Just wondering if anyone agrees. I am an athiest, but not a prick about it. Theists are welcome to give input and I do not encourage insulting, only debating.

Now, why do I see religion as a pop-culture? Pop culture is the bubbly way we wish things were. Every girl wishes they had Britney Spears body, every guy wishes their lives were half as cool as Tommy Lee's. But things aren't that way in real life... Britney is controlled by her mother and Tommy beats his wife and kids... The perfection they're selling is a lie. And so is religion. Not a very convincing lie, but the believers are content in filling in the blanks with their desire to believe it, further perpetuating the lie. Even as an athiest, I would love for there to be a God. I would love to be able to see my dead relatives once I too die. I would love to believe I will be rewarded for my good deeds. I would love to believe that there is actually a meaning to life. But other than the fact that I want to believe it, I really have no reason to.

Athiests are often critisized for needing proof. I have yet to understand why this is a bad thing. Why should it be a bad thing to see the world around you and adapt accordingly? If there was a God, couldn't he understand my prediciment and understand why I do not believe in him. It seems to me anyone who has faith in the TRUTH would end up where I am... Because truth has nothing to do with opinion, emotion, or wants... God In The Gaps... God has always been where science can't explain. And science is explaining more and more, and the space for God to exist is getting smaller and smaller...

Now I'm sure many people will say science is the new pop-culture these days... And you know what, I agree! Every religion, it seems, these days is running back and forth to explain science's discovries. But I'm athiest... And athiesm is NOT pop-culture. Less than 10% of this planet is athiest. The way I see it, less than 10% of this planet has the guts to live in the real world, 90% get to live in whatever world they want to build themselves.

Just some thoughts. Replies will be greatly appreciated, wether they be for what I just wrote or against it... I

So athiests are like, the opposite of pop-culture? Because we're a minority? Like, totally radical, dude.

Shit. I can't talk like this.

Welcome to Sciforums.

Ya, pretty much. As long as I've been an athiest, I've been the antagonist in most philosophical conversations. It's like I'm alienated from society for willingly accepting what I see. It gets lonely. I have no church to go to and share my beliefs with other believers. And quite often I'm made to feel like I'm no more than a calculater, who has no concept of emotion or feeling...

Ah well, mainstream has never much liked me anyway.

Notme:

I see my athiesm as a good thing in this. I've always felt seperated from most of what you call "mainstream culture" -actually from most other people - my athiesm simply brings this out.

And quite often I'm made to feel like I'm no more than a calculater, who has no concept of emotion or feeling...

You know, notme, most of the people who make you feel this way have no concept of emotion themselves. I doubt they will know a true intensity of emotion - either joy or agony.

According to your profile, you're 18, my age. I'm told one accepts this as one gets older.

Nolo te bastardes carborundum.

Well, I feel sorry for you people living in a country so full of religion, that it makes you feel like a minority because of your beliefs. That's gotta suck.

Atheism it seems to me is the search for the absolute truth, the truth is infalable so does it matter how you search or is it just important that you search?

Empty Dragon:

How do you consider athiesm to be the search for the absolute truth?

I'm curious.

Adam: Actually, we're a minority worldwide.

As long as you are willing to learn... Not start with total knowledge and stay there. That's how it seems to me. When you realize the basis of your beliefs are wrong do you simply change a small part of your beliefs to avoid serious redefinition of your beliefs, or do you realize the implacations can change everything!? Before anyone says anything about athiests not willing to do that, we just recently accepted the universe is expanding faster and faster. That changes everything. Hooray!

Does Athiesm mean just not to belive in God? if So then hoe does it differ from religion where you believe with out evidence that here is a god. It would take the same amount of faith to BELIEVE that there is not a god. Untill we understant the ultimate nature of the universe Can anyone really know for sure?

I have no faith that there is no God. If evidence were presented to me that led me to believe there was a God, it would do just that, lead me to believe there is a God. But it's been a few years now and nothing has made me really wonder if there was a God. All evidence given to me thus far just has only furthered my belief that religion is based on a need to believe... It has nothing to do with truth.

