yourself').

8. I have met some great US christians so clearly not all are like those in (7) above, but I do get the impression that there are rather too many in that category.

9. George Bush does not seem to represent a christian believer to me. In fact whatever his spiritual beliefs (probably none - I don't know) Michael Moore seems closer to the teachings of Jesus Christ than George Bush.

10. Whatever goes on in the USA, almost all the christians that I know here are happy to socialise with agnostics, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or whatever. I get the impression that this is different in the USA.

11. It is possible to respect others beliefs without agreeing with them. You may also try to convert people in a nice way (by the good example of loving them). Yo cannot convert people with 'Hellfire and Damnation' speeches. People who try to use this method are sadly misguided.

12. A very large number of christians I know are thinking intelligent people who can be very logical in their thinking. Conversely I know many atheists and agnostics who are not at all logical. The use of invective on this site by contributors against believers on the basis of their 'inate stupidity' demeans the contributors concerned. Rational logical argument does not consist of abuse and name calling however you may disagree with their view. On the contrary it indicates ignorance, bad manners and a lack of intellectual prowess to counter the argument.

kind regards,

Gordon.

12. A very large number of christians I know are thinking intelligent people who can be very logical in their thinking. Conversely I know many atheists and agnostics who are not at all logical. The use of invective on this site by contributors against believers on the basis of their 'inate stupidity' demeans the contributors concerned. Rational logical argument does not consist of abuse and name calling however you may disagree with their view. On the contrary it indicates ignorance, bad manners and a lack of intellectual prowess to counter the argument.

Atheists here simply lack the political correctness with religion which is rampant in the media and in politics. Shame you see it as a personal attack, as it is not often the person, but the beliefs themselves that quite rightly receive a lashing.

If my mother was a fundie Christian, I would speak to her in the same way I would speak to theists here (when talking about religion that is)... By that I mean that I would come right out and say that her beliefs were lazy and stupid.

I also don't see many illogical atheists on this forum. You said that people can arrive at religion and belief in God through logic, so I would not go telling atheists they are being illogical as it appears you don't even know what logic is.

Hi Gordon and welcome to sciforums.

There are very significant cultural differences between the Brits and the Americans that make it very difficult and dangerous to compare - they are simply different.

I've been trying to isolate these differences for the past 20 years and don't feel much closer now than when I started. I am a Brit, have been visiting the USA for the past 20 years, and have lived here permanently for the past 10 years and will become a US citizen shortly.

It is possible to respect others beliefs without agreeing with them. Perhaps but not likely. I think what you really meant was that it is possible to respect the proponent of a belief but disagree with that belief. I certainly have opponents here that I respect but at the same time I have absolutely no respect for their beliefs.

One can still remain polite but violently disagree with the opposing views. Unfortunately we do attract quite a few religious nutters here that display absolutely no reasoning ability. When politeness has no effect abuse often sadly results out of sheer frustration.

Can't remember any atheist nutters recently though - perhaps other members can remind me.

12. A very large number of christians I know are thinking intelligent people who can be very logical in their thinking.

Yet, they don't appear to apply their intelligence and logic to their faith, why is that?

A very large number of christians I know are thinking intelligent people their are many such people, but why are they so irrational when it comes to there religion.who can be very logical in their thinking. they need to apply that logic to their religion. Conversely I know many atheists and agnostics who are not at all logical.yes there are irrational nonbelievers too, but these dont wear the irrationality like a badge.The use of invective on this site by contributors against believers on the basis of their 'inate stupidity' demeans the contributors concerned. how so, should we all suffer fools gladly, I think not. Rational logical argument does not consist of abuse and name calling however you may disagree with their view. On the contrary it indicates ignorance, bad manners theres slight rudeness and theres flaming which is not allowed, and will be dealt with by the moderators.and a lack of intellectual prowess to counter the argument.it most certainly does not mean that, if you make an inanely stupid remark you dont expect to get a pat on the back for it, certainly not on a science forum.
so if you dont like the heat you stay out of the kitchen.

11. It is possible to respect others beliefs without agreeing with them.

kind regards,

Gordon.
Hi Gordo.

Tell this to xians. I for one am finished with respecting religion and theists, since their respect for my freedoms is next to nil.

Just as an interesting side question..

You mention in number 7 about loving thy neighbour, (the main tenet of christianity).

In number 11 you go on to say that you can "try to convert people in a nice way".

Can I ask if the very first question you would ever pose when attempting to convert someone is "do you mind if I try to convert you"? If not, you're not really taking his feelings into account - which isn't really showing love, or respect for that matter.

Upon asking that question, the person you're trying to convert says "yes, I do mind". Do you then leave him alone?

While you might answer yes to that, no matter how many times I tell these people at my door that I mind them being there and attempting to convert me, they never quite get the message, (yes, I live in England).

You mention respecting others beliefs, but if you don't ask permission before attempting to convert someone, then you're not showing respect for them or their beliefs now are you?

1. Obvious really but the USA is not the world. Many times what goes on there is extrapolated into what happens everywhere. This can be erroneous in the extreme! More of you need to get about more or at least admit that you have no experience of elsewhere.

Generalization, this statement is utterly bs, FYI this site and many members are from your side of the pond. And as USA is not the world, we know, it's just the world is in USA. We are the melting pot if you will, there live here more people from every corner of the world, then every other place on earth. Thus a your observation is moot unless, like Chris you've spent time living here.

2. Neither truth nor correct judgment are a function of numbers of believers. (You voted in Bush not once but twice and we in the UK have probably done things as (no perhaps not quite as) stupid).

I didn't vote for the dood. As many also didn't vote for the dood, though the vote was hi-jacked twice, we let it happen twice, our fault, but fraud was at play. click (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_vote_fraud.html)
click (http://www.votefraud.org/)


3. There are many variants of christainity in regard not only to practice but also some beliefs. Many (most) of these are outside of the USA - see 1. This implies that what you see of 'christians' in the USA may or may not necessarily apply elsewhere in the whole rest of the world.

Do you think of us so naive. Like I said before, there are many cultures that live here, so in essence there are many variants of christianity here as well. We know, we know, were not so naive dood. If it were not for the US dip shit, you may be speaking German!. :bugeye:

4. Roman Catholic beliefs are based on tradition and scripture in that order (their defiinition). Whilst they are as entitled to their beliefs as the next man or woman, Roman Catholic theology should not be confused with scripture. They may not necessarily accord.

This good you address this here to the theist of the forum, though most atheist just know the horror brought about those goddamn beliefs...Be kind and remind theist here of that too...


6. To an outsider, the US church seems strangely racially segregated. The white conservative wings seem to be very into the 'American Dream'. This is essentially based on the worship of money and is totally incompatible with christianity as espoused in the Bible.

Yea we atheist here in the US see that too, specially when televangelist are raking in millions $ per week, and these dumbass theist just keep given them their hard earned money..Go figure, it's cheaper to be an atheist in this regard. :p

7. The hatred shown soemtimes by some of these same conservatives towards homosexuals, those working in abortion clinics etc. is total anathema to any true evangelical bible believing christian. God loves everyone. His love is not withdrawn whatever you do and it is not for other people to pass judgement. It is even more wrong for them to hate people or hurt people just because they believe that they are doing wrong. This is not in accordance with christianity at all ('love your neighbour as yourself').

I completely agree, but then they wouldn't be too christian of them, if they are not meddenly in people's buisness.

9. George Bush does not seem to represent a christian believer to me. In fact whatever his spiritual beliefs (probably none - I don't know) Michael Moore seems closer to the teachings of Jesus Christ than George Bush.

Humor: Bush is spawn of the devil. click (http://www.geocities.com/trebor_92627/Bush.htm)

If your a theist this is right up your alley.


11. It is possible to respect others beliefs without agreeing with them. You may also try to convert people in a nice way (by the good example of loving them). Yo cannot convert people with 'Hellfire and Damnation' speeches. People who try to use this method are sadly misguided.

Now if they only saw it that way during the Inguisitions, Crusades, witch burnings..etc...


12. A very large number of christians I know are thinking intelligent people who can be very logical in their thinking. Conversely I know many atheists and agnostics who are not at all logical. The use of invective on this site by contributors against believers on the basis of their 'inate stupidity' demeans the contributors concerned. Rational logical argument does not consist of abuse and name calling however you may disagree with their view. On the contrary it indicates ignorance, bad manners and a lack of intellectual prowess to counter the argument.

Welcome to Sciforums, we ditched political correctness a few years ago, when the same old tried bs kept coming up as topics.. ;)

Godless

5. The Southern Baptist Church has still not managed to get rid of the infiltration of freemasonry, because of the great strength of the latter and the number of freemasons in the church. This applies in part to the Church of England but the C of E official position is that christianity and freemasonry are incompatible. This is probably a far more serious threat than any anything to do with homosexuality.

Im curious just how do you know this, freemasons are suposed to be a very secret org.
and to what or whom are these freemasons threat to?

Just as an interesting side question..

You mention in number 7 about loving thy neighbour, (the main tenet of christianity).

In number 11 you go on to say that you can "try to convert people in a nice way".

