This post was initially aimed at Taken in the thread “Bye Bye” but I think it is worth pulling it out into a new thread. It can really be directed at most Christians.

What is the distinction between your belief that God is real and a self-delusion that God is real?

Without an external independent objective mechanism to show that God exists you will have no way to know that your belief is not self-delusion. Remember that the strength of your conviction gives no indication of truth or delusion.

You (Taken) have admitted that you cannot demonstrate the existence of God to anyone and that they must find it for themselves. And this is a standard response from all Christians, so I am not just picking on you.

If you cannot show any difference then why should any of us believe that you have found something that we have not?

Delusion: Belief in something that is contrary to fact or reality, resulting from deception, a misconception, or a mental disorder.

There are no facts or realities that show that a god exists. The pope would be screaming this through every radio and TV if any did show up.

Without your being able to show us your god then our only rational conclusion is that you have been deceived into believing what you do, or you have misunderstood reality, or you are mentally ill.

Cris

Well said, Cris. "Weak" atheists disbelieve in the existence of God whereas "strong" atheists believe there never has been nor can there be any such thing as god. I count myself among the latter.

*Originally posted by Cris
What is the distinction between your belief that God is real and a self-delusion that God is real?

Without an external independent objective mechanism to show that God exists you will have no way to know that your belief is not self-delusion.*

Without an external independent objective mechanism to show that science is valid you will have no way to know that your belief is not self-delusion.

*Without your being able to show us your god then our only rational conclusion is that you have been deceived into believing what you do, or you have misunderstood reality, or you are mentally ill. *

Without your being able to show us that the scientific method proves what it is purporting to prove then our only rational conclusion is that you have been deceived into believing what you do, or you have misunderstood reality, or you are mentally ill.

It should be obvious that the scientific method is just one of many ways to view the world.

In essence, one must use metascience in order to construct the scientific method.
It is trivially easy to prove that the scientific method cannot prove its own validity.

In order for the scientific method to be valid, one must have correct answers and conclusions obtainable by other methods, and verifiable by other independent methods, to compare with the results obtained by using the scientific method.
Only if the results obtained via the scientific method agree with the known true results can the scientific method be considered valid.

So, where are those other independently obtained results against which you measure the scientific method, Cris?


Christians have them, you don't.

Cris,

From what I have read in many of your posts, you demonstrate

God* to be the independent, external object of your contempt.

John Como,

Awright, welcome to sciforums. Well now I think I’ll join you in that strong atheist group.

I’ve held the weak position for the past 30 years but these past 2 years at sciforums has forced me to research a number of issues much more deeply than ever before. I’ve been playing with adopting a stronger position these past few months, especially after reading some of the tony1 posts and posts from other Christians.

I guess my top deciding factors are (in no particular order) –

1. Recent comments by Taken.
2. Basic lack of credibility that gods might exist.
3. Even less credibility for a soul.
4. A better understanding of human brain function.
5. A better understanding of how everything truly is material.
6. Latest cosmology theories on an infinite universe.
7. Deeper understanding of evolutionary theory.
8. The predetermination v human free will paradox.
9. No historical evidence for a Christ.
10. Demonstrable mythology of the bible.
11. Absolute lack of evidence for anything supernatural.
12. Past history of Christianity.
13. Historical origins of religions.
14. Religious appeal to emotionalism for proof.
15. Advances in genetics.

See ya around.
Cris

Originally posted by blonde_cupid
Cris,

From what I have read in many of your posts, you demonstrate

God* to be the independent, external object of your contempt. That doesn’t make any sense. Why would I have any contempt for something I don’t believe exists?

My contempt is for those institutions that force ignorance and superstition on others, e.g. Christianity, Islam, etc.

Cris

One of the main problems with atheists, I find, is that they're afraid to come out of the closet, and thus all one encounters is a multitude of superstitious blockheads, motivated by fear and guilt. Personally, I live in the midst of a northern Biblebelt but continue to wage a 10-year-plus writing campaign (newspaper column and frequent letters) against blind faith and religious-political-economic ignorance. In fact, I'm currently writing a column on Atheism which I hope the local paper will include in its new "Faith page". Thanks, Cris, for your list of deciding factors. More grist for my mill.

John C.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cris
What is the distinction between your belief that God is real and a self-delusion that God is real?

There is no distinction, because there is no delusion as to whether God is real. God is real. Delusion is brought about through ignorance as to the nature of the self and body, and sense gratification. You are the one who is deluded, that is why you, an atheist on a religous board not an atheist board.
Just for the record, what exactly is your purpose on this board?

Without an external independent objective mechanism to show that God exists you will have no way to know that your belief is not self-delusion. Remember that the strength of your conviction gives no indication of truth or delusion.

Lets correct that, 'you' will have no way of to know that your belief is not self delusional, because you are the one who relies on 'an independant objective mechanism.'
I am a musician, I don't know whether you play music or not, but if you did i bet your music would lack something. Probably technologically sound, but no feel man.

You (Taken) have admitted that you cannot demonstrate the existence of God to anyone and that they must find it for themselves. And this is a standard response from all Christians, so I am not just picking on you.

And you (Cris) have not been able to prove anything. Does that mean you don't know anything, because it hasn't been proven.

If you cannot show any difference then why should any of us believe that you have found something that we have not?

Then don't beleive, nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Delusion: Belief in something that is contrary to fact or reality, resulting from deception, a misconception, or a mental disorder.

You mean we have a mental disorder. Wow!

There are no facts or realities that show that a god exists. The pope would be screaming this through every radio and TV if any did show up.

You have it the wrong way round my friend. There is no facts or realities the shows that a God does not exist.

Without your being able to show us your god then our only rational conclusion is that you have been deceived into believing what you do, or you have misunderstood reality, or you are mentally ill.

Yes!
I wondered when some accusation like this was gonna surface.
You are so predictable dude.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Cris

Not all notions of god are delusional, but all of them are extrapolations of the believers' psyches. That's why I advocate the stripping of the silly Christian contexts from the word "God". Only one definition ever came out of the Christian camp that suffices, and that being that God is greater than anything we can conceive.

If we simply redefine the word "God" to mean "all there is", we effectively strip it of its petty, comparative aspects. The only real benefit of holding onto this word is that if we somehow do stumble onto a tangible god-force, there's a little bit of psychological preparation for the idea.

We can do the same thing with the word universe. Multiverse? So what? In the end, there is a generalization of existing that makes the multiverse a universe. The only need for the idea of a multiverse comes while we cannot leap easily between them.

Likewise of gods; Jack Cady once asserted that the Puritans created a real and living devil; not necessarily a flesh and blood creature that leaves footprints and scents for hounds to track, but as a footnote Cady pointed to the power of collectives to manifest an intangible force; his example was to ask any jazz musician about the idea. Put five guys with their instruments together, and they can give you an ineffable force. There well may be a Yahweh and Christ and Satan, or a triune Mother, or a Zeus or Ahriman/Ormuzd or any number of petty gods fashioned of the desperations of humanity out there. We may well have generated some force and lent it authority. But just like the devices of magick, it's a mere faith point until it's proven. Even as such, though, these entities would still be part of the Universe, and when we consider the academic assertion that even the Greek and Roman pantheons were, essentially monotheistic by proxy of the fact that the deities responded to a higher ethic or law. Likewise with gods: if God is Universe is All There Is, the myriad menacing deities of human fancy fall away to dust and theology once again becomes a useful tool in considering the ineffable mysteries of being human.

So there's two cents on behalf of gods. It should be noted, though, that if the "official" theology of a religion runs more than two words long--God is--then I can pretty much guarantee you that the deity involved is a delusion.

I have to protest self-delusion on one particular point: Some of our Christian neighbors never stood a chance; from the cradle to the grave they are taught that they are worthless without god; they may be deluded, but not by the self. It's not like racism, either; I always say that I won't blame a racist by upbringing for his racism until he has rejected ample opportunity to understand the issues. In the case of religions, and specifically redemptive religions, the "others" (e.g Satan) may be lying to you when presenting "ample opportunity to understand", and there is always the fact that the stake transcends life itself. The delusion is difficult but not impossible to break; one must do it in kindness or risk creating an equally negative spectre about the new understanding. So the lifetime victims of the Jesus-cult aren't self-deluded; there are those who conspired to bestow the gifts of fear and self-loathing. I can't speak for the born-again crowd, though: they invite their own troubles when they throw their intellect out with the bathwater.

Now ...

Jan ArdenaThere is no distinction, because there is no delusion as to whether God is real. God is real. Delusion is brought about through ignorance as to the nature of the self and body, and sense gratification. You are the one who is deluded, that is why you, an atheist on a religous board not an atheist board.
Just for the record, what exactly is your purpose on this board?* No distinction: you have proven the point with your response. That does not necessarily mean you're self-deluded, but that you would rather eliminate the question than consider its myriad facets is a compelling argument toward your self-delusion.

* Atheist on a religious board: You'll note, sir, that this website is called Sciforums. Its former name, for the record, was Exosci. We might, then, wonder at the curious circumstance of a religion board being so popular at a science website. Why are you at a science site and not a religion site? In other words, save the useless arguments for a useless day. Do you believe in Judgement Day? Save the useless arguments for then.Lets correct that, 'you' will have no way of to know that your belief is not self delusional, because you are the one who relies on 'an independant objective mechanism.'
I am a musician, I don't know whether you play music or not, but if you did i bet your music would lack something. Probably technologically sound, but no feel man.Sounds like the classic argument that I think is Anselm: I can't see God or feel God or experience God so I know He must be there. At any rate, I was not born recognizing the concept of God, and neither was Cris and I'm willing to bet large sums of cash that neither were you. Somebody had to teach me the idea of God before it even mattered. And that they had to teach me to fear God instead of know God ... that's a compelling argument toward their self-delusion and their attempt to infect me with the same sickness. The objective state is that there is no God; there is no evidence suggesting that the assertion of a God's existence is true. Without the assertion that God exists, the issue itself doesn't exist.Then don't beleive, nobody is forcing you to do anythingWell, I lived in Oregon, where Christians tried to disenfranchise gays based on biblical principle; Cris lives in California, home of the Schlafly ministry that protests textbooks in schools based on biblically-derived objections; a church in downtown Seattle asserts that Liberty is the freedom to worship a specific God in a specific manner--and yes, that means all other gods and methods of worship are out; why are laws allowing nudity laws and not the natural state (were you wearing a formal gown when you came out of your mother?); all across the US are groups which want laws written making religion a science and therefore limit the contribute of science by throwing out the need for verification of results and even the need for results at all ... You're right--nobody is forcing anyone to believe anything, but boy-oh, do the religious in the US want to make us live according to it.