How do you consider athiesm to be the search for the absolute truth?
Why are you athiest Xev? I would assume because you believe that to be the truth... It all depends on how far you want to take it. How far are you willing to go for the truth. I was willing to give up my God, and if truth led me back to him, I would be willing to re-accept him... But truth doesn't seem to be leading me that way at all...

notme:
When you realize the basis of your beliefs are wrong do you simply change a small part of your beliefs to avoid serious redefinition of your beliefs, or do you realize the implacations can change everything!?

Depends on whether you have the intellectual balls to deal with the implications.

Although....you and Dragon seem to think that truth exists.

Dragon:

Does Athiesm mean just not to belive in God?

Athiesm is the absence of belief in God. Athiesm is commonly thought of as a negation.

It is not. It is a neutral state, the one in which all humans are born.

if So then hoe does it differ from religion where you believe with out evidence that here is a god. It would take the same amount of faith to BELIEVE that there is not a god.

Have you ever heard of something called "Ockham's razor"?

To say that athiesm requires faith betrays either ignorence of the nature of athiesm or rank stupidity.

We simply see no evidence, so we don't believe. The difference between not believing in something for which there is no evidence, and believing in something for which there is no evidence, should be obvious.

A: There is a pen of white unicorns with golden manes in my backyard.

B: There is not a pen of white unicorns with golden manes in my backyard.

Bear in mind that nobody has ever seen a unicorn, and that there is no evidence that unicorns exist.

Are A and B equivalent?

Untill we understant the ultimate nature of the universe Can anyone really know for sure?

Who says that the universe has an ultimate nature?

notme:

Why are you athiest Xev?

Because I've never seen any evidence that God exists. I do not feel God's nonexistance to be the "truth" - truth is changing anyway.

I'm an athiest because I am a skeptic. I am a skeptic because - well, it is just my nature. I'm incapable of faith, and always have been. I need evidence to believe in something.

Would it be foolish to assume that humanities has learned enough about this universe to say anything with absolute cetainty?

Dragon:
Would it be foolish to assume that humanities has learned enough about this universe to say anything with absolute cetainty?

Who says that absolute certainty exists?

In any case, since when did athiests claim absolute certainty?

And please answer my question about the unicorns.

I do not have the Wisdom and understanting to say there is a truth out there just as much as i cannot say there is or is not a god. Mostly likly doesn't nessarily mean truth, if there is truth is it dependent on humans to observe it? The most likly awnser is either

you and Dragon seem to think that truth exists
It seems to me there has to be a truth. In my case, I believe the underlying truth is physics. But I don't know all of physics, thus I don't know the whole truth. But what drives me is the desire to know. It seems to me nothing can exist or operate without a fundamental set of rules, ie. ONE truth.

We simply see no evidence, so we don't believe. The difference between not believing in something for which there is no evidence, and believing in something for which there is no evidence, should be obvious.

A: There is a truth in the universe
B: There is not truth in the universe

Bear in mind that nobody has ever seen absolute, and that there is no evidence that truth exist.

Are A and B equivalent?

Empty Dragon:

Are you equating truth and God, trying to prove the existance of truth (interesting, that), or just trying to confuse me? :confused:

In any case, you've dodged the question. Truth is not the same thing as God. Truth can exist and God not exist, and God can exist with truth not existing - if anything could be said to exist if truth does not -

Truth and God are separate categorys. So.....

Could you please answer my question?

Xev, please help me out. Explain, theoretically of course, how the universe can exist without a truth?

Just asking a question (directed at the universe) waiting for yours, and Notmes imput.

Truth can exist and God not exist, and God can exist with truth not existing - if anything could be said to exist if truth does not -
If God exists, that creates truth with it. Truth is a word describing existence. So if God exists, so does truth... In fact, if anything exists so does truth... So evidence suggests there is a truth, otherwise there'd be no evidence.

notme:

What is truth?

*Xev smiles and orders that Jewish rabble-rouser to be freed, and goes back to producing truth*

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Obviously, to say, "there is no truth" is a contradiction in terms. I meant more an absolute truth. I do not believe that absolute truth exists...I think that everything fluctuates.