Can I ask if the very first question you would ever pose when attempting to convert someone is "do you mind if I try to convert you"? If not, you're not really taking his feelings into account - which isn't really showing love, or respect for that matter.

Upon asking that question, the person you're trying to convert says "yes, I do mind". Do you then leave him alone?

While you might answer yes to that, no matter how many times I tell these people at my door that I mind them being there and attempting to convert me, they never quite get the message, (yes, I live in England).

You mention respecting others beliefs, but if you don't ask permission before attempting to convert someone, then you're not showing respect for them or their beliefs now are you?

I don't do doorstep knocking (I hate it too!). I don't preach at people. I don't do the 'you must become a christian and save yourself from hellfire'. These are not only offensive to most people but amazingly ineffective too! I enjoy discussion but in honesty few will become christians because of that, although it does happen occassionally. One of my colleagues left freemasonry and became a christian after discussion of the issues made him make an objective analysis of freemasonry and what it had done to his life. The main point is that he made the choice. He had to make the commitment and he did that after a discussion he was happy to have. You cannot force religion on people. It is wrong in principle and as I say it does not work either. My experience is that many people who have problems (homeless, seriously ill, marriage breaking up etc.) will often accept a prayer if offerred whereas they would hate to be preached at.


People become true christians (not just churchgoers) because they see God at work and they wish to see God at work in them. Seeing God at work is not usually blinding flashes or great supernatural miracles but seeing practical love in action in the community by christians. If christians are not being seen to do that and not winning more christians that way, they are in my opinion off course. And I am in no way decrying the many secular charitable institutions. I believe that they show the love that God has instilled in them even if they do not recognise that or Him.

Whilst theological and philosophical debate is interesting, life for most people in the west is about far more mundane matters like problems with spouses, problems with children, problems at work, problems with money etc. In the majority world it is of course often simply about survival. Christianity (i.e. christians themselves) either have to be relevant to this or they have no right to preach any scripture at all. Christianity is certainly not about getting your personal passport stamped for eternity!

regards,

Gordon

Im curious just how do you know this, freemasons are suposed to be a very secret org.
and to what or whom are these freemasons threat to?

The problem is well documented. There are many web references (http://freemasonrywatch.org/holly.html is one).

Freemasonry is a threat within a church as the beliefs of freemasonry and christianity are totally incompatible. If you have large numbers of people who are freemasons, you therefore have large numbers of people who do not believe in the central tenets of the faith of the church. This is an obvious danger in itself. Freemasonry is occultic and if you believe in the existence of Satan and demons (as you should if you are a christian) then you should be ensuring that your church is not in ant way supporting such activities.

regards,


Gordon.

To 'Godless'

Generalization, this statement is utterly bs, FYI this site and many members are from your side of the pond. And as USA is not the world, we know, it's just the world is in USA. We are the melting pot if you will, there live here more people from every corner of the world, then every other place on earth. Thus a your observation is moot unless, like Chris you've spent time living here.

I was trying to put over a perception held by many non US people. The fact that the USA has people from all over the world does not seem (to us at least) to change its insular attitude. I accept the USA is not exactly well served in this regard by its politicians.


I didn't vote for the dood. As many also didn't vote for the dood, though the vote was hi-jacked twice, we let it happen twice, our fault, but fraud was at play. click (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_vote_fraud.html)
click (http://www.votefraud.org/)

I have read and enjoyed the Michael Moore books. I read a book by a US christian which stated that the US system was far better than the UK system because the head of state was not elected in the UK. This to me showed an incredible naivity of the issues involved. The reality to us this side at least seems very different. Often the bizarre and apparently illogical works better than the carefully logically planned in politics. I would cite the totally anachronistic House of Lords in the UK which nonetheless does a very useful job as opposed to the carefully discussed and considered Weimar republic in Germany which failed completely.

To me your political system does seem to be a version of an 'elected dictatorship' which must therefore inevitably lend itself to these sorts of problems. You must also understand though that what you admit as 'fraud' in politics combined with statements about 'freedom and democracy' from those same fraudsters does not endear the USA to the rest of the world.

Do you think of us so naive. Like I said before, there are many cultures that live here, so in essence there are many variants of christianity here as well. We know, we know, were not so naive dood. If it were not for the US dip shit, you may be speaking German!. :bugeye:

The UK declared war on Germany in 1939 because of a treaty obligation to Poland, it by then being obvious even to the rather naive right wing upper class Conservative government that Hitler could not be trusted. It suffered massive destruction and civilian death and near bankruptcy to do it. The USA entered the war in 1941 because Japan bombed US ships at Pearl Harbor. Its civilian population and structures were not affected in the same way as in Europe. Your 'moral high ground' is therefore I fear of low altitude. No one in the UK would deny the US contribution in the second world war but it could equally be said that if the British Empire (as then was) and Commonwealth had not held out against Hitler, the Axis powers (by then certainly in charge of the former USSR and the rest of Europe) would have been unstoppable even by the USA and so it could have been you who could have ended up speaking German (or possibly Japanese) except that those who wished to express any opinion (both of us) would probably long since have been killed. Hollywood's consistent attempts to show that the USA won the war single handedly don't exactly help the US cause amongst Brits either! Let's just agree that we both helped each other in the end.

This good you address this here to the theist of the forum, though most atheist just know the horror brought about those goddamn beliefs...Be kind and remind theist here of that too...

Roman Catholics of course normally say that their tradition and scripture are in agreement despite the problems in that that are obvious to those who are not Roman Catholic but have a good understanding of scripture. I think most protestants are aware of the issues. It does seem to me (although I could be wrong) that many atheists are not. Whilst you fairly criticise christians for comment without knowledge, it is clear that some of your atheist colleagues are not well versed in the bible or christian doctrine that they choose to comment upon. It is not all one sided.


Yea we atheist here in the US see that too, specially when televangelist are raking in millions $ per week, and these dumbass theist just keep given them their hard earned money..Go figure, it's cheaper to be an atheist in this regard. :p

I try to avoid things like the 'God Channel' for the reasons you mention. The people you refer to will have to answer to the God that they have used to make their fortunes. I would have thought they were in serious breach of both the first and second commandments. They are actually worshipping money and misusing God's name to do it.

I completely agree, but then they wouldn't be too christian of them, if they are not meddenly in people's buisness.

I presume you mean 'meddling'. The problem you seem to have (from my admitted outsider's view) is that people (especially politicians) seem to misuse christianity to advance their own personal political and business aims. We do not seem to have suffered this in quite the same way in the UK (fortunately!). In my opinion it is contrary to the second commandment and I know that many christains over here have great difficulty with what happens in this regard in the USA.


Humor: Bush is spawn of the devil. click (http://www.geocities.com/trebor_92627/Bush.htm)

If your a theist this is right up your alley.

Quite amusing. It's probably as good a conception of the meaning of 666 as the myriad of others. Is the author serious or not? I was not quite sure.




Now if they only saw it that way during the Inguisitions, Crusades, witch burnings..etc...


The things you mention are as abhorrent to me as to you.

Welcome to Sciforums, we ditched political correctness a few years ago, when the same old tried bs kept coming up as topics.. ;)

Thanks for the welcome. I am enjoying being here. I don't ask for political correctness (perish the thought) but an acceptance that all christians are not stupid would be nice.

regards,

Gordon.

To Chris,

Thanks for the insight.

Everyone should always respect others on a personal basis irrespective of their views.

I think you can respect views that are different and that will not be based on theistic grounds. For example I respect the concept of moral humanism although I clearly cannot agree with the belief in 'no God' part. I have no respect whatever for the beliefs of Islamic suicidal bombers even though they believe in one god (a very different one to mine!). I believe that this is an outpouring of evil. The respect here I think comes from whether the opposing ideology is based on co-existance or total subjection. You can respect different beliefs of the former category but not the latter.

I hope you can understand the distinction I am making.

regards,


Gordon.

Could you explain why you feel that Pres. Bush is less spiritual than Michael Moore? Why do you presume to know the presidents spiritual standing?

11. It is possible to respect others beliefs without agreeing with them.

I don't think so.

It is possible to be *neutral* or *indifferent* to that which one disagrees with.

But to say I respect something I disagree with -- that is a travesty of respect.

Granted, the quality of respect has lost all respect, for so many people, so they say "respect", but in fact mean "neutrality" or "indifference".


Just because someone doesn't go and openly oppose or even kill people, does not mean he respects them.

It is possible to pick and choose what to respect about a person isn't it?

I respect so and so's athletic abilities. I respect so and so's ability to lead. I respect so and so's physical features, mind, ect... though if I knew that persons core beliefs, I may or may not respect them. I can always respect the fact that they are human beings. I can respect that an animal is an animal though greatly distrust and have ill respect for a lion, if I were trapped in a cage with him.

Thanks for the welcome. I am enjoying being here. I don't ask for political correctness (perish the thought) but an acceptance that all christians are not stupid would be nice.

Well only when they demonstrate an ability to reason in some regards. You use your brain, you communicate well, you deserve respect, as any other. BTW I respect everyone, even though I fly off the wall sometimes at stupid crap being said. I still respect them.. You certainly earned mine. I got christian frinds whom I keep in touch with, and debate occasionally with out the name calling and flames wars. :cool:

I was trying to put over a perception held by many non US people. The fact that the USA has people from all over the world does not seem (to us at least) to change its insular attitude. I accept the USA is not exactly well served in this regard by its politicians.