You'd think that the freedom to live day to day would be a subject worth discussing ... tell us Jan, what is your purpose here? Seem a cheap question? Well?Yes!
I wondered when some accusation like this was gonna surface.
You are so predictable dude.And so are you, which is what's funny. Here: I predict that the next person to assert the existence of God will be unable to demonstrate that assertion as true.

Like I said above, without the assertion that God exists, the issue itself doesn't exist.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Although not able to speak for Cris and his beliefs, may I suggest that the responses to his original thread show a definite lack of logic and reason on which, incidentally, atheism is based. Tony1 implies that belief in the scientific method may be self-delusion. Nonsense. He also defends Christian beliefs as though they reflected mental health, when the very opposite is true. One of the psychiatric standards for mental health is an absence of guilt and fear, upon which almost all godforsaken religions are founded.
Jan Ardena is positive that God is real and obviously is annoyed that Cris who doesn't share this belief is on a religion board. Jan draws an absurd comparison between music and religion, as though one is required to bring similar feelings to both when, in fact, religion cannot survive without an emotional unscientific faith in superstitions and mythology. Regarding proof of god's existence, the onus is not on atheists such as Cris to disprove anything. It is up to Christianity and other sects to present valid evidence, something which has never been and never can be done. Personally, I have no problem with faith followers who find peace and solace in their delusions... as long as they keep outta my face!

Peace and goodwill.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiassa
 Atheist on a religious board: You'll note, sir, that this website is called Sciforums. [/I]

Then why have a religious forum in a science website, if the only purpose is to prove the point of the religion does not exist.
It would be better to have an atheist forum. Then your points and arguments will have some kind of substance.
Do you know God doesn’t exist, therefore drumming it home in the hope we see sense?
Are you not sure whether God exists, and therefore wanting to be taught by us, conditionally?
If it is the former, then it would seem more fitting to have an atheist forum, whereby we could visit if we wanted to, and at the same time you wouldn’t have to contend with us brainwashed fundies all the time. (lol)
If it is the latter, then I suggest you read Bhagavad Gita As It Is. If you read and understand it, you will be in a far better position one way or the other.
At least then, hopefully we can develop our conversations, because up until now it has been non-productive, unless of course, you like it that way.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Then why have a religious forum in a science website, if the only purpose is to prove the point of the religion does not exist.
It would be better to have an atheist forum. Then your points and arguments will have some kind of substance.On the one hand, ask Porfiry. To the other, as I recall, it was that a website full of Ufo photos wasn't doing it for him. So he starts up this site, complete with considerations on science, philosophy, and speculation. An atheist forum is useless; atheists only bring out their sentiments in response to religion; they would not clamber toward a board to affirm themselves to each other the way Christians do. In that sense, then, what should our kind host do about those areas where science and religion mingle? As an example: I once asked Tony1 about faith healing. After asserting that he attended medical school, he proceeded to explain the physical device of faith healing as, "It just happens'. This is about what we can expect of a religion board. If it's a religion board at a science site ... well, I, personally would hope that someone could offer the physical device of healing, as the example goes, so that we can then explore how one person by faith or whatnot, can create this effect in another. Unfortunately, most of our religious posters aren't up for that.Do you know God doesn’t exist, therefore drumming it home in the hope we see sense?
Are you not sure whether God exists, and therefore wanting to be taught by us, conditionally?
If it is the former, then it would seem more fitting to have an atheist forum, whereby we could visit if we wanted to, and at the same time you wouldn’t have to contend with us brainwashed fundies all the time. I can go down a list and say which God's I'm pretty damn sure don't exist. The idea of God is open, though. I just don't understand why religions like Christianity are so intent on limiting God to a shoebox.

And it should be noted that whether it's at this board or out in the walking, waking world, we the infidels do, in fact, have to put up with brainwashed fundies on a regular basis. In fact, if we didn't have to deal with the brainwashed fundies, we wouldn't care what people believe. After all, I'm just sick and tired of having Christianity aiming to subvert Liberty. Christianity is a failed idea, and there's no reason to drag everyone else down with it. But as long as the Christians try to do so, it is something worth paying attention to. I suppose I could just retreat into a shell and assume that all Christians are as big of morons as their public representatives make them out to be, but it seems more rewarding to attempt to communicate on various levels with Christians and determine that they are, in fact, that big of morons.If it is the latter, then I suggest you read Bhagavad Gita As It Is. If you read and understand it, you will be in a far better position one way or the other.
At least then, hopefully we can develop our conversations, because up until now it has been non-productive, unless of course, you like it that way.Ah, the read this and get back to me. Well, if you can't convey what you want out of it clearly enough, and if you have to tell me to go find your answers for you, I wonder about the power of the text.

I'm aware of the BG, but I'm not about to thump it around like Falwell with a Bible. In the larger context of productivity, Jan, I would recommend that if you're not satisfied with progress that you stick to the topics you address and stop inserting irrelevant issues unless you can make them relevant. Such as teh "atheist board" digression. Seems to me you're just trying to draw attention away from the subject by turning to such inquiries in lieu of actually discussing the topic.

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:

Is belief in a god just self-delusion?
Yes.
:)

Originally posted by Cris

I’ve been playing with adopting a stronger position these past few months, especially after reading some of the tony1 posts and posts from other Christians.


Christianity is not the only religion Cris.
I'm not too religious and by my previous posts you could tell that definetely I'm not christian:)
But I NEVER say that smth is impossible only because I don't beleive it to be possible. While I do not think we have sth like God as Christians think him to be, I do not deny the existannce of spiritual beings. They could yust as well be life forms from another dimmension - do not have a physical body. I can not deny it, only because I have not seen it. "discovering new things recquires an element of faith"[discovery channel]. Ghosts-maybe marks our mind has left in different dimmension, geological abnormalities, spirits of dead people, our illusion. One of this could be true. If I deny them in first place and do not examine the problem, I won't discover anything. I take them all as possible and then acquiring to my observations, experiments etc, exclude one possibility by one. Only this method can lead to truth.

Self delusion which may lead to knowing truth.
Einstein immagined his theory and only then proved it by formulas.

But I beleive that Christians have immagined for enough of time 2000 years. And come to the conclusion tht christianity is a religion particular meaningful for tht culture 2000 years ago. It has in itself aspects important for tht long dead culture. Today it looks like a fairy tale. A god who deals with every dead human soul after death, pleeeeeez. a god tht denyed knowledge. a god tht needs sacrifaces. christianity is a religion for past , some people are only stuck in it till this day. NEW IDEA lets name the 5th dimmension. psyhological time dimmension:)

That is why I choosed paganism. It is preconception free, there is no hell or heaven, yust life. It is politic free, couraging everyone to new discoveries in science, very open minded, not forcing anyone to beleive like we want. Compete freedom of chioce and works. If you do smth "bad" you spoil your life a bit and nth more. You kill a person, you go to prision and/or suffer from psyhological problems, stress. Noone will sue you after you die.
We honour life in all of its forms. We praise the earth and try to protect it. Some of us do it for Godess, some yust wouldn't like to live in a pile of trash.
Sorry for this little speech, but I yust wanted to show Cris tht all beleifs are not preconceptional, carry us back to dark ages, are out of date and so on. We are the most open minded people and do no beleive in such arhaic things like creation of world in 7 days.

Avatar,

I don’t think we have exchanged ideas before, hi.

I have to admit I do tend to think of the major religions, Christianity, Islam, etc when I speak of religions, I guess we could call them the “revealed” religions. But all religions share a common issue, an unsupported belief to some extent. Paganism is less of a belief system than it is an alternative view of viewing reality, and Deism (typical of the American founding fathers), is very close to the rationality of atheism. These beliefs are rarely thrust in my face and neither tries to force their ideas and potential bigotry on others. So if we consider everything within degrees then those who accept and believe the extremes like Christianity and Islam attract the most attention and criticism, and those like yourself who harm none should be free to exist and live as desired.

But I NEVER say that smth is impossible only because I don't beleive it to be possible. While I do not think we have sth like God as Christians think him to be, I do not deny the existannce of spiritual beings. But I have found there comes a point when the claims are simply not credible. A lack of evidence for something doesn’t mean that that something doesn’t exist but the proposed something must have the potential for belief to begin with. Once you cut away all the mythology, hopes, superstitions, dogmas, misinformation, politics, dishonesty, and greed, from say Christianity, then all you have left is an unsupported belief in an imaginary super-being, and that same imagination can also create fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, flying carpets, etc. At what point does one decide that a claim is worth investigating or it is really just a fantasy and really doesn’t exist at all.

So having thought carefully about the issues for some 30+ years I feel I have little choice than to conclude that gods are just fantasies that exist only in the imaginations of people. And so far no one has been able to show me that I am not correct. Spirits and souls are even more fanciful.

Dismissing something because it holds no credibility does not limit the imagination to pursue other possibilities. My issue with such things and gods and spirits is that many people choose to believe and really cannot justify their beliefs. A healthy skepticism should always accompany such things until some evidence can be found.

"discovering new things recquires an element of faith"[discovery channel]. And here I would disagree. I just think it needs curiosity and common sense.

Self delusion which may lead to knowing truth.Only by accident. Most of the time, and all of the time for most, the delusion is a world of unreality.

Einstein immagined his theory and only then proved it by formulas. And imagination is one of the greatest abilities of mankind. The important thing is to not believe what you imagine is real until you can show it to be real. There is a very important distinction between a scientific hypothesis/theory and a faith based belief.

But yes I agree, Christianity has had its day. After 2000 years of terror, superstition and ignorance, they have still not shown they have found any truths. And yet they ask us to believe them because…..well they really cannot say can they.

Sorry for this little speech, but I yust wanted to show Cris tht all beleifs are not preconceptional, carry us back to dark ages, are out of date and so on. We are the most open minded people and do no beleive in such arhaic things like creation of world in 7 days. Avatar, no problem.

Cris

I woke up yust to see if anyone has replied. see, I had an element of faith;) about tht discovering new things smtimes needs an element of faith. I do agree with you tht beleiving in let's say Shiva or Jahve won't help me to upgrade the theory of evolution. But beleiving in myself and my strenght ay help, don't you think. Beleiving doesn't allways mean RELIGIOUS beleiving.