Right, no nihlism before bedtime!

Empty Dragon:

I see.

notme:
If God exists, that creates truth with it. Truth is a word describing existence. So if God exists, so does truth... In fact, if anything exists so does truth... So evidence suggests there is a truth, otherwise there'd be no evidence.

Okay. Good point. Sorry, I'm tired and rambling.

Does truth fluctuate or our perception of it?

Then how would it be truth if it changed by our preseptions?

notme:

Good question. But what is there besides perception? I mean, how can we say that a truth exists outside of perception?

Would we not have to percieve it to say such a thing for certain.

Nothing's certain. (So fuck me, kitten? Okay Xev, naptime)

I never said our perception changed it, just that our perception OF it changed. And that does not mean truth it self changes. That was my point infact, lol.

But what is there besides perception? I mean, how can we say that a truth exists outside of perception?

I have to believe existence continues when I close my eyes. So wether or not we exist to percieve the truth, things still happen, time still passes, thus truth still exists. We however would not. So if the state of things fluctuates, which I'm sure it does, it does not mean truth itself fluctuates, but that it is true that the state of things fluctuate, that in itself being the truth.

Empty Dragon,

Does Athiesm mean just not to belive in God?

1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

2. 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God

3. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

There are two types of atheist, one who does not believe in God because they are not interested in anything of that nature, they just want to live their life how they want to live it. They are not interested in discussing whether or not there is a God, they don’t care whether there is a God or not, at least not until they are ready, then they may act. These kind of people you will rarely find on these forums. But if you do, they will naturally gravitate toward “atheism” this also applies to people who think they believe in God, but upon closer inspection find that they don’t.

The other type, is the type you see on these forums, they are active, and see their action as a cause. They cannot stand the idea of a God and will go to lengths to state their claims. “Evidence or lack of, is nothing but a smoke screen. They ask for direct evidence knowing it cannot be given, but when asked to produce evidence of anything, they avoid.
In terms of action, they use as much energy in their dis-belief as someone uses to believe, they are not neutral. To say that this is a natural and neutral position is nothing short of delusion. When a child is born, they may not know about God, but apart from wanting food, what do they know?

The first 2 dictionary meanings of the word “atheist” above, all describe action (in bold), the third describes my first description.

If you look around you in society, you will find that most institutions that provide essential services, have been usurped, by corporations whose only interest is profit, this includes religion, in fact just look at this religion forum and you will see a microsm of most modern societies.
You find all kind of nonsense happening in religious institutions i.e. Catholsism.

What you see happening on this forum is the new religion, a new institutionalised religion. For some reason the institutions of Christianity, Islam, Judaism are no longer useful to the global cause, or they are playing their finale, by killing each other, so now we have “atheism” just simply a reversal of the other institutes, but it serves a societal purpose.

So then hoe does it differ from religion where you believe with out evidence that here is a god.

You are right, it is an empty religion. A lot of churches where I live, are empty, the ones that are in trendy locations are used as nightclubs and bars. So people still go to church, but not for the purpose of serving God, but to serve their senses. Sense gratification is the new inst. Religion.

It would take the same amount of faith to BELIEVE that there is not a god. Untill we understant the ultimate nature of the universe Can anyone really know for sure?

Of course it would, you are right.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Then would each athiest believe a different a different philosophy or the same Dogma. We each seek our own way in life, in some ways it might seem similar to the way of other. But in reality it is us and only use who walk the path, you may travel with some for a while but to hault your search and walk their path. What does that mean, fellowship, identification with others would only hinder your search for the truth. Whiether we call our selfs Hindu or Atheist it dosn't fundemntaly matter since these are creations on man through presseption. Are all Christians alike, are all Athiests alike? Anyone with an open mind changes at every interraction of his existance. True many religions have "spiritual practices" ei: Theory, Prayer, Yoga, Tai Chi, Internal Alchemy. Are those practices techniques or truth?

Ahhh #@!%#$%$%^ I need to watch my grammer and spelling..

In terms of action, they use as much energy in their dis-belief as someone uses to believe, they are not neutral.