Nor it is by Hollywood either, so the perceptions of those who generalize us by these figures, politicians, hollywood dumbasstars, celeberities, is not an accurate picture of how we really are.

I have read and enjoyed the Michael Moore books. I read a book by a US christian which stated that the US system was far better than the UK system because the head of state was not elected in the UK. This to me showed an incredible naivity of the issues involved. The reality to us this side at least seems very different. Often the bizarre and apparently illogical works better than the carefully logically planned in politics. I would cite the totally anachronistic House of Lords in the UK which nonetheless does a very useful job as opposed to the carefully discussed and considered Weimar republic in Germany which failed completely.

Well Michael Moore is a two face dipshit, you can't account much of what he claims, and what he says, he's the puppet of republican party and the embarasment of the democrats.
Our system of government supposedly came with it's checks and balances, however these have been compromised, by having the majority of the same party in both houses. Thus rendering the president to have seemingly overwhelming power.

To me your political system does seem to be a version of an 'elected dictatorship' which must therefore inevitably lend itself to these sorts of problems.

Mostly all political systems in the world today, could lead to "elected dictartorship" we are no different. However we are a Republic, and given that we still have the right to have and bear arms gives these sob's something to think about. Ocklahoma disasters, would be occuring all over the US if they tried to pull them arms from us, and they know it. So they win the majority by "deception". However not all are fooled.

Will continue latter got to go.


Godless

Could you explain why you feel that Pres. Bush is less spiritual than Michael Moore? Why do you presume to know the presidents spiritual standing?

I did not mention Bush's spirtuality. The actual quote is 'Michael Moore seems closer to the teachings of Jesus Christ than George Bush.'

Christ's teachings were primarily about what to do, love God, love your neighbour as yourself etc. This is reflected in what you say and more importantly in what you do. I find little that George Bush says or does that is in accordance with Christ's teachings. He seems to me to merely play on populist conservative issues such as abortion and homosexuality whilst ensuring that the rich in the USA get ever richer at the expense of the poor. He seemd totally unconerned with the plight of New Orleans, has (as you would expect from an oil man) absolutely no interest in the environment and totally ignores the plight of the majority world altogether, unless there is oil there or money to be made in some other way. For instance our government has finally (at long last) changed the iniquitous practice of tying so called 'aid' to contracts for British firms. There is no sign of this happening form the US giovernment. George Bush actually broke international regulations by continuing to maintain US protectionist policies in regard to cotton.

As I have written elsewhere Jesus was not much phased by sexual matters but what got him really going was the misuse of money. My impression is that George Bush and his associates are regularly in default of numbers 1,2,7,8 and 10 of the ten commandments and there is absolutely no evidence of 'loving your neighbour as yourself'. My view is based on that.

As has been pointed out I don't live in the USA so perhaps I have got it wrong. If you feel that what I say is not correct, please tell me how you think Bush does match up to Christ's teaching for one in his position ('unto whom much has been given much will be expected').


regards,



Gordon.

If christians are not being seen to do that and not winning more christians that way, they are in my opinion off course.

But are they not off course anyway? Purely for interest, what if you're wrong? What if your "love" makes you lead someone to the real god's hell all because you aided him in wroshipping a fake god? What if allah is the real god, and all your preaching did was drag someone away from that real god? In the interest of safety and love, would it not be best just to leave people alone and instead just hope that they were right, (on the inside)?

Btw, all this hell nonsense clearly and utterly refutes your "God loves everyone" statement.

But are they not off course anyway? Purely for interest, what if you're wrong? What if your "love" makes you lead someone to the real god's hell all because you aided him in wroshipping a fake god? What if allah is the real god, and all your preaching did was drag someone away from that real god? In the interest of safety and love, would it not be best just to leave people alone and instead just hope that they were right, (on the inside)?

I think many religionists are too willing to assume that the non-religious or other-religious people they are talking to do not take them seriously and don't actually believe what the religionists are saying.

Surely, everyone is responsible for what he or she believes.

But on the other hand, everyone is also responsible for what he or she says.

I think one has to take into account that the other person might actually believe (for whatever reason) every word of what one is saying. Which can lead this person into a lot of suffering.

I think the religionists who argue for their religion from the position "It is up to you to believe it or not, but I know it is true" are acting very irresponsibly.

For one, the cognitive development of beliefs is very complex and can take a long time. So laying religious arguments before a person and then expecting them to make a decision within some foreseeable time is unrealistic. It puts a lot of strain on the person. Deciding about what to think about God and religion isn't something that can be done easily, esp. not if one wishes to retain one's integrity.

For two, in many religions or in their schools, a person's belief in God is considered to depend on God -- that God bestows a person with faith in Himself. It is then not at all up to the person himself or herself -- and claiming that it is, is misleading.


All in all, it has been my experience that the religionists gave me little or no credit in my search for God. They have not taken it seriously. As if I had not spent sleepless nights, crying, over a time of several years.
When confronted with that, they simply said I should turn to God, not to them. Well, were it not that I have heard about God only from them, and not from God Himself.

I took them and God seriously, but they were apparently not willing or not ready to be taken seriously. Which is a shame, considering they "know their religion is true".

Originally Posted by Gordon
11. It is possible to respect others beliefs without agreeing with them.
.... But to say I respect something I disagree with -- that is a travesty of respect.
...... Just because someone doesn't go and openly oppose or even kill people, does not mean he respects them.

Yes it would.

You've got lost in the language.

"Respect", according to ordinary English usage may infer

1. deference or agreement.
2. an avoidance, or fear.
3. a concern or a relationship, usually of a serious kind.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Respect

--- Ron.

All in all, it has been my experience that the religionists gave me little or no credit in my search for God. They have not taken it seriously. As if I had not spent sleepless nights, crying, over a time of several years.
When confronted with that, they simply said I should turn to God, not to them. Well, were it not that I have heard about God only from them, and not from God Himself.

I took them and God seriously, but they were apparently not willing or not ready to be taken seriously. Which is a shame, considering they "know their religion is true".
You wanted credit from people for your seach for God? What more credit can people give than acknowledgement and encouragement? If someone has expectations that bother you, it helps to remember you are not them, and not to make their expectations your own. That releases the pressure and avoids the inevitable accumulation of resentment.

Even if faith did come from God, you would not cease to be human, cease to have doubts and frustrations, or cease to search. So there can be no time-constraints on faith, because what would they measure success by? People who take their faith most seriously are usually those who still spend sleepless nights sharing their inmost struggles, believing that God hears them.

To take people seriously you will have to turn to them and acknowledge them for who they are, not for what you expect from them. Who isn't willing or ready for that? Some frustrations require input from people, other frustrations are internal; some are temporary, others last a lifetime. Only you can find out which is which, and who might be the best to turn to in the end.

And you're right about this: If someone doesn't think you should have to turn to them, why do they then give the advice to turn to God? They contradict themselves.

Having now read many threads and contributed to a few...Gordon, I think the problem we all have is stereotyping... I know I do it too... but I try to avoid it as much as is justifiable...

Here, I think, all the percieved negative qualities of Christianity will tend to be amplified by those who aim to raze it to the ground... and they will push a certain stereotypical image of Christianity... pathetic really... kind of living in a world in your head.

Just make sure you don't end up spending your life here... or any significant part of it... and end up thinking that the views on sciforums represent the views of the world... scary...

I will only comment about "not even commenting" on the loud silence regarding atheist nutters on sciforums... that's all personal perception of course, but I think there are a lot of "Tom Cruises" around here...

I will only comment about "not even commenting" on the loud silence regarding atheist nutters on sciforums... that's all personal perception of course, but I think there are a lot of "Tom Cruises" around here..

'Been looking in the mirror now haven't you Mark?' :o

'Been looking in the mirror now haven't you Mark?' :oWhat's a Mark?

What is most interesting is that you end up replying to that particular statement...

How poetic...

:D

-

You should change your avatar... you notice it's a loose screw? Or is it a loose nut?

Hmmmmm...

Here, I think, all the percieved negative qualities of Christianity will tend to be amplified by those who aim to raze it to the ground... and they will push a certain stereotypical image of Christianity... pathetic really... kind of living in a world in your head.

Christianity is just but one faith. If there was a popular religion dedicated to a belief in a teapot circling the sun then it would receive similar indescriminate lashings by rational people.

Just make sure you don't end up spending your life here... or any significant part of it...

Yes, if you don't want your fantastical and unsubstantiated claims questioned, go to a forum were everyone shares those views. There are many of them.

and end up thinking that the views on sciforums represent the views of the world... scary...

Yes, because it is not scary at all that many parts of the world still have a political and legal system shaped by a belief in a sky fairy.

Since secularism shows greater attention to freedom, human rights and healthier societies, I can only imagine if the entire world shared the views and education of sciforums then the world would be in pretty good shape compared to how it looks now.

Christianity is just but one faith. If there was a popular religion dedicated to a belief in a teapot circling the sun then it would receive similar indescriminate lashings by rational people.So true...