"A lack of evidence for something doesn’t mean that that something doesn’t exist but the proposed something must have the potential for belief to begin with"

I fully agree with you on this. God ceated Adam and Eve to be first humans. ridiculous. I tend more towards the possibility tht the first "developed" humans were created as alien genetic experiment. This theory has more facts to prove its right thn Christianity. But why do I think tht many people wouldn't like it?;)

"So having thought carefully about the issues for some 30+ years I feel I have little choice than to conclude that gods are just fantasies that exist only in the imaginations of people"

I respect your experience. I also do not beleive in gods, but I think tht we can evolve to be them and maybe some other civilizations outside our solar system allready have. I do beleive in supreme life force, like an other kind of energy not proven, but I can understand tht you may not like it. But hey, I do not send you preaching e-mails and ask you to donate.[well maybe a few hundred bucks for a new PC:)]

"A healthy skepticism should always accompany such things until some evidence can be found"

Hey, you are talking to a former atheist here! and I have not lost my share of skepticism and hope tht never will.

"And imagination is one of the greatest abilities of mankind"

I'll nail a little cat to the tree and dance around it for these words:D:D:D:D:D. Sorry teasing you, what I wanted to say tht I bow before these words. All those space adventures and ancient battles I have fought in. It's like a built in virtual reality device. I can't imagine my life without it.

No problem at all,
I enjoy discussions with you.
Bye, I'm going back to bed now.

Cris I do not believe that delusion is what God is about. You are correct in the regard that most churches teach you to "Believe" God in to existance...You must have "enough" faith, you must "blindly" accept with out question...
Well if God is real then all that is a bunch of rubbish. I do not have to believe anything that truely does exist in to existance. I clearly see where you get your assertion from, because I share it. It is ludicracy that one can only be aware of God if you can wish Him into existance by your own mental powers...that is in fact delusion at it's perfection.
When I say I can not make Him manifest to you, what I am saying is that you can not as a thinking rational human take my word for it...you will NOT believe it untill you see or experience it for yourself. I can give you hope or cause to give it the benefit of the doubt by my assurance that I have seen and believe...and hope that you will see in me enough credibility, conviction, or enlightenment to further investigate it for yourself.
I do not suggest you convince yourself of God or believe just because you are told He is real...I simply beckon for you to continue investigating the possibility and ask Him to make Himself manifest to you personaly so you will have seen for yourself and CAN believe.
He will make Himself known to you upon request...you do not have to believe Him into existance.
You did not have to believe you had pshychic abilitys or take a course in it to experience what you did with your daughter...neither do you have to believe in God or take a brainwashing seminar at a local church to experience Him. If He is in fact real then why would you need to.
If He is in fact real and you knew that beyond a shadow of a doubt, would it make a change in your life? Would you do things differently? Mabey you are not even sure...but if He is you would want to know for sure and you have a right to...so ask Him, what have you got to lose? Worst case senario He isn't, are you worse off for asking? What if He is and doesn't answer your demands? Still, you are no further from Him than you already were. But what if He is, and He does answer your demands for evidence...what if He does Cris? I don't see how you could lose in any event.

Avatar,

But beleiving in myself and my strenght ay help, don't you think. Beleiving doesn't allways mean RELIGIOUS beleiving. Yes exactly, but this depends on which variation of the word ‘belief’ you mean. A rational belief is one based on evidence, and an irrational belief is where evidence is lacking. Religious faith/belief comes into the later category.

Now when you say you believe in yourself it is because you have some evidence of your capabilities. That is a rational belief. Now if you choose to jump off a high cliff because you believe you can survive such a fall, then you would be lacking evidence that you could survive. Such a belief would be irrational.

I also do not beleive in gods, but I think tht we can evolve to be them and maybe some other civilizations outside our solar system allready have. I do beleive in supreme life force, like an other kind of energy not proven, but I can understand tht you may not like it. LOL, you’d be surprised. I have proposed several times on these boards how intelligent life might eventually evolve into godlike beings, see “the reason for everything” currently in the general philosophy forum, which is a recent thought. And I think I have discussed with Taken recently issues about a universal energy based on the Grand Unified Theory.

Hope you sleep well. Take care.
Cris

Taken,

Thanks for responding. I hoped you would. I'll get back to you on this very shortly. It is pleasant to receive a non-confrontational response.

Cris

*Originally posted by Cris
I’ve been playing with adopting a stronger position these past few months, especially after reading some of the tony1 posts and posts from other Christians. *

Great.
No more fence-sitting.
You take your stand in the universe against God.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God....
(Psalms 14:1, KJV).

*Originally posted by John Como
I'm currently writing a column on Atheism which I hope the local paper will include in its new "Faith page".*

Typical atheist humor.
Atheists are truely funny and in the most ironic ways.

Faith? Faith in what?
Faith in...er...well....nothing.
Atheism definitely belongs on the Faith Page, as a "what not to do" piece.
Perfect.

*Originally posted by tiassa
It should be noted, though, that if the "official" theology of a religion runs more than two words long--God is--then I can pretty much guarantee you that the deity involved is a delusion.*

Now you're getting somewhere.

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
(Exodus 3:14, KJV).

*I can't speak for the born-again crowd*

You wouldn't be able to see them, anyway.

Marvel not that I said unto you, You must be born again.
The wind blows where it will, and you hear the sound thereof, but can not tell whence it comes, and whither it goes: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
(John 3:7,8, KJV).

*Originally posted by John Como
Tony1 implies that belief in the scientific method may be self-delusion. Nonsense.*

That settles it for sure.
I can't understand where you've been.
We could have closed down the Religion Forum if you'd only showed up sooner.

Besides, I'm not implying that belief in the scientific method may be self-delusion, I'm saying it is.
It is trivially obvious that the scientific method is pure hogwash simply because its proponents haven't even applied the scientific method to itself.
If they had, they would immediately have detected the absence of comparative results obtained by other methods to verify the validity of the scientific method.

*Originally posted by tiassa
I, personally would hope that someone could offer the physical device of healing, as the example goes, so that we can then explore how one person by faith or whatnot, can create this effect in another. Unfortunately, most of our religious posters aren't up for that.*

Most people would rather be healed than figure out what the process is.
You go ahead and explore, I'll go ahead and be healed.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Yes. *

Is belief in Xelios just self-delusion? Yes.

If Descartes says, "I think, therefore I am," then the corollary is that Xelios does not exist.
So far, you've been recycling your teachers' spit spray, without an original thought in there.

*Originally posted by Avatar
But I NEVER say that smth is impossible only because I don't beleive it to be possible.*

Can you peel off the lining from your large intestine and wrap it around your head?

*We are the most open minded people*

Yes, you are, as the wind just whistles thru your ears.

*Originally posted by Cris
I guess we could call them the “revealed” religions.*

That's probably the best way to refer to it.
Presumably, there would be some distinction between those to whom it is revealed and those to whom it is not, even within the ranks of a particular religion.

*Originally posted by Avatar
God ceated Adam and Eve to be first humans. ridiculous. I tend more towards the possibility tht the first "developed" humans were created as alien genetic experiment.*

And I thought only atheists were comedians.
So, just out of curiosity, not to poke too much fun at such trash, but where did the aliens come from?

*All those space adventures and ancient battles I have fought in. It's like a built in virtual reality device.*

You really like that Gameboy, don't you?

*Originally posted by Cris
It is pleasant to receive a non-confrontational response.*

Have I been taking the wrong approach?

Without an external independent objective mechanism to show that science is valid you will have no way to know that your belief is not self-delusion.

Well d o really want the entire list? Suffice to say objects like the telescope and space shuttles have revealed a universe following scientific law. At the same instance we have seen evidence that would counter any theory of a deity. Your case is non-existant. Our body of evidence being large we can only see one possible conclusion. Any other theory can be granted no weight.

Have you ever produced a device to measure the presence of god? I shall grant your position validity when you do.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiassa
On the one hand, ask Porfiry. To the other, as I recall, it was that a website full of Ufo photos wasn't doing it for him. So he starts up this site, complete with considerations on science, philosophy, and speculation. An atheist forum is useless; atheists only bring out their sentiments in response to religion; they would not clamber toward a board to affirm themselves to each other the way Christians do.

Are you kidding me. ‘God does not exist,’ is all atheists have to offer.
Don’t you get bored of that?
I know I did.
As for clambering, well, just look at the majority of posts and you will undoubtedly find, yes you’ve got it….God does not exist.
You people are obsessed with God.
You need religious people to give your life meaning.

After asserting that he attended medical school, he proceeded to explain the physical device of faith healing as, "It just happens'.

Whats wrong with that answer?
If it just happened, and he had no idea of how it happened, then his experience has to be ‘it just happened’
If you want to know the science of how, 'it just happened,' as some people would, then you have to study the vedic scripture.

This is about what we can expect of a religion board.

That just shows how ignorant you are.
Because it falls outside of your experience and understanding, it therefore doesn’t exist.
‘I believe’ that to you God does not exist, but fortunately I don’t share your conclusion.

If it's a religion board at a science site ... well, I, personally would hope that someone could offer the physical device of healing…

Study vedic literature, it is all there.


….as the example goes, so that we can then explore how one person by faith or whatnot, can create this effect in another. Unfortunately, most of our religious posters aren't up for that.I can go down a list and say which God's I'm pretty damn sure don't exist. The idea of God is open, though. I just don't understand why religions like Christianity are so intent on limiting God to a shoebox.

Christianity is based on faith alone. Who did Jesus inspire, it wasn’t the recognised scientists or philosophers of the day, it was to simple people, peasants, the inflicted the poor and so on. He preached in a different age and even though the essence of his preaching is perfect with regard to developing God consciousness, the method cannot be effectively used in this day and age.
So christians are not generally interested in the philosophical aspect of God, that is probably why you like picking on them, because philosophically they are not well endowed (so to speak)

And it should be noted that whether it's at this board or out in the walking, waking world, we the infidels do, in fact, have to put up with brainwashed fundies on a regular basis.

My heart bleeds.

In fact, if we didn't have to deal with the brainwashed fundies, we wouldn't care what people believe. After all, I'm just sick and tired of having Christianity aiming to subvert Liberty.

I know. You turn on the TV anytime of the day or night, and there they are,

You go in a department store, and all they have is christian and muslim gear,
And what’s wrong with hollywood these days eh! They just seem to be knocking out religious this religious that’

The music charts, the porno films etc……..

Them bloody religionists.

Christianity is a failed idea, and there's no reason to drag everyone else down with it.

Do you follow the teachings of Jesus?
No?
Then how would you know it is a failed idea?

….but it seems more rewarding to attempt to communicate on various levels with Christians and determine that they are, in fact, that big of morons.

Outside of ‘God does not exist’ what levels are you referring to.

I'm aware of the BG, but I'm not about to thump it around like Falwell with a Bible.

I don’t blame you.
Neither am I.