I have heard this argument many times, often from someone who couldn't convince me there was a God. I'm sorry you couldn't convince me there is a God. I'm not commited to the idea of there not being a God, I am commited to truth. And like it or not, I have mass amounts of evidence that there is not a God and not one bit that supports a God. And even if I were to recieve evidence of a God, I doubt it would be enough evidence to contradict all the evidence I have stating otherwise. So you can see, to someone who is trying to prove God's existence to me, I would be quite frustrating, because I'd be asking for at least as much evidence of a God as I have that there isn't one. And I don't think any theists can deliver that.

And as for Athiesm being a new religion, that is not true. Every religion starts with the assumption of total knowledge. They have a book, wether it be the bible, tora, whatever, that tells them everything they need to know. Athiesm starts with the assumption of zero knowledge. We acknowledge the fact that we are born in to this world not knowing anything, and we look around us and make what we can with it.

Science is the opposite of religion. Science teaches us to make observations, develop a hypothesis, then develop an experiment to test this hypothesis. If the experiment succeeds, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory. If the experiment fails, the knowledge gained during that experiment can be used to develop a new hypothesis, and the process begins again. As our ability to observe the world around us advances, so too does our scientific knowledge. The development of the microscope dramatically increased our understanding of biology. The development of the telescope dramatically increased our understanding of cosmology. We can gain knowledge through observation, and further it by applying the scientific method. Theories are not immutable, and certainly can and will be discarded when new knowledge is introduced. This has happened many times.

So you see, we do not have the same amount of faith in there not being a God as someone has faith that there is a God. All we do is work for the truth, and we realize we have no say in what the final truth is.

Atheists/Agnostics always strongly attack those things which are the best proofs that God is alive and working in human society. For instance:

Christians believe Humans are the special creation of God. Therefore science says that humans are nothing but animals.

Christians believe in a risen savior. Therefore, the atheist tells us that Jesus' never even existed to begin with.

Christians believe in a supernatural revelation from God, called the Bible. The atheist says it is a fabrication.

Humanity can see the handiwork of God in all of nature. Science tells us it was all the work of random evolution.

Christians have faith in things unseen. Atheists claim that they do not have, nor do they need faith. Yet both sides need plenty of faith to believe what they do.

Atheists:
What is your evidence that there is no distinction between humans and animals?

What is your evidence that Jesus never existed?

What is your evidence that the Bible is a hoax?

What is your evidence that the world came about through evolution?

There is no incontrovertable evidence to support the Christian belief. But there is no incontrovertable evidence to support the atheist belief either. At least not enough to unconvince the devout. Like it or not both sets of belief require faith.

There is no one so religious as the devout atheist. I have seen faith that rivals any zealous dervish displayed by the atheist who refuses to see that man is infinitely more advanced than the smartest animal. Or the atheist who rejects devine creation in favor of a theory devoid of hard evidence. Or the atheist who rejects the Bible as a fabrication, when it has displayed its supernatural power for 1000 years. Or the atheist who claims that Jesus never existed, when time itself is measured by his life ("B.C.", "A.D.").

I see atheism as a religion for the irreligious. The ultimate paradox existence. A reaction against the beliefs of others is the driving force behind their zealousness.

-Mike

Christians believe Humans are the special creation of God. Therefore science says that humans are nothing but animals.

we are animals- it's clearly seen. And it is said by many cultures- take native indians for instance.

christians think that they are smthing unique- when we all really are a part of nature

Christians believe in a risen savior. Therefore, the atheist tells us that Jesus' never even existed to begin with.
false

Christians believe in a supernatural revelation from God, called the Bible. The atheist says it is a fabrication.

bible isn't written by god- you want to object?

Humanity can see the handiwork of God in all of nature. Science tells us it was all the work of random evolution.

wrong-
Christians see the handiwork of God in all of nature. Science tells us it was all the work of random evolution.

Christians have faith in things unseen. Atheists claim that they do not have, nor do they need faith. Yet both sides need plenty of faith to believe what they do.

atheists need evidence not faith



What is your evidence that there is no distinction between humans and animals?