Yet even further... I think it's just humanity...

Give a monopoly some time and you'll see it start crumbling because people start speaking out against it...

It's a "rebellion against the established system"... religion.Yes, if you don't want your fantastical and unsubstantiated claims questioned, go to a forum were everyone shares those views. There are many of them.You see the stereotyping Gordon?

Who do you refer to and what their beliefs?

Please do not be re-interpreting my posts to fit the world in your head.Yes, because it is not scary at all that many parts of the world still have a political and legal system shaped by a belief in a sky fairy.What world?? ;) [Rhetorical question - see answer above]Since secularism shows greater attention to freedom, human rights and healthier societies, I can only imagine if the entire world shared the views and education of sciforums then the world would be in pretty good shape compared to how it looks now.Wow... ok... well... thanks for sharing.
:confused: :D

Here, I think, all the percieved negative qualities of Christianity will tend to be amplified by those who aim to raze it to the ground... and they will push a certain stereotypical image of Christianity... pathetic really... kind of living in a world in your head.

Would that sterotyping of Christianity be the belief in gods, the afterlife, heaven and hell, angels, etc., and the hypocricy of an organized religion?

Just make sure you don't end up spending your life here... or any significant part of it... and end up thinking that the views on sciforums represent the views of the world... scary...

Why wouldn't it be? Isn't the only real difference in the anonimity of the internet?

I will only comment about "not even commenting" on the loud silence regarding atheist nutters on sciforums...

So, an atheist is a nutter because why? They can't see, smell, hear, feel or taste the same invisible non-entities as you?

That would make you a nutter if you didn't believe the person standing on a street corner wearing a sandwich board that reads, "The End is Nigh!"

Would that sterotyping of Christianity be the belief in gods, the afterlife, heaven and hell, angels, etc., and the hypocricy of an organized religion?No... if you read my original post, it was a general statement applicable to all.Why wouldn't it be? Isn't the only real difference in the anonimity of the internet?The internet is not sciforums, Q.So, an atheist is a nutter because why? They can't see, smell, hear, feel or taste the same invisible non-entities as you?There we go again... stereotyping... and mis-interpreting...

You know nothing about me... you only believe what you see (see your statement above)...

But interesting view however; it seems you think all atheists are nutters? I stated nothing of the sort...

Can't you people read?

:D

And you're right about this: If someone doesn't think you should have to turn to them, why do they then give the advice to turn to God? They contradict themselves.

Well, ask yourself this.

Well, ask yourself this.
I obviously have, and that was my conclusion.

Is there something you would like to assume about me?

I obviously have, and that was my conclusion.
Is there something you would like to assume about me?

Try this:

You insist or have insisted that she lacks something crucial, and that you know exactly what that is, and that you have it.

--- Ron.

No... if you read my original post, it was a general statement applicable to all.The internet is not sciforums, Q.There we go again... stereotyping... and mis-interpreting...

Theists believe, atheists don't. Is that any more applicable and any less stereotyped? Sciforums is part of the internet, isn't it? Are you saying there is no anonimity here?

You know nothing about me... you only believe what you see (see your statement above)...

I've read your posts. You believe in invisible non-entities. What's to misrepresent and not know?

But interesting view however; it seems you think all atheists are nutters? I stated nothing of the sort...

Can't you people read?

Only as well as what's been written. And if we can't read, why have claimed we said 'all' atheists are nutters?

For you, the question would be, 'Where the heck did you read that?'

You believe in invisible non-entities.
As opposed to visible non-entities?

As opposed to visible non-entities?

Such as?

It has gotten so pathetic I will reply only to this:You believe in invisible non-entities.That is your belief.As opposed to visible non-entities?Well, naturally Jenyar... there are invisible non-entities and visible non-entities... DUH!

It's simple really... Q's atheist-logic (a-logic) is perfectly sound... since there are visible entities and invisible entities then it becomes perfectly a-logical that the converse follows...Such as?And, of course, there are no atheists nutters on sciforums...

I always have to wonder when Q is serious or having a laugh... After some observation I conclude he's always having a laugh (hopefully)... as would be apparent.

It has gotten so pathetic I will reply only to this:That is your belief.

A non-response.

It's simple really... Q's atheist-logic (a-logic) is perfectly sound... since there are visible entities and invisible entities then it becomes perfectly a-logical that the converse follows...And, of course, there are no atheists nutters on sciforums...

Yes, the conclusion of invisible non-entities will always follow a theists logic or lack thereof.

I always have to wonder when Q is serious or having a laugh... After some observation I conclude he's always having a laugh (hopefully)... as would be apparent.

At your expense, of course.

Such as?
My question exactly. What do you mean by "invisible non-entities"?

I don't think so.

It is possible to be *neutral* or *indifferent* to that which one disagrees with.

But to say I respect something I disagree with -- that is a travesty of respect.
On the contrary, to say that you can not respect something or someone that you disagree with is a travesty of respect.

I respect people that act with integrity.
I respect people who act in accordance with selfless regard for others.
I respect people who treat others with respect.

I don't necessrily have to agree with their religious, political and social ideals and values, to respect what they believe.
Requiring agreement with one's ideals as a prerequisite for respect, in fact, would be selfish, narrow-minded and disrespectful, in my opinion.

If someone's ideals ARE selfish, self-absorbed and actively work AWAY from what I hold as important, that is another story.
But I can respect someone's views that do not agree with mine as long as their actions that directly affect others around them align with a result I can respect.

Most religions extol leading a virtuos life through God.
While I do not believe in their God, I still respect what their God teaches.

On the contrary, to say that you can not respect something or someone that you disagree with is a travesty of respect.

That is very well put.

Because sooner or later one disagrees with everybody it is not just a travesty of respect, it is a recipe for total isolation and imbecility, when disagreement in effect engenders ignorance, the nothing I want from you leave me alone if you don't see it like I do option.

--- Ron.

My question exactly. What do you mean by "invisible non-entities"?

The supernatural. That which has been acknowledged by theists to exist.

One Raven,

I respect people that act with integrity.

You respect people that agree with your notion of integrity.

I respect people who act in accordance with selfless regard for others.

You respect people who agree with your view that other is more valuable than self.

I respect people who treat others with respect.

You respect people that agree with your notion of respect.



When you respect people for those things, you're being neutral or indifferent for those aspects of them that you do disagree with. You don't respect their theistic ways. You don't respect their worship of the 'flying spaghetti monster' (to use the internet meme). You don't respect their tacit endorsement of all the cold, callous, and brutal acts which their religion has committed throughout the years and which still loom in the future.

You respect them despite these things.

I agree with Water.
Yes. It's an issue of semantics. But 'respect' has been abused by the modern world. Every homeboy on the block demanding respect as if it were his right.
Ha!
You earn respect. Respect given as default is worthless. And if you respect an other without them earning that respect then that makes you worthless.
Part of the problem.
Might as well get on your knees with the rest of the christian scum. You're already halfway there.

The supernatural. That which has been acknowledged by theists to exist.
That's a broad generalization, and I would argue only in non-theistic circles would you find belief in non-entities, visible (but perhaps illusionary) or invisible.

That's a broad generalization, and I would argue only in non-theistic circles would you find belief in non-entities, visible (but perhaps illusionary) or invisible.

The supernatural MUST be of non-entities, or they would be entities and part of the natural world; ie. they would be detectable. And they are invisible, since they are undetectable.

For the purpose of discussion, we must find a term that suits that which is undetectable in the physical world but is still believed to exist. A paradox, of course, but one that appears to affect millions.

You mean, like atoms? Dark matter? Boson Higgs particles - and for a long time, black holes? The "natural" world is a concept that describes what we can detect and predict under ideal circumstances and according to our best knowledge and abilities. It defines nothing more than that. We can't keep something out of reality by defining it out. We wouldn't even be able to imagine our own consciousness just from observing the human brain.

Observation depends on your instruments, and, in the case of singular events and temporary limitations, time. God is not by nature part of nature, although He can (and according to Judaism and Christianity, has) enter it. He is therefore by all definitions of the word, an entity.

My question exactly. What do you mean by "invisible non-entities"?It seems Q failed to realise the redundancy in the use of the term "invisible non-entity".

It was most likely an attempt at making theist belief look "even more pathetic"... yet it turns out he's the one who looks pathetic...

Hmmm... Wasn't that a boomerang... ? :D

George Bernard Shaw said that

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place"

I would say the same of perception, what we like to call knowing.

--- Ron.

George Bernard Shaw said that

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place"

I would say the same of perception, what we like to call knowing.

--- Ron.
And there might be a level on which all things are illusionary, but we would reach it as rarely as we reach a level where all things are real. We live (and think and act) absolutely in a relative space between seemingly arbitrary points (from our perspective). This living with our heads in the thin atmosphere above the clouds and our feet planted on terra firma is what we call existence, and that, however we manage to circumscribe it, is the reality we have to work with. I believe between subjectivity and objectivity - between the strategic and the parametric - we usually manage to find some meaning, and that is after all what communication is about.

invert_nexus,
While I do understand what you and water are talking about, I still disagree with you (but still respect your point of view ;)).
It is a subtle distinction we are referring to, but I think an important one.
So subtle, in fact, that I am finding difficulty expressing it well.