In the larger context of productivity, Jan, I would recommend that if you're not satisfied with progress that you stick to the topics you address and stop inserting irrelevant issues unless you can make them relevant. Such as teh "atheist board" digression. Seems to me you're just trying to draw attention away from the subject by turning to such inquiries in lieu of actually discussing the topic.

That’s just the problem.
There is no topic. Well if you call ‘God does not exist’ a topic……

Love

Jan Ardena.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Teg
Well d o really want the entire list? Suffice to say objects like the telescope and space shuttles have revealed a universe following scientific law. At the same instance we have seen evidence that would counter any theory of a deity. Your case is non-existant. Our body of evidence being large we can only see one possible conclusion. Any other theory can be granted no weight.

You have?

Then don't just sit there typing nonsense, type this evidense, that we can all see.

Love

Jan Ardena.

It's unfortunate that the futile debate between science and religion inevitably sinks into name-calling and personal insults, whereas what's needed is open-minded discussion. acceptance and yes, maybe a pinch of humour. I think the problem stems from the fact that religious superstition and blind faith are generally indefensible in the light of human reason and scientific inquiry, an opinion for which (similar to a sunbaked philosopher with my initials) I have been crucified. Many times.

John C.

Are you kidding me. ‘God does not exist,’ is all atheists have to offer.
Don’t you get bored of that?
I know I did. If I warn you to be careful on the dock, that you might fall in and drown, wouldn't you find it strange if you look around and there's no water to fall into? If I tell you to be careful to not burn yourself, and you look around and there's no critical heat source, won't you wonder what I'm talking about?

The idea of God is artificial; it cannot be quantified in any rational sense. Without the assertion that God exists, there is no issue. The natural state is to be without assumptions of God. As for clambering, well, just look at the majority of posts and you will undoubtedly find, yes you’ve got it….God does not exist.
You people are obsessed with God.
You need religious people to give your life meaning. And cops need rapists, thieves, and stupid people to give their lives meaning. You see, if I don't "obsess" myself with disproving vegetarianism, it's because it doesn't bear much of a stake in my life. If I don't "obsess" myself with attending EBE/Ufo conferences, it's because it doesn't bear much of a stake in my life. God and religion, however, do bear a stake in my life. Every time I stop paying attention my life is severely affected by religion and the people's notions of God. At the present moment, for instance:

* My nation is presently involved in a military conflict that starts with someone's interpretation of God. There are thousands dead in NYC because of someone's religion and idea of God.
* In one corner of my nation, people are demonstrating for the end of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and doing so because of their ideas of God. Since most of my friends aspire to various artistic pursuits, this is a very relevant thing. Given that what we post here is covered by that Amendment, I'd think it would mean something to you, too.
* In Oregon, where my mother lives, there is a religious cadre that wishes to insert its God into the state constitution.

Would you like me to go on? Besides, if you've paid attention, I happen to stand with the theists; it's just that none of y'all have understood the point of why we invented gods in the first place so y'all aren't noticing how ridiculous you sound and how ridiculous you make the idea of God. In my corner of the living experience, believing in gods is the preferred method of weakening the species.Whats wrong with that answer?
If it just happened, and he had no idea of how it happened, then his experience has to be ‘it just happened’
If you want to know the science of how, 'it just happened,' as some people would, then you have to study the vedic scripture.I love how every religion tells me, "If you want to know the science of ... read our holy book." :rolleyes:

In the meantime, let's look at it as God doing the healing: does God rewrite reality? Does God accelerate the healing process? What is the physical manifestation of God's work in the healing?

What's wrong with "it just happened" is that it's an answer given to avoid ever having to look at the problematic nature of religious boasts. Study vedic literature, it is all there.If you'd be so kind as to offer us a sample?My heart bleeds.Yes, we know how much you care. :rolleyes: I know. You turn on the TV anytime of the day or night, and there they are,

You go in a department store, and all they have is christian and muslim gear,
And what’s wrong with hollywood these days eh! They just seem to be knocking out religious this religious that’

The music charts, the porno films etc……..

Them bloody religionists.Ah ... yes. And if we look past your sarcastic diversion, we might realize that the God people seem to have a severe problem with all of that. As it goes in this country: My rights are violated by you having any. Seriously, since we hear the argument all the time. You mentioned clothes, movies, music ... sure: My rights as a religious person are violated until the things that offend my religion cannot exist.

You know, like we hear from the brainwashed fundies? My First Amendment rights are violated until you're made to shut up. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that from religious people. Their rights are violated if other people speak? It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but since you mentioned diversity, well? Them bloody religionists, indeed. They need to stop hating and corrupting the very liberty that allows them to think the way they do. Without the laws and constitutional principles them bloody religionists attempt to subvert, well? It sounds like Maryland all over again.Do you follow the teachings of Jesus?
No?
Then how would you know it is a failed idea?You're right. You're so right. After all, the visible and tangible result, the experiential result, of Christianity was intended to be this harmful to humanity. After centuries of warfare, Christianity has settled comfortably into the pattern of opposing the liberty that helped pacify the West to the degree it has been. Don't take us back to the fundamentalist state. Take Islam, and its visible problems with fundamentalism. Do you realize that Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity? Look at what Christianity did 600 years ago. Outside of ‘God does not exist’ what levels are you referring to. What levels do you thing I'm referring to? Communicative levels. And yes, I do want an anser to that: What levels did you think I was referring to? Specifically, by voice or image, or written word in paper or electronica; in demonstration and music, I fail to understand why Christians refuse to communicate. On the one hand, I could stay inside my shell and assume Christians to be morons; it is, indeed, more satisfying to attempt to communicate with such strange creatures and let them prove whether or not they are morons. In fact, I generally try to be more positive in my generalizations. But, like economic systems centered around greed, I don't know what more than a 100% consistent data set I need to start predicting what happens with such religions. The number of times I actually hand a Christian the benefit of my trust is kind of ludicrous; such trust of a Christian has zero per cent statistical support in my data set. I am, in fact, betting on a zero per cent history if I wait for a Christian to prove themselves moronic. Now, understand this as well, please: everyone is moronic in their own way. Everyone is moronic in a human way. But what is offensive about this consistently moronic Christianity I keep running into is that it actually calculates to lower my standard of living by destroying the freedoms that allow that standard of living. It is a dangerous stupidity, this Christianity. You'll notice that Vedic texts, in practice, inspire some odd living as well, but these oddities are unique in their own right. They haven't proven themselves as dangerous yet. But we have to give every person the benefit of the doubt; other religions--even Abramic religions--don't prove themselves moronic with such consistency. To my experience, as relates levels, on any level I've ever attempted to communicate with Christians, the only one that works is if I stop trying to communicate. I should just apply their own standard to them and assume the worst in them. That would be fair, eh? That’s just the problem.
There is no topic. Well if you call ‘God does not exist’ a topic…… Then go devote your attentions to a topic more worthy of you.

--Tiassa :cool:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Como
It's unfortunate that the futile debate between science and religion inevitably sinks into name-calling and personal insults, whereas what's needed is open-minded discussion. acceptance and yes, maybe a pinch of humour. I think the problem stems from the fact that religious superstition and blind faith are generally indefensible in the light of human reason and scientific inquiry, an opinion for which (similar to a sunbaked philosopher with my initials) I have been crucified. Many times.

How’s this.

Originally posted by Teg
Well d o really want the entire list? Suffice to say objects like the telescope and space shuttles have revealed a universe following scientific law. At the same instance we have seen evidence that would counter any theory of a deity. Your case is non-existant. Our body of evidence being large we can only see one possible conclusion. Any other theory can be granted no weight.

You have?

Please could you type this evidense, that we can all see.

Love

Jan Ardena

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiassa
The idea of God is artificial;

To you, but not me.

Without the assertion that God exists, there is no issue.

If so many people believe that He exists, then you should try and find out why. If you don’t, then you have no case, you have no idea what you are repressing.

The natural state is to be without assumptions of God.

None-sense. It is only in this age of ‘kali yuga,’ that the assumptions of Godlessness are aparant. And that is for the reason of anihilation of material nature.

And cops need rapists, thieves, and stupid people to give their lives meaning.

That is a foolish statement. I think you’re beginning to crack up.

God and religion, however, do bear a stake in my life.

LOL, Don’t be shy son, just step up to the alter and beg Gods mercy.

My nation is presently involved in a military conflict that starts with someone's interpretation of God.

How do you make that out?
I thought ‘bin Laden’ hated America for supporting Israel and the fact that he wants her out of Saudi Arabia, and to stop the killing in Iraq. Well if his video evidence is anything to go by anyway.

There are thousands dead in NYC because of someone's religion and idea of God.

Here goes!
Anybody who is religious are terrorists.
Here comes the mark of the beast show.

In one corner of my nation, people are demonstrating for the end of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and doing so because of their ideas of God. Since most of my friends aspire to various artistic pursuits, this is a very relevant thing. Given that what we post here is covered by that Amendment, I'd think it would mean something to you, too.

As I do not reside in the US, I am not fully aware of the amendments, if you post the first amendmant, I will look at it and then foreward a reply.

Besides, if you've paid attention, I happen to stand with the theists;

Yeah right!!!

y'all aren't noticing how ridiculous you sound and how ridiculous you make the idea of God.

Out of an explosion, comes life?
Your telling me that doesn’t sound ridiculous.


In my corner of the living experience, believing in gods is the preferred method of weakening the species.I love how every religion tells me, "If you want to know the science of ... read our holy book." :rolleyes:

Well, how have you learned anything in this life. Have you never basically understood something from reading a book. That is what books are for, my friend.

The reason why I refer you to BG is because you and your atheist chums, have no concept or idea of God, so at least learn something of what you wish to destroy.

In the meantime, let's look at it as God doing the healing: does God rewrite reality? Does God accelerate the healing process? What is the physical manifestation of God's work in the healing?

Of course God heals. But miracles, like healing, weightlessness, disapearing and reapearing somewhere else, and other types, are not nescasserily divine, they can be manipulations of nature as well. One who has undergone certain practices can become qualified and can manipulate nature.

What's wrong with "it just happened" is that it's an answer given to avoid ever having to look at the problematic nature of religious boasts.

Not everybody is as brainy as you my dear tiassa.

If you'd be so kind as to offer us a sample?

Read BG.

My rights are violated by you having any.

I take it your not being serious, yeah?
Phew!
I’m glad to see you would not sink so low.

My rights as a religious person are violated until the things that offend my religion cannot exist.

Don’t get ya.

They need to stop hating and corrupting the very liberty that allows them to think the way they do.