Let’s take a body-builder as an example.
I don’t personally practice body-building.
The time and attention it takes to do, I find better spent in other endeavors.
I also don’t find the archetypal muscle-bound person particularly attractive.
It is simply not for me.
At the same time, I have an immense amount of respect for the level of dedication, self-discipline and focus it takes to achieve the kind of results I have seen.
While Lee Haney and myself have very different views on what is attractive, what is important, how to treat the body and how much time to spend on beautification of the body, I still whole-heartedly respect his views and what he has done with them.

I do not have respect for views of people that will have an obvious negative effect on me or society as a whole, but if they are not hurting me, I can certainly respect their views and beliefs and them as a person, not despite, but because of their views.

So subtle, in fact, that I am finding difficulty expressing it well.


Well expressed, in my opinion.


Might as well get on your knees with the rest of the christian scum. You're already halfway there.

Not so well expressed, in my opinion.

Just another homeboy on the block demanding respect as if it were his right.

It is one thing to be different, to own an opinion for the sake of it, to cease to try to reason because it seems to feel good at the time, quite another to make a difference, to convince, to achieve something, to actually earn the respect.

It is an ego thing.

--- Ron.

I do not have respect for views of people that will have an obvious negative effect on me or society as a whole, but if they are not hurting me, I can certainly respect their views and beliefs and them as a person, not despite, but because of their views.
I think this will get us closer to the issue. Respect, like honour or virtue, is a social thing, and it would be logical to set the standard for it at a social (rather than personal) level. Like I said in the Question of respect thread, we don't generally respect criminals, or expect anybody else to. But we may require ourselves to respect their basic rights (and here "respect" become almost a formal exercize, a mere skeleton). In a social sense, their actions may cause us to lose all respect for them, but the counterpoint to that is how we define our own human nature, how we respect ourselves and the things we would like others to respect in us.

You mean, like atoms? Dark matter? Boson Higgs particles - and for a long time, black holes?

What do those have to do with invisible non-entities? They are detectable and observable.

We wouldn't even be able to imagine our own consciousness just from observing the human brain.

That is also detectable and observable. You're really quite confused.

God is notby nature part of nature, although He can (and according to Judaism and Christianity, has) enter it. He is therefore by all definitions of the word, an entity.

Only within the confines of your imagination, if that's what you refer to as part of nature. For the rest of us, he is an invisible non-entity.

I think this will get us closer to the issue. Respect, like honour or virtue, is a social thing, and it would be logical to set the standard for it at a social (rather than personal) level. Like I said in the Question of respect thread, we don't generally respect criminals, or expect anybody else to.

A degree of respect might not be so amiss if you live next door to a criminal, to keep the doors locked and your eyes open.

A better notion to play with might be qualification. When somebody seems to think thay've something to tell me I like to know why, where they're coming from, and what they've done for themselves, what they have to show.

I notice this with marriage for instance: Friends keenest to tell me how it should be done are those with no marriage to show for themselves, and often those with nothing like a marriage to show for themselves, while those with a marriage to speak of, those who had to learn it the hard way, they're the keenest to keep their council to themselves, content to leave me to it.

I learn a lot about respect from that sort of thing, the back seat driver syndrome.

--- Ron.

Atheists here simply lack the political correctness with religion which is rampant in the media and in politics. Shame you see it as a personal attack

Sorry Kenny, but I have to call you out here:

You mean you will believe anything that is in vague support of your irrational beliefs without realizing your beliefs are fucked up in the first place?

That was something that you said to me on another thread. Sounds like a personal attack me to me...

as it is not often the person, but the beliefs themselves that quite rightly receive a lashing.

Why do our beliefs "quite rightly" deserved to be lashed? Because you don't agree with them? :rolleyes:

That was something that you said to me on another thread. Sounds like a personal attack me to me...

This is the reason why political correctness exists in the first place over religion. People can not differentiate between a personal attack, and an attack on their faith. The quote you gave shows me attacking your faith. Occasionally the line will be over-stepped, but only with good reason - such as Woody's homophobia and male chauvinism.

Why do our beliefs "quite rightly" deserved to be lashed? Because you don't agree with them?

Simply put - it is bullshit. It stinks to high heaven and people around the world who believe the collection of myths associated with an organised religion are not doing pleasant things in society. I was force-fed your bullshit religion at school and more was taught about Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve than things that could actually constitute a good education. I have a hatred for the Christian right in America and the damage they are currently doing to our world via war, as well as fanatic Muslims who think it's ok to kill in defence of Islam. Aside from the damage religion does to politics, law, education, human rights, freedom and social health - the downright irrationality and lazy mindedness of it all is nothing short of pathetic.

I could probably write pages and pages on why religious beliefs deserve to be lashed.

A degree of respect might not be so amiss if you live next door to a criminal, to keep the doors locked and your eyes open.

A better notion to play with might be qualification. When somebody seems to think thay've something to tell me I like to know why, where they're coming from, and what they've done for themselves, what they have to show.

I notice this with marriage for instance: Friends keenest to tell me how it should be done are those with no marriage to show for themselves, and often those with nothing like a marriage to show for themselves, while those with a marriage to speak of, those who had to learn it the hard way, they're the keenest to keep their council to themselves, content to leave me to it.

I learn a lot about respect from that sort of thing, the back seat driver syndrome.
Yes. People who exemplify what they're talking about seem more qualified and garner more trust. But I don't think that's the kind of respect one has for a criminal next door...

There seems to be an element of "standing back" in the understanding of respect. Awe-respect, fear-respect, admiration-respect, status-respect... People can become qualified in various things.

People can not differentiate between a personal attack, and an attack on their faith.What you believe defines who you are.

If you attack a person's faith, you attack the person.

Simply put - it is bullshit. It stinks to high heaven and people around the world who believe the collection of myths associated with an organised religion are not doing pleasant things in society. I was force-fed your bullshit religion at school and more was taught about Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve than things that could actually constitute a good education. I have a hatred for the Christian right in America and the damage they are currently doing to our world via war, as well as fanatic Muslims who think it's ok to kill in defence of Islam. Aside from the damage religion does to politics, law, education, human rights, freedom and social health - the downright irrationality and lazy mindedness of it all is nothing short of pathetic.

I could probably write pages and pages on why religious beliefs deserve to be lashed.

Well said! :)

What you believe defines who you are.

If you attack a person's faith, you attack the person.

I disagree, your actions define who you are.

What you believe defines who you are.

If you attack a person's faith, you attack the person.

See it that way if you wish. Faith is open to criticism unlike persecuting a person based on the colour of their skin, sexual orientation or gender. Religious beliefs, as with taste in music are open to question. I criticise friends and family all the time for their taste in music, irrational belief in sky fairies or belief in Astrology.

If someone believes Jesus floated off into the sky or that there is a teapot circling the sun, I'm sorry, but they are open to ridicule and we should question their sanity. To stand by and 'respect' a persons beliefs - no matter how irrational - would be something to be offended about.

Only within the confines of your imagination, if that's what you refer to as part of nature. For the rest of us, he is an invisible non-entity.Hmmmm...

I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.

Was it a compliment Q?

I couldn't (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html) agree (http://www.famous-quotes-and-quotations.com/einstein-quotes.html) more (http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/imagination_is_more_important_than_knowledge-for/260230.html)...

Theist is to reality as Einstein is to physics.

:)

See it that way if you wish. Faith is open to criticism unlike persecuting a person based on the colour of their skin, sexual orientation or gender. Religious beliefs, as with taste in music are open to question. I criticise friends and family all the time for their taste in music, irrational belief in sky fairies or belief in Astrology.

If someone believes Jesus floated off into the sky or that there is a teapot circling the sun, I'm sorry, but they are open to ridicule and we should question their sanity. To stand by and 'respect' a persons beliefs - no matter how irrational - would be something to be offended about.

Do you not believe that everyone has the freedom to practise his or her faith?

And did someone put you in charge of deciding what everyone else in the world should or should not believe?

I disagree, your actions define who you are.My beliefs are a basis for my actions.

My beliefs are a basis for my actions.

My point was that your beliefs do not define you as a person (to the outside world). If you choose to act upon your beliefs then that's up to you, but it will be the actions that define you, not the thoughts running around your head.

Do you not believe that everyone has the freedom to practise his or her faith?

Of course I do.

And did someone put you in charge of deciding what everyone else in the world should or should not believe?

No, but I do my best to try and make people see sense and learn to be rational.

See it that way if you wish.We're all free to criticize and ridicule...

I usually look upon criticisms such as the typical, stereotypical "fanaticism, fairytale, what-not belief" with indifference (usually faling to respond except to have a laugh).

There is constructive criticism and ridicule... which is destructive criticism.

Destructive criticism is counter productive and exposes ill-informed, naiive, un(der)educatated, un(der)exposed, unproductive, lazy, and thoughtless individuals for who they are.

I have no reason to complain about that - effect your own undoing. ;)

Of course I do.



No, but I do my best to try and make people see sense and learn to be rational.


Your two statements show that your belief that people practice their faith is linked to a belief that you should "convert" them.

So what is the difference between you and a religious evangelist?

My point was that your beliefs do not define you as a person (to the outside world). If you choose to act upon your beliefs then that's up to you, but it will be the actions that define you, not the thoughts running around your head.I think we're just blind men exploring the same elephant.

I get you.

Simply put - it is bullshit.

Had you prefixed " I think..." with the abouve statement, it would have more suited our political correct discssion. lol

A lot of people on here fault Chrsitians for not being educated. Well, it works both ways, beacuse of lot of athesists are uneducated as to why we believe.

It stinks to high heaven and people around the world who believe the collection of myths associated with an organised religion are not doing pleasant things in society. I was force-fed your bullshit religion at school and more was taught about Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve than things that could actually constitute a good education.

That reminds me a bit of the controvsery going on right on here in Canada. The controvsery is that Canadians have to adapt to how the immagrants live, not the other way around. Now, I'm all for immigration, but I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Canadians. However...... the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct! " crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.

Now what gets me about your point of view Kenny, is that Christianity, in your mind, is nothing but negative.

"We Stand On Guard For Thee" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women.......on Christian principles.............founded our nation..... and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home.

I have a hatred for the Christian right in America and the damage they are currently doing to our world via war, as well as fanatic Muslims who think it's ok to kill in defence of Islam. Aside from the damage religion does to politics, law, education, human rights, freedom and social health - the downright irrationality and lazy mindedness of it all is nothing short of pathetic.

"Muslims who think it's ok to kill in defence of Islam". That's the key line there. They think it's ok, but it's not. Religion isn't a reason to kill, it's an exuse. If not religion, they would find some other excuse. You can't fault religion for the choices of individuals.

We're all free to criticize and ridicule...

I usually look upon criticisms such as the typical, stereotypical "fanaticism, fairytale, what-not belief" with indifference (usually faling to respond except to have a laugh).

There is constructive criticism and ridicule... which is destructive criticism.

Destructive criticism is counter productive and exposes ill-informed, naiive, un(der)educatated, un(der)exposed, unproductive, lazy, and thoughtless individuals for who they are.

I have no reason to complain about that - effect your own undoing.

I hear you talking like this a lot, but never hear you actually explain why atheists (or anybody who criticizes your dubious religion) are all of the above. Is that because you can not do so without exposing the root of your obvious superstitious beliefs?

Reply with non-answers all you like, it's not fooling me.

A lot of people on here fault Chrsitians for not being educated. Well, it works both ways, beacuse of lot of athesists are uneducated as to why we believe.

I have already read your post that details why you believe, it is rather typical and similar to why people believe in bullshit concepts like Astrology.

Now what gets me about your point of view Kenny, is that Christianity, in your mind, is nothing but negative.

I already know this. But take a look at conservative American's and tell me that this is a good advert for Christianity. The teachings of Christ and the apparently sound morals of Christianity (ignoring the Old testament and parts of the New of course) are probably better adhered to by secularists.

It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home.

I live in a nation where nearly 50% of the population are atheist or non-religious. I'm happy where I am.

P.S. Please stop editing your posts while I am trying to reply to your origional one, it is annoying.

. Religion isn't a reason to kill, it's an exuse. If not religion, they would find some other excuse. You can't fault religion for the choices of individuals.

Ggazoo: It appears I know more about your religion than you do. I can point to many parts of the Bible to show you that it is perfectly ok to kill in defence of your religion. I would also not be hard pressed to do the same with the Quran.

So what is the difference between you and a religious evangelist?

Rationality.

1. Obvious really but the USA is not the world. Many times what goes on there is extrapolated into what happens everywhere. This can be erroneous in the extreme! More of you need to get about more or at least admit that you have no experience of elsewhere.

Why do you care, who is your target audience, and why should they care?


2. Neither truth nor correct judgment are a function of numbers of believers. (You voted in Bush not once but twice and we in the UK have probably done things as (no perhaps not quite as) stupid).

Correct.


3. There are many variants of christainity in regard not only to practice but also some beliefs. Many (most) of these are outside of the USA - see 1. This implies that what you see of 'christians' in the USA may or may not necessarily apply elsewhere in the whole rest of the world.

Why do you care, who is your target audience, and why should they care?


4. Roman Catholic beliefs are based on tradition and scripture in that order (their defiinition). Whilst they are as entitled to their beliefs as the next man or woman, Roman Catholic theology should not be confused with scripture. They may not necessarily accord.

Ok.


5. The Southern Baptist Church has still not managed to get rid of the infiltration of freemasonry, because of the great strength of the latter and the number of freemasons in the church. This applies in part to the Church of England but the C of E official position is that christianity and freemasonry are incompatible. This is probably a far more serious threat than any anything to do with homosexuality.

IMO, religion's biggest threat is science because it will continue to find evidence falsifying the assertions of religion.


6. To an outsider, the US church seems strangely racially segregated. The white conservative wings seem to be very into the 'American Dream'. This is essentially based on the worship of money and is totally incompatible with christianity as espoused in the Bible.

If you mean racially segregated then you are quite correct and IMO it's the result of cultural segregation and the natural human disposition to avoid difference and embrace likeness.


7. The hatred shown soemtimes by some of these same conservatives towards homosexuals, those working in abortion clinics etc. is total anathema to any true evangelical bible believing christian. God loves everyone. His love is not withdrawn whatever you do and it is not for other people to pass judgement. It is even more wrong for them to hate people or hurt people just because they believe that they are doing wrong. This is not in accordance with christianity at all ('love your neighbour as yourself').

This might serve as a point of evidence contradicting your claim that 'God' exists. For such a 'perfect' life form, it's a lousy teacher, role model, and coach.


8. I have met some great US christians so clearly not all are like those in (7) above, but I do get the impression that there are rather too many in that category.

I'm sure the Xian you met had their own set of issues.


9. George Bush does not seem to represent a christian believer to me. In fact whatever his spiritual beliefs (probably none - I don't know) Michael Moore seems closer to the teachings of Jesus Christ than George Bush.


GB is not responsible for his actions. He believes he is doing 'God's will. That's what a true Xian believer does. They remove responsibility from their lives and accept accountability upon death.


10. Whatever goes on in the USA, almost all the christians that I know here are happy to socialise with agnostics, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or whatever. I get the impression that this is different in the USA.


It's not different in California.


11. It is possible to respect others beliefs without agreeing with them. You may also try to convert people in a nice way (by the good example of loving them). Yo cannot convert people with 'Hellfire and Damnation' speeches. People who try to use this method are sadly misguided.

It's possible when the belief's don't affect the non/other believer.


12. A very large number of christians I know are thinking intelligent people who can be very logical in their thinking. Conversely I know many atheists and agnostics who are not at all logical. The use of invective on this site by contributors against believers on the basis of their 'inate stupidity' demeans the contributors concerned. Rational logical argument does not consist of abuse and name calling however you may disagree with their view. On the contrary it indicates ignorance, bad manners and a lack of intellectual prowess to counter the argument.

The behaviors you don't seem to like exist and have been demonstrated by believers and non-believers alike. Bringing an ideal to a public forum is not likely going to change it.

Rationality.


So you believe that all theists are irrational?

I can point to many parts of the Bible to show you that it is perfectly ok to kill in defence of your religion.
"... a time will come when anyone who kills you will think that by doing this he is serving God. People will do these things to you because they have not known either the Father or me." (John 16:2-3)
The only way for someone to effectively defend his faith is to hold on to it even under the threat of death. Only physical kingdoms are defended by physical means. I think you will find it impossible to apply your texts to anything but a limited national jurisdiction (the way a constitution does). The principle might be universally valid: treason against God is a capital offense, but who will cast the first stone? We don't have that moral authority or legal jurisdiction.
Rom. 12:19-20
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink..."
Take a survey of all countries around the globe and note how many countries who still practice or endorse religious persecution are Christian. Compare that with the ones that have made it state policy. In the instances where Christian states have in the past indulged and participated in such paradoxical political expansionism, they have never escaped condemnation from within Christianity itself, and have never survived that condemnation.

I hear you talking like this a lot, but never hear you actually explain why atheists (or anybody who criticizes your dubious religion) are all of the above. Is that because you can not do so without exposing the root of your obvious superstitious beliefs?

Reply with non-answers all you like, it's not fooling me.We clearly are not on the same channels of communication.

My statement regarding constructive and destructive criticism was a general one - not applicable only to religion (and hence atheists).

It would expose nothing about my religion as compared to what it would expose concerning human nature.

You say to someone; "You are an ass..."

They hardly know you except that you display certain reactions to certain aspects of their character.

And that's all you say... what should the person think or feel?

Do you explain why they're an ass? Or why you think they're an ass? No...

You just say; "You're simply... an ass."

That's an example of an attempt at ridicule.

If you don't explain, what should the person conclude?

Maybe you just can't explain because your statement - you're an ass - is borne more out of some emotive reaction than anything rational.

Or maybe you can try to explain but you fear that once you start explaining then the person will have a chance to defend him/her- self and you might start looking like the ass instead... or you both look like asses... or it turns out no one is an ass...

Now:

Destructive criticism is counter productive: as illustrated above...