This is just hate talk right?
I’m not really into hate and corruption and to tell you the truth I don’t know any bona-fide religions that are. The people who do these things, are a religion unto themselves, they do not follow scriptures or take any notice of spiritual masters, actually they are atheistic. If you are told that you shouldn’t sleep with your brothers wife, and you do, then you are not acting in accordance with the law, you become an outlaw, and are therefore not religious. It doesn’t matter whether you believe in God or not, or whether you perform it in the name of God, you are irreligous, atheistic and demoniac.

After centuries of warfare, Christianity has settled comfortably into the pattern of opposing the liberty that helped pacify the West to the degree it has been.

If you want to know what real Christianity is, then start of by surrendering to Jesus Christ. Otherwise you are talking non-sense.

On the one hand, I could stay inside my shell and assume Christians to be morons; it is, indeed, more satisfying to attempt to communicate with such strange creatures and let them prove whether or not they are morons.

You, my dear sir, are most kind.

The number of times I actually hand a Christian the benefit of my trust is kind of ludicrous; such trust of a Christian has zero per cent statistical support in my data set.

I have no real interest of people who do nastiness in the name of God, that is another topic, I am interested in God. Do not recognise people by what they call themselves, but how they act.

But what is offensive about this consistently moronic Christianity I keep running into is that it actually calculates to lower my standard of living by destroying the freedoms that allow that standard of living.

If it is moronic then it is not God conscious. You need to understand more about God. I’m genuinely sorry to keep bringing that up, but it is alarmingly clear that you have no understanding whatsoever.
I can call myself anything I like, but I am only what I am (actions), nothing more. There is a lot of nastiness in this world. Lets take peodofiles, they get into all kinds of positions where children are involved, on the surface they seem OK, some of them are highly qualified people, so we get taken in. This gives them the opportunity to take advantage of the innocent. It is the same in any walk of life, people will use whatever they can to take advantage, religion is no different. That is why, in this day and age, you have to go directly to the source of religion, God, and that is why He recited the BG, because of this time period. Religion isn’t about christian, moslem or jew anymore, they are being used for something else. That is not to say, that a person who accepts these religions in truth are wasteing their time, it means that unless they can live the life as prescribed in the scripture, properly, they are in a dangerous position.

It is a dangerous stupidity, this Christianity.

The same can be said of any system, if not utilised correctly.

You'll notice that Vedic texts, in practice, inspire some odd living as well, but these oddities are unique in their own right. They haven't proven themselves as dangerous yet.

There is no difference. ‘Vedas’ means knowledge, all knowledge is born out of Vedas.

Love

Jan Ardena.

To you, but not me. Then perhaps you could do us a favor and clear up a difficult issue: If you would, please, describe to us the knowledge you had of God at the moment of your birth. Really: you are not born knowing inherently of God; you are not born knowing the Bible, Koran, or Bhagavad-Gita. I'm not sure the artifice of the god-concept is a matter of opinion in its present facet. I flatly declare that someone had to teach you about God. Religious faith is an acquired behavior; knowledge of the object of faith is an acquired knowledge.It is only in this age of ‘kali yuga,’ that the assumptions of Godlessness are aparantAssumption of godlessness? What assumption of godlessness? The "assumption" of godlessness is not necessarily an assumption. It is a lack of evidence suggesting there is an issue. One cannot declare nonexistant something which they have never heard of. That is, one might say something about an idea, "I've never heard that before," but we can note that what he has not heard is what has been related to him. That is, he has heard it, but not prior to the immediate conversation. For instance, if I tell you about a new idea of government called Hag'fr'nalt, you might say in response that you've never heard of it before. But I'm pretty sure that last Tuesday, you did not get up and randomly declare your opinion on Hag'fr'nalt. That is, having never been asserted to you, you have no ideas related to Hag'fr'nalt.

Tell me, Jan, how can one have any opinion of data they do not have? How can one have any perspective on a concept they are unaware of?

I am quite sure that I never had to accept or reject the idea of God until it was asserted to me that God existed. Consider a little piece of history that's real; as a side note, we can laugh at the assertion that religion is persecuted by the state. The relevant point, I hope, will be obvious.

* Did you know that as a condition of my parents being allowed to raise me there exists a piece of paper bearing government endorsement that required me to have a religious education? (Specifically, a Christian education.) On the one hand, let me point out to my biological progenitor, wherever she may be, that since you were fifteen and a hooker when you gave birth, it would seem that Christianity did you a whole lot of good! I always wonder about that: on the one hand the state accepted the contractual demand and endorsed the indoctrination of a child into a religion; to the other, why did she want me to follow the route that led her to where she was?

* Now, that education started immediately. I had at least twenty books and records before my fifth birthday, from my grandmother, which aimed to help children build a relationship with the father, son, and holy spirit. Think about that--by the time I was thirteen and furiously lashing back at foul-tongued, table-smashing, bible-throwing prechers, I had a lifetime's data set of Christians reminding me, for my own good, that I am a pathetic piece of shite. (By the time I got to Catholic school ... let's just say that while the Jesuits can teach well, there was nothing of the faith in that school that seemed foreign to me. Such selfishness and hostility were part and parcel of biblical faith.)

* Now ... I know damn well that my introduction to the god-concept came from outside. I have vague memories of being 3 and someone explaining to me how big God was. Bottom line is that I can guarantee the willful, external introduction of God. For you--perhaps you were born reciting Isaiah and Second Timothy; perhaps you were born knowing God, but I doubt it. As a matter of fact, few doubts of mine are so convincing as this.

So, what I need before I stop laughing at your self-centered response is an explanation of how you came to know of God. Of course, it would have been helpful if you included that with your rejection of the artifice of God, but I well understand how something so important as the reasons you believe what you believe might fail to occur to you.That is a foolish statement. I think you’re beginning to crack up. Without lawbreakers, what do cops have to do? Ah, harass and assault innocent people. There are some who think they do this already; they do, but is it really their purpose in life? So have you any evidence of my foolish crack-up? Or is it so just because you say?Here goes!
Anybody who is religious are terrorists.
Here comes the mark of the beast show. Did you mention that in the Inevitable Evil of Religious Belief topic? But it seems you get the point: religion is exceptionally relevant even to the atheists. If evangelical, redemptive religions hadn't f--ked up the lot for the rest of theism, religion might actually be useful on a larger scale than inflating egos.How do you make that out?
I thought ‘bin Laden’ hated America for supporting Israel and the fact that he wants her out of Saudi Arabia, and to stop the killing in Iraq. Well if his video evidence is anything to go by anyway.Whoops, I missed this one as I went through. I can't imagine why I missed it, though :rolleyes:

It's certainly, uh ... oh, whatever.As I do not reside in the US, I am not fully aware of the amendments, if you post the first amendmant, I will look at it and then foreward a reply.Okay, the first "Bill of Rights" link at Google: http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billrights.html

The First Amendment to the Constituton of the United States of America: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In and of itself, this statement is part of the Supreme Law of the Land in the United States. No "law" can contradict the Constitution. No public agency can contradict the Constitution in practice. Such as the OCA in Oregon, who attempted to put legislation before the people to force the state of Oregon to adopt a certain view of homosexuality that was in accord with fundamentalist-Christian views. One of the results of this was that any book which A) mentioned homosexuality, and B) did not outright condemn it as "evil" or "perverse" or "dangerous" would be removed from the public libraries. While the Oregon law did not pass the ballot, a similar law did in Colorado. The courts took it to pieces: it was largely at odds with the Constitution.

Imagine not being allowed to publish a book because someone says God doesn't like it. Maybe that happens where you are, but our government is obliged to protect all people within its borders against such encroachment. The problem is, though, that the Amendment covers a few vital things, and the Christian protesters generally aren't smart enough to figure out how they relate. Thus, when a Christian petitions for the removal of a book from libraries, or the prohibition of its sale, what they are saying is that their right to free religion is not granted until others forfeit their right to free speech. It really is quite stupid on their part.Yeah right!!!So it's obvious you weren't paying attention. What purpose do you have here, then, Jan? Are you just out for the thrill of being hostile? Are you out to make sure nobody ever discusses God? What's the point if you're not paying attention? Ask Cris or our other long-standing atheist posters about that very issue. The Tiassa an atheist?Well, how have you learned anything in this life. Have you never basically understood something from reading a book. That is what books are for, my friend.

The reason why I refer you to BG is because you and your atheist chums, have no concept or idea of God, so at least learn something of what you wish to destroy. A) Yes, but the way you're presenting it equals an admission that you are either too lazy to present your case or not prepared.

B) Ask Cris about his association to faith. When you go to make an unfounded statement, Jan, you'd better be right. You're an excellent example of how embarrasing it appears when you're wrong.

C) In other words, get a clue and then actually stand up for what you claim to believe. Don't admit you're lazy and expect everyone else to just agree with what you're unwilling to say.Out of an explosion, comes life?
Your telling me that doesn’t sound ridiculous. Well, you don't seem to be pushing biblical creationism ... I've noticed your inclusion of the Vedic take on creation. I figure I can either accept blindly any number of books which tell me what the authors think God says happened, or I can simply watch the guys working to find a demonstrable explanation and see where that leads. I'm quite confident in the Bang; I just wonder why everyone focuses on the political aspect of it. We do, in fact, need to answer the "before the bang" questions until we get down to that moment of cause. On the other hand, it's better than being comfortable in a fantasy that is designed so that it can never be demonstrated. What sounds ridiculous to me is choosing ignorance because a holy book makes you think you should.Of course God heals. But miracles, like healing, weightlessness, disapearing and reapearing somewhere else, and other types, are not nescasserily divine, they can be manipulations of nature as well. One who has undergone certain practices can become qualified and can manipulate nature. Quit dodging. Here, we'll try it again: What is the physical manifestation of God's work in the healing? I take it your not being serious, yeah?
Phew!
I’m glad to see you would not sink so low. I'll not snap back here, but point you back to the First Amendment. I think the point might make a little more sense to you then.Don’t get ya. Again, I point back to the First Amendment. Suffice it to say that both of these phrases you've wondered about refer to the attitudes of American Christians who believe they are not free to be Christians until people can't be anything else. This wild-sounding assertion is evident through observation. Have you ever heard a Christian lament that Christianity is persecuted in the schools? This comes from several points: the state cannot force children to pray Christian prayers; the state cannot provide favor to one religion over another; the state will not (and cannot) make a religiously-derived assertion that cannot be tested into a science; the state cannot ban a book for the mere crime of contradicting Christian assertions. You know, they can't do those things on behalf of Wiccans, either, but you don't hear the witches complaining. Think about it: write a book about how the Bhagavad-Gita has affected you. Now imagine that you are not allowed to publish it because a Christian is angry because it seems to contradict his own faith. What? You're not allowed to publish or sell your book? Why? Because to the Christian, people are only equal when Christians are superior. Listen to any Christian protesting art; what it will come down to, in the end, when you strip away the accreted subjectivities of human egos, is that allowing a non-Christian to have equal rights in society is an intentional and calculated violation of equality. Seriously: Christians often in these censoring moments offer the justification that they are entitled by their rights to live without dissent, contradiction, or opposition. Give our First Amendment some thought and try running a few illustrations of how you think it works through your head; I suspect you'll figure it out.Not everybody is as brainy as you my dear tiassa.In other words, nobody wants to even try to explain the processes of divine healing. Oh, well, it was worth asking.Read BG.Are you lazy or is it just that those parts don't exist?This is just hate talk right?
I’m not really into hate and corruption and to tell you the truth I don’t know any bona-fide religions that are. The people who do these things, are a religion unto themselves, they do not follow scriptures or take any notice of spiritual masters, actually they are atheistic. If you are told that you shouldn’t sleep with your brothers wife, and you do, then you are not acting in accordance with the law, you become an outlaw, and are therefore not religious. It doesn’t matter whether you believe in God or not, or whether you perform it in the name of God, you are irreligous, atheistic and demoniac.Like I noted, the First Amendment. And, you'll note, unlike you I provided the text and even some commentary on the idea.