...and exposes ill-informed - don't know anything about the person

...naive - forms judgement without sufficient information

...un(der)educatated - has no(limited) concept of sharing knowledge to increase and improve knowledge

...un(der)exposed - locked away in a small cultural circle and doesn't know how to embrace something new

...unproductive - doesn't contribute anything to a discussion

...lazy - don't care to think about why they think the person as "simply an ass" until after they're asked

...thoughtless - don't think, just react

...for who they really are.

So you believe that all theists are irrational?

Of course I do. I have said this many times but it never gets directly addressed. If I was to write pages and pages of supernatural miracles quoted in religious text in the Quran and the Bible, I would be here all night... therefor, it must be assumed that people who believe pages of such "events" could only be described as irrational.

"... a time will come when anyone who kills you will think that by doing this he is serving God. People will do these things to you because they have not known either the Father or me." (John 16:2-3)

Thank you, Jenyar. You made my point perfectly - I can quote something in black and white which is clearly instructive, yet you can appear to post something that contradicts it within the very same book.

MarkAC: Please could we stick to discussing religion and not the laws of conversation. Once again you reply with nothing that addresses your own superstitious beliefs, which is the only thing I want to discuss. Naturally you don't want to draw attention to this, so you stick with distractive techniques which I am so used to from theists on this forum.

Of course I do. I have said this many times but it never gets directly addressed. If I was to write pages and pages of supernatural miracles quoted in religious text in the Quran and the Bible, I would be here all night... therefor, it must be assumed that people who believe pages of such "events" could only be described as irrational.



So this is an opinion that you have or a fact that you have logically ascertained?

I mean you can prove there is no God, right?

So this is an opinion that you have or a fact that you have logically ascertained?

I mean you can prove there is no God, right?

Again, another classic distraction technique. I would question you on why you feel the need to distract from all of the alements I raise with regards to religion. Espeically in my last post which you did not give a relevant reply.

Obviously nobody can prove there is no God the same as nobody can prove there is one. Examples of the FSM or the teapot orbiting the sun apply just the same.

I feel I can prove that organised religions are false by simply quoting highly regarded quotes from the Bible and the Quran. Obviously science has proved many religious concepts false, but by simply stating religious quotes, simple common sense is required to know that these far fetched tales bite the dust by usage of common sense.

Would you agree that Mohammed (peace be upon him, obviously) flew to heaven in a winged horse of fire? Or would you agree that this was a myth? If you agree that it was a myth then what good does it do with 99% of all religious text in your religion?

I look forward to another distractive post from you, but please keep it related to the irrationality of religion.

So you believe that all theists are irrational?
No. Just their conclusions.

No. Just their conclusions.


Which the same rationale that theists use when comparing their religions?

So what makes you so special? :)

Which the same rationale that theists use when comparing their religions?

So what makes you so special? :)
I can juggle? :p

Thank you, Jenyar. You made my point perfectly - I can quote something in black and white which is clearly instructive, yet you can appear to post something that contradicts it within the very same book.
Then please quote it and let's see (or just provide the reference). If you argue it has universal application (i.e. religious rather than national implications), please indicate why you think so.

And "the same book" would be John. The Bible is a collection of books, often separated by time and contexts.

PS. Keep in mind that Jesus himself was the victim of religious and political persecution. If you're looking for vindication against such abuses, you need to look no further than him.

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

I like that one, but hundreds more of a similar nature can be found at evilbible.com

This basically tells us it is ok to murder someone on the grounds of their religion. I don't see how you will be able to agree with or justify the hundreds of quotes like the one above, without therefor bringing attention to the flawed nature of the "word of God".

"If your own full brother ... all Israel... in your midst". How does this apply to anybody outside their own nation or borders, exactly? And note "other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known" - this addresses an internal matter, pertaining to those who already believe in Israel's God, the God who had just brought them out of slavery - not to someone who has ever believed anything else. In that respect they also had a command: "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt" (Ex. 22:21).

The site you gave has five more references of the same nature from the Hebrew bible, and two from the New Testament that they must think are commands. I'll be happy to discuss them with you one by one if you want. But there aren't hundreds. Or were you just attempting to exaggerate your point?

...The Bible is a collection of books, often separated by time and contexts.This basically tells us it is ok to murder someone on the grounds of their religion. I don't see how you will be able to agree with or justify the hundreds of quotes like the one above, without therefor bringing attention to the flawed nature of the "word of God".Religious practices evolve with human culture - i.e. they occur in a certain "context".

Any attentive individual who has read a Christian Bible from cover to cover will no doubt see the evolution in thought and practice, esp. those brought about by Jesus and his followers.

While such cultures still exist in some corners of the world, human society and culture has generally evolved since then.

In other words, don't soley blame the religion - the social practices also play a part.

-

The fact that religious practices are dynamic shouldn't put a "bad face" on religion, as some may want to think.

Look at science, "the atheist religion". It is certainly dynamic - as observation, knowledge, and human culture evolves, so does scientific thought, and scientific fact.

Why should it be any different with religion? Science and religion are, after all, both quests for certainty in humanity's existence - i.e. quests for truth.

-

Anyway... regarding "murder"

From Merriam-Webster Online:
murder: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

The keyword is "unlawfully".

So it appears, in fact, that the text you quoted doesn't state that it is o.k. to murder someone. The text indicates that it was within the lawful practice of the society, back then, to kill/destroy anyone/thing which would threaten to lead them away from their God.

It is within the lawful practice of society, now, for police to kill criminals, and soldiers to kill terrorists, and for a man to defend his family and property against gun toting life threatening criminals by killing them if it comes to it - if there are no police there.

I'm sure I won't go to prison if a man who broke into my house, threatening to kill my family and take my belongings, ends up dead because I took my gun and pumped one through his skin just before he could pump one though mine, my wife's or my kids'.

Why should it be any different with religion? Science and religion are, after all, both quests for certainty in humanity's existence - i.e. quests for truth.but one can only find it, the other has nowhere to look. -

Anyway... regarding "murder"

From Merriam-Webster Online:
murder: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

The keyword is "unlawfully".

So it appears, in fact, that the text you quoted doesn't state that it is o.k. to murder someone. The text indicates that it was within the lawful practice of the society, back then, to kill/destroy anyone/thing which would threaten to lead them away from their God. so when they burn at the stake, little girls who they thought were witches etc, this was'nt murder.
give me a break! It is within the lawful practice of society, now, for police to kill criminals.but not for aledgedly blaspheming.

Science and religion are, after all, both quests for certainty in humanity's existence - i.e. quests for truth.

Religion isn't a quest for truth. It's a method of human relationships whose viral foundation asserts that it already knows the truth (i.e. 'God' did it).


Anyway... regarding "murder"

From Merriam-Webster Online:
murder: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

Three words, abortion clinic bombings.

The site you gave has five more references of the same nature from the Hebrew bible, and two from the New Testament that they must think are commands. I'll be happy to discuss them with you one by one if you want. But there aren't hundreds. Or were you just attempting to exaggerate your point?

No I did not exaggerate my point as there were too many quotes on that webpage to count... All relating to rape, murder, human sacrifice, slavery and a section with many other miscellaneous 'evil' quotes.

If the Bible is supposed to be the word of God, what difference does it make what the context of human culture is at that point in time? Furthermore, why if the Bible is only cultural contex should it be relevant today? If we ignore large parts of the Bible and hold onto other parts - that is nothing more than watered down moderation - which is in many ways more annoying that fundamentalists.

From Merriam-Webster Online:
murder: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

The keyword is "unlawfully".

So it appears, in fact, that the text you quoted doesn't state that it is o.k. to murder someone. The text indicates that it was within the lawful practice of the society, back then, to kill/destroy anyone/thing which would threaten to lead them away from their God.

Yes... Thank God for secularism.

Thank you Jenyar and MarcAC for conceeding that your religion was simply made-up, therefor not the word of God.

Religion isn't a quest for truth. It's a method of human relationships whose viral foundation asserts that it already knows the truth (i.e. 'God' did it).In any quest for truth - i.e. science or religion - you have to start from somewhere, be they reasonable assumptions or faithful beliefs. Religions start from God.Three words, abortion clinic bombings.Yes, that is murder - it is unlawful.

If the Bible is supposed to be the word of God, what difference does it make what the context of human culture is at that point in time? Furthermore, why if the Bible is only cultural contex should it be relevant today? If we ignore large parts of the Bible and hold onto other parts - that is nothing more than watered down moderation - which is in many ways more annoying that fundamentalists.The Bible is the Word of God, as interpreted by humanity over the millenia.

Human culture changes, and so does religious practice. What remains throughout, imho, is God's true Word.

Love yourself, love your neighbour, love God, respect the laws of your society... etc... etc - and with all that everything follows. You apply these principles in the social context in which you live.Yes... Thank God for secularism.Indeed. It certainly won't prevent people from being religious. It just promotes the freedom for one to live as he chooses. There is free will, after all. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with that - even God.Thank you Jenyar and MarcAC for conceeding that your religion was simply made-up, therefor not the word of God.You are a true comedian.
:D

No I did not exaggerate my point as there were too many quotes on that webpage to count... All relating to rape, murder, human sacrifice, slavery and a section with many other miscellaneous 'evil' quotes.
Of course there are many - "hundreds" - of quotes in the Bible. But we weren't talking about any of them. Upon stating "I can point to many parts of the Bible to show you that it is perfectly ok to kill in defence of your religion" you provided Deut. 13:7-12 as an example. Then you said "I like that one, but hundreds more of a similar nature can be found at evilbible.com ... This basically tells us it is ok to murder someone on the grounds of their religion". This gave the distinct impression that you considered all those hundreds of passages relevant to your point.