As to the religion unto itself: Disqualifying people from a religion is well and fine, but these disqualifications are apparently the best the religion can do? Sounds like it needs to fade away with quiet dignity.If you want to know what real Christianity is, then start of by surrendering to Jesus Christ. Otherwise you are talking non-sense.Ah, yes ... the idiocy of the Christian appeal. Think of it this way? How do I know which version of God is right? By your recommendation, I have to be every religion in the world. Good luck to the Christians on that one; how long will Tony1 spend genuinely, faithfully worshipping Allah? How about the Triune Goddess? Shiva? How long will you spend genuinely worshipping the Hopi Spider Woman?

Jan ... why did Christ want the people to preach if that preaching speaks nothing of real faith? Why do they still bother?You, my dear sir, are most kindHardly; it's the same I offer all people. Whether you're bright or not, kind or not, and so forth, I can only judge by your expressions, actions, and manifestations. I suppose I could use my imagination: Hey, Jan, great work on the microbiology; you really deserved that Nobel Prize!I have no real interest of people who do nastiness in the name of God, that is another topic, I am interested in God. Do not recognise people by what they call themselves, but how they act. You mean like when they assert that they are only free if others are not? Like that bit about hate and corruption? No, they don't wake up thinking they need to destroy America, but the effect of what they ask is that we the people make them free by forfeiting the same rights ourselves. And I do have a real interest in people who do nastiness in the name of God: they hurt people. Sometimes it's me, sometimes it's my neighbors. They must be prevented from causing harm. They must be prevented from destroying the very things that let them be what they are.If it is moronic then it is not God conscious. You need to understand more about God. I’m genuinely sorry to keep bringing that up, but it is alarmingly clear that you have no understanding whatsoever.Yes, I understand that you're genuinely sorry. But Jan ... tell me what any religious faith gets people if its living and tangible result is bad? What? Should I tie you up to a stake and set you on fire and have faith that I'm doing what's right? It's happened in history, Jan, that people have done that to each other. Get as close to God as you want, and leave the people to carve each other up. You're looking out for yourself, right? And that's all that's really necessary, right? Keep looking to God for your comfort; keep ignoring what God creates in the world. What, the people "don't understand their faith"? Well, that's God's fault, and there's no two ways. The creator of the data, the creator of the source, the creator of the client, the creator of the means of transmission. Something breaks down along the way: it's God's problem if he can't state himself clearly. Regardless of what you think of God, faith in God brings human damage.

And when you stop to think that such damage comes from a delusion, one realizes that the best hope for humanity is to get rid of the damaging delusions.The same can be said of any system, if not utilised correctly. You're absolutely correct. However, something you may not be considering is the value of religion to the believers. Where people's morals might compel them to specific conduct under specific circumstances, religion is the basis of those morals. Take a simple comparison:

* Do people change their religions in response to elections, or do people vote in response to their religion?

And before we even waste time with considerations of those who use their religion as a means to justify their own greeds, we should consider that such an assertion is already on the table against religion, and also the idea of what the religion is worth if faith in it compels people to betray it.

If we limit "any system" to "any religious system", then we get to consider how broadly to define the system. It's not that I refuse Christians the idea of being individuals, or that they shouldn't be identified with others of their faith, except that they ask me to by proxy of declaring themselves unified as a body in the Spirit of Christ. If what we see is what faith in that Spirit achieves, well?
There is no difference. ‘Vedas’ means knowledge, all knowledge is born out of Vedas. So the faith points that make Vedic practice stand out as distinct from Christianity, Sufism, &c., really are the same exact points? The behavioral manifestations are the same? The effects and motivations of caste society are the same as the effects and motivations in the west? What point, then, does differentiation have?

I'm unsure what the point of the fact that vedas means knowledge is. It speaks nothing of its adherents.

So aside from admitting the internalized nature of your god-concept ("To you, but not me"), admitting that you don't understand atheists ("...have no concept or idea of God ..."), and admitted that your characterizations of people have no foundation ("Yeah right!!!"), what have you to say about the fact that you're merely reinforcing the notion that belief in god is a delusion?

--Tiassa :cool:

*Originally posted by Teg
Well d o really want the entire list? Suffice to say objects like the telescope and space shuttles have revealed a universe following scientific law.*

I wouldn't want the entire list of how science proves itself valid.
I wouldn't where the beginning is in a circle like that.

Using science to prove itself valid is like you saying you are smart, and the proof is that you said it.
Riiiiight.

*At the same instance we have seen evidence that would counter any theory of a deity.*

Purest fiction.

*Our body of evidence being large we can only see one possible conclusion.*

You're right.
We can see only one possible conclusion, too.
People who believe in science are easily duped and not very smart.

*I shall grant your position validity when you do.*

LOL
I'll grant your position validity when you can tell me what other method you use to verify that the scientific method gives you correct results.

*Originally posted by Jan Ardena
If you want to know the science of how, 'it just happened,' as some people would, then you have to study the vedic scripture.*

By studying the vedas one would know what all the wrong answers are thereby arriving at the truth by the process of elimination.

Great plan, JA!
Just very wasteful of time.

*Study vedic literature, it is all there.*

All of the wrong answers are there.

*Neither am I.*

Then are you hoping that people will recognize the signals you send out by thumping on your head?

*Originally posted by John Como
It's unfortunate that the futile debate between science and religion inevitably sinks into name-calling and personal insults, whereas what's needed is open-minded discussion. acceptance and yes, maybe a pinch of humour.*

It's more fun that way.

Open-minded discussion usually ends up with Christians listening to the wind whistling thru the open minds of the others.
It's no fun, unless you can get into the headspace of seeing if you can detect BFO in the various whistles.

*I think the problem stems from the fact that religious superstition and blind faith are generally indefensible in the light of human reason and scientific inquiry*

They are, but scientists persist in holding on to them long after they have become hopelessly confused.

For example, the theory of evolution is the height of superstition and blind faith in the face of solid evidence, but for some unfathomable reason, scientists, atheists, and other "rational" types persist in "believing" such pure crap.

*Originally posted by tiassa
What's wrong with "it just happened" is that it's an answer given to avoid ever having to look at the problematic nature of religious boasts.*

It's only a problem for you.
For the healed, it's no problem.
What's missing is the motivation to convince you of something which you say you don't, and don't want to, believe in.

*I flatly declare that someone had to teach you about God.*

A rare point of agreement.
Usually, that someone is God.

*That is, having never been asserted to you, you have no ideas related to Hag'fr'nalt.*

I could simply do the "atheist" thing, and say it is mindless superstition, though, without checking it out at all.

*On the one hand, let me point out to my biological progenitor, wherever she may be, that since you were fifteen and a hooker when you gave birth, it would seem that Christianity did you a whole lot of good!*

She probably wasn't Christian.
However, it is easy to see what's happening here.

You are being visited by the Lord for your parent's sins.
Partly, you have some issues with abandonment and rejection.
The toughest thing you can do, but what you should do, is forgive your parents.
Why continue the way you are, when you could dump all that pain?
Forgiving your parents isn't an indication that you wish to pretend that everything is all right.
It is an indication to God that you wish to quit hurting, and you recognize that you, given your parents' circumstances, may well have done much worse.

*What is the physical manifestation of God's work in the healing?*

Among other things, speed, absence of scarring, etc.

"You are being visited by the Lord for your parent's sins.
Partly, you have some issues with abandonment and rejection.
The toughest thing you can do, but what you should do, is forgive your parents.
Why continue the way you are, when you could dump all that pain?
Forgiving your parents isn't an indication that you wish to pretend that everything is all right.
It is an indication to God that you wish to quit hurting, and you recognize that you, given your parents' circumstances, may well have done much worse. '


I must in part agree with Tony here. Your anger and feelings of betrayal do not in any way punish or bring retribution to who hurt you nor do they vindicate you. The only person they punish are you, who has already suffered with out cause enough to begin with. From personal experience the greatest thing you will EVER do for yourself in that situatrion is to let go of it and forgive, not so much for their deservance but for your own. You do not deserve it and it is not Gods desire for you to carry that burden, let go and leave retribution to Him.

tiassa,

First, if you don't mind, I would like to thank God* that your mother did the right thing for this world by allowing you to live. Despite our disagreements about faith, I truly believe that the world is a better place with you in it.

Second, I'm not sure how much you know about the circumstances which lead your mother to find herself pregnant at such a young age. Your question "... why did she want me to follow the route that led her to where she was?" tends to imply that Christianity was the circumstance which lead your mother to find herself pregnant at such a young age.

Do you know that is the case, or... Is it possible that your mother wanted you to be raised as a Christian because she realized that if she or someone else had not strayed from leading a Christ-like life that she might not have found herself pregnant at such a young age and she wanted to prevent you from finding yourself in similar circumstances?

Even though she was not able to care for you herself, and even though you might not agree with her decision about having you raised as Christian, it seems by evidence of her intention that she truly loved you.

Many Christians - such as Tony1 - quote the Bible, a misinterpreted and contradictory book, and yet claim to know something about original thought. Ho, ho, ho. He derides the scientific approach, arguing that results from other methods are ignored. Is that a fact? And he misunderstands my intent to include an atheist column on the Faith page. Every human being has faith in many things, and atheists are no exception. Although I don't believe in god(s) or unicorns, I do believe in reason and logic, evolutionary theory, gravity, and a whole bunch of other stuff. And I believe a religious-crapola page is the perfect location for such a column.

John Como
Lord of the manor

I'll grant your position validity when you can tell me what other method you use to verify that the scientific method gives you correct results.

My eyes and ears.

Using science to prove itself valid is like you saying you are smart, and the proof is that you said it.

No Tony1, that would be your logic. That is the proof you ussually bring to the table.

People who believe in science are easily duped and not very smart.

Case in point. Where is your evidence? I can easily say the same thing about christians/religious people and guess what, with Jehovah's witnesses as a starting I would have a good case. (Talk about being duped. They were told to give their money and wait for the big event on the mountain side. Nothing happened and so they continued the religion anway.) Thousands of such instances abound.

"(Talk about being duped. They were told to give their money and wait for the big event on the mountain side. Nothing happened and so they continued the religion anway.) Thousands of such instances abound."

Here's your 1001:) , quite funny.
In Japan[i think] there was this sect. The leader had persuaded all members to give all their property him and he will dispose of the wreched wealthyness, which may ruin entering the heavens. the year was 1999. It was told for all members to stay in their empty houses[armageddon was beying awaited somewhere in mid-summer] and stey there for a week in solitude and prayers and then they shall be let in paradise or somewhere else.
While those idiots were sitting in their houses tht goy gathered all money he had got from them and travelled smwhere far. When those stupid morans realised they were duped, thoy gathered, found tht guy[i duno how] and killed him, by nailing him to the gates of his new house.

I dono who will christians try to kill, when they realise they have been duped:)

*Originally posted by blonde_cupid
I truly believe that the world is a better place with you in it.*

You'd have nothing to go on.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
(Genesis 2:18, KJV).

The place is much worse because of tiassa.
The reason we're talking to him is so that he will realize that, and repent so that it will become a better place.

*it seems by evidence of her intention that she truly loved you. *

It could be that she completely hated the idea of being pregnant with tiassa.
May as well face the facts.

On the other hand, God is right there ready to be a father to fatherless and motherless tiassa.

A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation.
God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains: but the rebellious dwell in a dry land.
(Psalms 68:5,6, KJV).

Don't fight back so much, tiassa, you end up living in a wasteland when you do.

*Originally posted by John Como
Many Christians - such as Tony1 - quote the Bible, a misinterpreted and contradictory book, and yet claim to know something about original thought. Ho, ho, ho.*

Your argumentum ad hohohum approach is interesting, yet curiously without merit.

*He derides the scientific approach, arguing that results from other methods are ignored. Is that a fact?*

Argumentum ad question mark?
Well, rather than wearing out your question mark key, how about giving us what an atheist thinks of as methods other than the scientific method?

* I do believe in reason and logic, evolutionary theory, gravity, and a whole bunch of other stuff. And I believe a religious-crapola page is the perfect location for such a column.*

Sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about a crapola page.
In that case, I agree with putting your thoughts on such a page.

You haven't actually addressed the issue of what other results you have compared the conclusions of science with.
You know, to establish whether they are valid or not.
I think you know that science has come up with a lot of stuff.
Wouldn't it be nice to know if any of it were true?

*Originally posted by Teg
My eyes and ears.*

Teg, Teg, Teg, you're missing the point by so much that I think you've slipped into an alternate universe.

Your eyes and ears are what you used to arrive at your present conclusions.
What OTHER results do you have to verify the accuracy of your "eyes and ears?"

*No Tony1, that would be your logic.*

I use that logic to discuss things with atheists, i.e. it is borrowed, and from you.
What other method did you use to prove that the scientific method is a valid method?
So far, all you've done is assumed that it was valid.

*Case in point. Where is your evidence?*

You believe in evolution, with no evidence.
Furthermore, the "scientific method" you used to arrive at the ToE is itself unproven as a valid method for arriving at conclusions.

Archaeology has discovered thousands of things which prove the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Astronomy agrees with Genesis that the world had a beginning.

Geology supports the order of creation presented in Genesis 1, following its approach that the universe came first, the world was formed next, that life began in the sea, with the lower forms of life appearing first, and that man is the highest and latest form of life to appear.

Physics [ the second Law of Thermodynamics] shows the world is running out of available energy. Hence the world cannot be eternal but must have a beginning.

Mathematics [the Law of Probability] shows that the world did not happen by chance but was designed by an intelligent power.

Biology teaches that each creature reproduces its own kind.

Anthropology shows that there is only one race of mankind [ Acts 17:26] with different ethnic groupings within it. This indicates a common ancestor for all men.

Fairy tales: I don't think so.

Archaeology has discovered thousands of things which prove the historical accuracy of the Bible.
be more specific

Astronomy agrees with Genesis that the world had a beginning.
I do not think tht astronomy agrees that the world was created in seven days. And astronomy doesn't agree tht anything was created. It formed. The earht formed from clouds of gasses and matter. The universe formed after big bang, not was created by smone.

Geology supports the order of creation presented in Genesis 1, following its approach that the universe came first, the world was formed next, that life began in the sea, with the lower forms of life appearing first, and that man is the highest and latest form of life to appear.
Do you think that we are the highest step of evolution?:D
I think not. . OK, OK, there may be undiscovered ancient civilizations there. I think tht I can agree to Atlantis evidence, but this is not the right thread to discuss it. Some of our scientists may not agree, but there is proof(not complete though) that homo sapien like humans(not some homo eructus monkey likes, lusy likes) existed 5 millions of years ago. A lot of scientists don't like it and a lot of christians too. First do not like it because it somehow disprooves the evolution theory, Second do not like it because it shows tht there wasn't created one human in beggining, but there vere different side branches.
And I do not think that geology supports tht 7 day creation period.

Physics [ the second Law of Thermodynamics] shows the world is running out of available energy. Hence the world cannot be eternal but must have a beginning.

All ethnic groups have their creational myths and all have "the last battle" "armageddon" "the last days" " ragnarjok"(spelling)
Christian myth isn't unique. In fact Jewish weren't the first ones to think of it.

Mathematics [the Law of Probability] shows that the world did not happen by chance but was designed by an intelligent power.

Quite opposite. It shows tht there is probability ie anything can happen randomly. and this is also a very "slicky" law.

Biology teaches that each creature reproduces its own kind.

You don't have to learn biology to understand that you won't have children if you are fcking with sheep. i.e. our ancestors didn't need to know biology to understand that.

Anthropology shows that there is only one race of mankind [ Acts 17:26] with different ethnic groupings within it. This indicates a common ancestor for all men.

Recent studyes show that neanderthals were a different specie, definetely not homo sapiens. And they coexisted in one time, different species of homo. Also check back Atlantis civilization.

I have different prints about 5 000 000 year old homo sapiens, but their all in Latvian. If smone really wants, I can translate some parts or link the author and books.

I would just like to bring up once more that the actuall scriptures did not say that creation was 7 days...it said the "Earth was FORMED....and that God moved VIOLENTLY over the face of the water. Leaving one with the impresion that there was in fact some great cataclysmic event. And the word used for the incrimint of time did not mean a 24 hour day but an age or era or undefined lenght of time. Could have been 7 years, 7 thousand years, 7 million years....etc.

It goes against the translation version of the scriptures...most prominently the KJV...but science does in fact cooberate the actuall scriptures. Just can't seem to get most Christians to pull their fingers out of their ears long enough to hear that.

tony1,

***And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
(Genesis 2:18, KJV).***

What? You lost me there. What does this have to do with what I said about the world being a better place with tiassa in it?

***The place is much worse because of tiassa.***

How so?

***The reason we're talking to him is so that he will realize that, and repent so that it will become a better place.***

Is that really the reason I'm talking to tiassa?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*it seems by evidence of her intention that she truly loved you.*

It could be that she completely hated the idea of being pregnant with tiassa.
May as well face the facts.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So, according to your reasoning, the adoption papers included a provision that tiassa be brought up as a Christian because the biological mother completely hated the idea of being pregnant with tiassa?

If she completely hated the idea, then why do you think she didn't abort?

If she completely hated the idea, then why do you think she cared about the religious/spiritual upbringing of the child?

Since she was only 15, maybe, just maybe, her parents or guardians had something to do with her not keeping her child?

Originally posted by Taken
And the word used for the incrimint of time did not mean a 24 hour day but an age or era or undefined lenght of time. Could have been 7 years, 7 thousand years, 7 million years....etc.


Ok, Ok, if you say so. But this brings up one more big question. Why God needed to devide his creation of earth and/or earth in seven periods. Does he has some kind of day squedule. He has a plan and he follows that plan. At 1pm I'll do tht and I'll go to sleep at 1am[god needed rest after creating all this, its in the bible smwhere] . That means tht God doesn't rule over time, he has no control over it and thus needs to plan his activities according to it.
here is Stephens Hawkings famous question- Did God have a choice when creating universe? and going from this - Has God a choice to destroy this universe or not? Maybe he can't do that?
again I'm a little off topic:)

Good question. We do not know that those 7 incriments of time were equal in length. It could have elluded to 7 stages or eras just as we scientifically break those process' of evolution in to stages and eras of developement. The number 7 does have a lot of Biblical relevance just as the number 40 does. I do not feel qualified to make any great assumptions on that except to say we are aware that all the cycles of the earth, the form of the universe, our science, physics, astronomy, calendar, seasons...are all numerically based. In short their is a method to the madness. As for a detailed analysis of the relevance of those numbers I can't say...but I do not believe they are random.

*Originally posted by Avatar
You don't have to learn biology to understand that you won't have children if you are fcking with sheep. i.e. our ancestors didn't need to know biology to understand that. *

Oh oh, that simple little statement disproves evolution.
If you can't have different species mating then you can't have evolution.

*Originally posted by Taken
And the word used for the incrimint of time did not mean a 24 hour day but an age or era or undefined lenght of time. Could have been 7 years, 7 thousand years, 7 million years....etc.*

What 7-million-year period has a morning and an evening, pray tell?

*It goes against the translation version of the scriptures...most prominently the KJV*

It goes against the normal meaning of "morning" and "evening," too.
Damn the meaning, full speed ahead, huh, Taken?

*...but science does in fact cooberate the actuall scriptures. Just can't seem to get most Christians to pull their fingers out of their ears long enough to hear that.*

O Great Mistress of Auricular Phalangism!
Science corroborates the Bible, but the Bible does NOT corroborate evolution.

Think of it this way, you can give birth to your kids but they can't give birth to you.
Similarly, the word of God is the source of all of man's knowledge, but all of man's knowledge is NOT the source of the word of God.