But I'll address them quickly: rape: condemned; murder: condemned; human sacrifice: condemned. Slavery: condoned with qualification ("remember that you were slaves in Egypt") and regulated: "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him".

And remember, laws don't reflect a perfect world, they point out sin in a sinful world. Their existence alone shows there's something wrong.

"I like that one, but hundreds more of a similar nature can be found at evilbible.com"

By 'similar nature' I emplied that there are many quotes that appear to contradict the "loving" stereotypes of Christianity.

But I'll address them quickly: rape: condemned;

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

murder: condemned;

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

human sacrifice: condemned.

http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm

Slavery: condoned with qualification ("remember that you were slaves in Egypt") and regulated

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Wow, some regulation...

More at: http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

[color=navy]In any quest for truth - i.e. science or religion - you have to start from somewhere, be they reasonable assumptions or faithful beliefs. Religions start from God.

Have any evidence to back up that assertion that religion is a quest for truth? In science, if an 'assumption' is incorrrect it can be discarded. Religion doesn't share that flexibility and it binds the concept of 'God' so tightly to a person's sense of self / self-worth that discarding it can be interpreted as an act of suicide.


Yes, that is murder - it is unlawful.

The people who do those things disagree and will argue that according to 'God's law, it's not murder.

By 'similar nature' I emplied that there are many quotes that appear to contradict the "loving" stereotypes of Christianity.
You mean, they don't reflect Christ's emphasis on love. How could they? Christ hadn't come yet.

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
You're working with a definition of rape that didn't exist at the time. Rape was defined as lawless and illegitimate sex, and it was unquestionably condemned. But when the relationship between a man and woman became legal, sex between them became legal. That's why someone who raped a girl had to marry her - it would restore her honour and assured her security. For the rest of his life, the man would carry the responsibility for what he had done - she would have the same rights and priviledges as someone whom he married out of choice. It's foreign to us because we're not Middle-Eastern. We simply send such people to prison. Deserts don't have prisons.

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
Once again, you don't distinguish between the death penalty and murder. One falls within a legal framework, the other doesn't. Futhermore, what I said earlier stil applies: these punishments and regulations governed Israel as a nation. They would only change as morality matured, and you can only apply Christian deifnitions once Christ actually came to interpret the law as a means to love, not an excuse not to.

http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm
It's unequivocably condemned. It was rampant among the surrounding people, which is why Abraham wasn't surprised that his God might require the same. But on the altar, God made his point vividly clear: He would provide a substitute. Child sacrifice always referred to idolatry (Lev. 18:21; 2 Kings 17:31; Isaiah 57:5; Ezekiel 16:21, 23:37, 23:39).

Maybe where the website displays its ignorance most clearly is when it claims about the consecration of the firstborn: "It is clear from the context that 'consecrate' means a burning sacrifice". They probably dearly wish it were true, because it would mean Christianity wouldn't exist:
Luke 2:22-24 When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took [Jesus] to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord")
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Wow, some regulation...
From a modern perspective, I don't like this passage either, but it's still a valid regulation - and it doesn't stand on its own. No law does. This one was probably a way to determine the extent of the crime (similar to Exodus 21:18-19). If it wasn't clear, the case would have been brought before the priests, and they would determine if the intention was assault, murder or just punishment (cf. Deut 17:8-11). If there was any permanent damage, the slave would go free (Ex. 21:26-27). A violent owner would end up slaveless, but unpunished; a murderous owner would be punished. The owner's power over his slaves was limited, which made these laws unprecedented in the ANE.

Can somebody explain what exactly this scripture describes from a theological point of view Genesis:1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....!!!

The Bible is the Word of God, as interpreted by humanity over the millenia.

Don't you mean 'created' by humanity over the millenia?

Surely, you don't suggest that gods actually dictated to people?

Can somebody explain what exactly this scripture describes from a theological point of view Genesis:1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....!!!
Well, a short answer could be that of all creation, man alone would resemble God in any meaningful way. An image is a representation of the source, and likeness is a similarity in appearance, nature or character. So man would not only resemble God in some ways, he was also created to represent Him. This obviously has many implications, such as that man would only represent God while he reflects Him (the difference might then be called "sin"). Consequently, when Jesus was called "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation" (Col. 1:15), that carried a lot of meaning.

It's such a core axiom of faith, concerning the relationship between God and man, that it would be impossible to give any comprehensive answer. But I hope this puts it in perspective a little.

In science, if an 'assumption' is incorrrect it can be discarded. Religion doesn't share that flexibility...Your statement has questionable applicability to the wider context of religion, simply because there are so many adapted and adaptable views held be religious/spiritual individuals.

In religion, if the assumption can be shown to be incorrect, it can be discarded....it binds the concept of 'God' so tightly to a person's sense of self / self-worth that discarding it can be interpreted as an act of suicide.True. Can it be proven that God doesn't exist?The people who do those things disagree and will argue that according to 'God's law, it's not murder.Naturally, but still they are disobeying God's law which instructs them to respect the laws of the society they live in, show love, and show tolerance.

Your statement has questionable applicability to the wider context of religion, simply because there are so many adapted and adaptable views held be religious/spiritual individuals. In religion, if the assumption can be shown to be incorrect, it can be discarded.

What happens if the assumption that 'God' exists is shown to be incorrect?


True. Can it be proven that God doesn't exist?

I suspect it can. For example, if science results in explicit knowledge about consciousness, that the human brain is solely responsible for it, and even reproduces it then it would invalidate the idea of a soul, invalidate the idea of 'God's reward/punishment upon death, and invalidate 'God'.


Naturally, but still they are disobeying God's law which instructs them to respect the laws of the society they live in, show love, and show tolerance.

Respecting the laws of society and obeying them are very different. 'Acts' of love and tolerance can be very subjective. Therefore it can easily be argued by such a person that they are fully compliant with 'God's law.

What happens if the assumption that 'God' exists is shown to be incorrect?Hell freezes over? ;)I suspect it can. For example, if science results in explicit knowledge about consciousness, that the human brain is solely responsible for it, and even reproduces it then it would invalidate the idea of a soul, invalidate the idea of 'God's reward/punishment upon death, and invalidate 'God'.Question is what does science represent? Knowledge of reality or consistency in observations? I dunno... do you?Respecting the laws of society and obeying them are very different.Hmmm... true in a sense, althoug I think that once you are a member of a society you must obey the law to show respect for it - otherwise that respect is a farce. Looking at societies as an outsider is another matter. You may have some respect for the law without the need to follow the law.'Acts' of love and tolerance can be very subjective. Therefore it can easily be argued by such a person that they are fully compliant with 'God's law.They can easily attempt to argue, but it won't stand up to scrutiny.

Hell freezes over? ;)

Hahahahaha. That day may come.


Question is what does science represent? Knowledge of reality or consistency in observations? I dunno... do you?

I'm not sure it's intended to represent anything. IMO, it's a process and nothing more.


Hmmm... true in a sense, althoug I think that once you are a member of a society you must obey the law to show respect for it - otherwise that respect is a farce. Looking at societies as an outsider is another matter. You may have some respect for the law without the need to follow the law.

Isn't anybody under 'God's law living under man's law technically an outsider?


They can easily attempt to argue, but it won't stand up to scrutiny.

If a legion of people still believe their actions of killing to not be murder than the scrutiny really doesn't matter after the fact.

Well, a short answer could be that of all creation, man alone would resemble God in any meaningful way. An image is a representation of the source, and likeness is a similarity in appearance, nature or character. So man would not only resemble God in some ways, he was also created to represent Him. This obviously has many implications, such as that man would only represent God while he reflects Him (the difference might then be called "sin"). Consequently, when Jesus was called "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation" (Col. 1:15), that carried a lot of meaning.

It's such a core axiom of faith, concerning the relationship between God and man, that it would be impossible to give any comprehensive answer. But I hope this puts it in perspective a little.

*************
M*W: But, Jenyar, this still does not prove the existence of god. You are still fantasizing. When will you be able to prove the existence of a god, and the efficacy of a god, and the religion of a god? None of this can be proven, so you are back to square one. Your theories have no validation. You can believe they exist, but you cannot prove they exist. Why are you wasting your time at this forum's expense?

*************
M*W: But, Jenyar, this still does not prove the existence of god. You are still fantasizing. When will you be able to prove the existence of a god, and the efficacy of a god, and the religion of a god? None of this can be proven, so you are back to square one. Your theories have no validation. You can believe they exist, but you cannot prove they exist. Why are you wasting your time at this forum's expense?

Was there ever anything of your life experience that you know well enough to be true but with no hope to prove it to anybody else, for you were the only one there to witness the fact of it?

And should that then prevent you from sharing your belief of it with