*Originally posted by blonde_cupid
What does this have to do with what I said about the world being a better place with tiassa in it?*

The universe is actually a worse place with tiassa in it, as in "not good."

*How so?*

And the LORD God said, It is not good...
(Genesis 2:18, KJV).

*Is that really the reason I'm talking to tiassa?*

Well, I hope you're not trying to drive him to suicide.

*So, according to your reasoning, the adoption papers included a provision that tiassa be brought up as a Christian because the biological mother completely hated the idea of being pregnant with tiassa?

If she completely hated the idea, then why do you think she didn't abort?

If she completely hated the idea, then why do you think she cared about the religious/spiritual upbringing of the child?

Since she was only 15, maybe, just maybe, her parents or guardians had something to do with her not keeping her child?*

Sure, but there is no point in candy-coating the issue.
As for abortion, maybe abortion was hated even more.

In any case, it is obvious the tiassa was severely rejected.
There is no need for that rejection, however just saying "there, there," won't fix the problem.

If tiassa quits running away from God for even a couple of seconds, the acceptance of God will overrule the rejection by everyone else.

*Originally posted by Avatar
That means tht God doesn't rule over time, he has no control over it and thus needs to plan his activities according to it.*

That would be the rebellious approach.
God, being the ruler of time, can also plan a schedule using time.

*Did God have a choice when creating universe?*

Yes, and he chose to do it.

*Has God a choice to destroy this universe or not?*

Yes, and he will.

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
(Revelation 21:1, KJV).

*Originally posted by Taken
It could have elluded to 7 stages or eras just as we scientifically break those process' of evolution in to stages and eras of developement.*

Hellloooooooo, Taken!
It calls them days, because they have evenings and mornings!

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
(Genesis 1:23, KJV).

Your question "... why did she want me to follow the route that led her to where she was?" tends to imply that Christianity was the circumstance which lead your mother to find herself pregnant at such a young age.

Do you know that is the case, or... Is it possible that your mother wanted you to be raised as a Christian because she realized that if she or someone else had not strayed from leading a Christ-like life that she might not have found herself pregnant at such a young age and she wanted to prevent you from finding yourself in similar circumstances? Interesting angle, but consider a couple of points:

* If she strayed from Christianity, we might consider my original point of well, it seemed to not gain her much if God let her stray.
* Furthermore, if that was her motive, why not arrange the adoption through a local church instead of mounting stipulations when putting the child up for general adoption? I mean, what, is the state going to come and take away my last name if I reach 18 without ever having seen the inside of a Christian church? Really? If it was that important a sentiment, why not take a greater step to ensure that I receive that upbringing?
* In fact, I did ask the question when I was thirteen: it does not appear that it would have mattered in terms of the stipulation whether I was Catholic, Quaker, or a snake-handling revivalist. Anything biblical seemed to be the idea. (But not Judaism; "Christian" is the specification.)If she completely hated the idea, then why do you think she didn't abort? To be honest, I think it was a matter of timing. I was born four months after Roe v. Wade was decided; some doctors drew an immediate line at fetal viability and some at first or second trimester dates; depending on the doctor or the family inclination, it may not have been much of a consideration. Among Christians who do abort, let me note that from consitent observation the point is to do so before anyone knows your little girl is pregnant: http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/410us113.htm Since she was only 15, maybe, just maybe, her parents or guardians had something to do with her not keeping her child?Actually, there's a family scandal in there, I think. By the story, blood relations are a mystery. The reality of the situation suggests that blood relations are closer than that. I'm not going to bother with the genetic sleuthing because as far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of simple dignity and integrity if these people are so determined to perpetuate a falsehood. Incidentally, as a laughable note: when my family would refer to the ethnicities of my biological parentage--and how much they know of this mysterious child-mother is also intriguing--it's worth noting that those ethnicities "switched" to cover the fact that I bear three physical markers resembing a nearby male relative who A) is old enough to be my father, and B) was a high schoool teacher at the time of my birth. (Toward that point, it's worth noting that the hospital I was born at was the nearest major hospital to the school district in which he taught.) Now, suddenly, at age 17, the story switched and my mother was white instead of Asian.

The only part of my psyche that it really affects that wasn't preexisting to the collapse of the mundane tale of my origin is the fact that I would hope that people understand why I reject bad storytelling. If I ever finish the novel ... well, really, if I wrote that as a novel, how believable would it be? It's like a couple of my best friends: if I wrote them as characters and did it properly, they would not be plausible to the average reader. Likewise with my life: it's incredibly boring except that people tell me otherwise.

But very little of it is believable in a certain sense. As a bar conversation, you might nod and say it's fascinating or that it's funny or that it doesn't quite fit together even still. But imagine it as a published story. It would sound a little like a bad, five hundred page romance novel. And I can't stand a bad story.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

*Originally posted by Avatar
You don't have to learn biology to understand that you won't have children if you are fcking with sheep. i.e. our ancestors didn't need to know biology to understand that. *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you tony1, I was thinking the same thing, that does disprove evolution.

And Avatar,

I don't want or have the time to do a research on Archaeology
and Astronomy, I think you and the ones that think like you already have your minds made up on what you believe.


Generally, scientific archaeology has exploded many
extreme theories and false assumptions that used to be
paraded in scholarly circles as settled facts. No longer can
higher criticism dismiss the Hebrew patriarchs as mere
legendary figures, or deny that Moses could write, or assert that
the Mosaic legislation is completely anachronistic for such an
early age. These and other extreme opinions have been shown
to be completely untenable by archaeological research.
Other examples of general confirmation of the Bible are the
results of excavations at Jerusalem, Gibeah of Saul, Megiddo,
Samaria, and numerous other Palestinian cities. Cases of specific
confirmation, although of course less numerous, are striking.
The historicity of Belshazzar (Daniel 5), the authentication of the
name Sargon (Isaiah 20:1), and the corroboration of Jehoiachin’s
captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 25:27-30) by the actual finding of the
name of the king on cuneiform tablets there, are but a few examples of specific attestations.

Archaeology Illustrates and Explains the Bible.
This is by far the most important contribution of archaeological
research in Bible lands, and its ramifications are practically endless.
It is no exaggeration to say that insofar as its background is
concerned, the Bible is a whole new book as a result of the
marvelous contributions of archaeology toward illuminating and
illustrating it. Examples are numberless. Whether it is the longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs, Abraham’s hometown of Ur, the
conquest of Jericho, Jeroboam’s golden calves at Bethel, Jonah’s
preaching in Nineveh, the Temple of Herod, the ministry of Paul in
Ephesus, everywhere archaeology sheds light on the sacred page and makes its message and meaning more understandable to our present day.

by bdmart-
I agree with you tony1, I was thinking the same thing, that does disprove evolution-

Too bad I don't read tony's replyes.:)
But tht doesn't disprove evolution.
In the begining there was simple cell life.
All organisms were very close "relatives"
they didn't have much differences.
When fish came out of sea evolution now devided-
sea living forms and ground living forms.
while the simplest[bacterias and stuff] and less complex of these both could still mate[on see and ground], most complex life forms on "ground level" and sea at that time couldn't. so now sea is seperated from land. but the early different species on dry ground could mate and so was in water.
And by chain reaction from less complex to more complex it lead to what we have today, a lot of completely different species who have lost their mutual traits in evolutionary process.
But tht doesn't mean evolution stopped at tht plece. You don't have to date with different species to evolve.
Different climate conditions
[indian elephants and mamunts(spelling)],
different predators who threaten,
different food- it all is part of evolution chain.
Even now we have evolved to tht state, we can not eat like stone-age people. Our diggestive system is diffeent.
We evolve even now. Our very back teeth are starting to dissapear, our immune system upgrades, etc, etc.
And if you really want, you can really mate and have kids with a schimpanzee/ only 1 or 3%[forgot how much exatcly but it was one of these] of DNA charecteristic seperates us.
Maybe you'll need a little help from genetics, but if you're "lucky" then with no help.

About events which take place in bible.
I have never said tht they didn't take part.
Some of them vere made up latter, but not all.
A lot of myths are taken from other cultures-Shumer, Egyptian.

I do not say they are not true, I only say tht people misinterpreted them 3000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 1000 years ago and now. With every rewrite they seem more magical and wonderous. people are idialized. feats have become more heroic etc, etc. If an alien ship landed before 4000 or 6000 years in light and smoke, with rocket brakes roaring what would you consider it to be. !!!! Be Honest!!!! Almyghty God Has Visited ME. Praise the God. and latter think of ways to use it.

Jesus lived and was a great phylosopher too good for his time and maybe ours. But no waterwalking and no deadwakeuping.



I looked to what tony has responded. again he is attacking my language, so I changed and expanded the sentance about chain reaction in evolution so he may understand it better.

*Originally posted by tiassa
If she strayed from Christianity, we might consider my original point of well, it seemed to not gain her much if God let her stray.*

She simply exercised the same freedom of choice you are exercising as you choose to remain strayed.

*Furthermore, if that was her motive, why not arrange the adoption through a local church instead of mounting stipulations when putting the child up for general adoption?*

Were there possible legal issues 28 years ago?

*Anything biblical seemed to be the idea. (But not Judaism; "Christian" is the specification.)*

She may have had some idea that she wanted the best for you.
Why let her down, just because you may feel that she, or others, may have seriously let you down?

*And I can't stand a bad story.*

Change stories.

*Originally posted by bdmart
I agree with you tony1, I was thinking the same thing, that does disprove evolution. *

Yeah, it's amazing how evos will carefully explain how their theory won't work, and then they'll switch right around and say how the disproof actually proves the ToE.

*Originally posted by Avatar
Too bad I don't read tony's replyes.*

Too bad.

*All organisms were very close "relatives" *

See there bdmart, how Avatar is now proving that evolution doesn't work.

*while the simplest of these both could still mate*

The assumption of the ToE is that different species would have to be able to mate.

*more complex life forms couldn't. *

The disproof is complete, yet...

*And by chain reaction it lead to what we have today, a lot of completely different species who have lost their mutual traits.*

The mysterious "chain reaction" is invoked to explain how the disproof is actually a proof.
It's funny to watch in action.

*With every rewrite they seem more magical and wonderous. people are idialized.*

Sounds neat, but the newest Bibles are translated from the same old manuscripts.
Some of them date back to the year 200 AD and earlier.
Thus, nothing is being "rewritten" except the atheist and pagan myths of changing Bibles.

Tony you can't even read and understand English...why would anyone believe you could read and understand Hebrew. What you say doesn't really matter to anyone but you. Unless you want to start whipping out those PHD's that make you more qualified than all those who have st