DNA

What is your evidence that Jesus never existed?

few atheists say that a person like Jesus never existed and they usually base that on poor historical sources

imho Jesus existed, but forget about all the miracles

What is your evidence that the Bible is a hoax?

careful analysis of it
just look at all the contradictions

What is your evidence that the world came about through evolution?
fossils and micro evolution

There is no incontrovertable evidence to support the Christian belief. But there is no incontrovertable evidence to support the atheist belief either. At least not enough to unconvince the devout. Like it or not both sets of belief require faith.

atheists do not have belief they have evidence or lack of it

There is no one so religious as the devout atheist. I have seen faith that rivals any zealous dervish displayed by the atheist who refuses to see that man is infinitely more advanced than the smartest animal. .

atheists are quite different- all they doubt existance of gods though

we are the smartest animals
al. Or the atheist who rejects devine creation in favor of a theory devoid of hard evidence.
there is much evidence in favou of evolution and clearly more than no evidence for creatonism

Or the atheist who rejects the Bible as a fabrication, when it has displayed its supernatural power for 1000 years.
I have and am studiying history and see none

Or the atheist who claims that Jesus never existed, when time itself is measured by his life ("B.C.", "A.D.").
I think it was BCE and CE
ad is just historically formed because of the christian influence in middle ages

I see atheism as a religion for the irreligious. The ultimate paradox existence. A reaction against the beliefs of others is the driving force behind their zealousness.
ahteism is no a religion it is a way of thinking that requires evidence

Mike:

What is your evidence that there is no distinction between humans and animals?

Who says there is no distinction? Can you show me another animal that has as good a command of language as man?

How about an animal that is as intelligent or artistic or philosophical as us?

What is your evidence that Jesus never existed?

Straw man. You know better than this Mike, while many athiests claim that he never lived, many others simply point out that there is no evidence that he was the son of God.

What is your evidence that the Bible is a hoax?

Anyone who claims that the Bible is a hoax is either ignorent of history or joking around.

The Bible is not a hoax. It is a compilation of Jewish and Christian myths that accumulated over thousands of years and is thought by many to be the revealed word of God.

What is your evidence that the world came about through evolution?

The world, Mike? I think you mean living organisms on terra, which did not come about through evolution, although they did evolve.

Modern biology. Transitional fossils, simularities in genetic makeup, observed examples of what you creationists call "micro-evolution". The fact that the theory holds together well.

There is no incontrovertable evidence to support the Christian belief. But there is no incontrovertable evidence to support the atheist belief either. At least not enough to unconvince the devout. Like it or not both sets of belief require faith.

Athiesm is rather the lack of a belief, not a belief per se. C'mon Mike, you know this.

There is no one so religious as the devout atheist.

It is impossible to be religious and an athiest. What, do we throw orgies with "Dear God" and "Terrible Lie" playing in the background?

(Btw, I think I am damned for comparing XTC and NIN. Please be merciful, oh ye gods of music. I throw in "Christian Woman" by Type O Neg to appease thee.)

I have seen faith that rivals any zealous dervish displayed by the atheist who refuses to see that man is infinitely more advanced than the smartest animal.

Straw man.

Or the atheist who rejects devine creation in favor of a theory devoid of hard evidence.

A prevarication at best, or a display of most willful ignorence.

Or the atheist who rejects the Bible as a fabrication, when it has displayed its supernatural power for 1000 years.

An assertion without evidence. Supernatural power? I have several different versions of the Bible floating about my room, but they do not spin about like Linda Blair in that Excorcist movie.

Or the atheist who claims that Jesus never existed, when time itself is measured by his life ("B.C.", "A.D.").

This is a silly "proof" and in any case, a straw man.

I see atheism as a religion for the irreligious.

*Xev hums "choices always were a problem for you - what you need is someone strong to guide you - like meee- while checking supplies of whipped cream*

Hey Mike, do you think we should sacrifice a virgin to Carl Sagan? :p

good idea Xev- but unfortunately we have no virgins left- all went to Cthulhu:(:(

Myabe we could take Ekimklaw:):)

Avatar:

Mike sounds cute. :) He is probably not a virgin. :(

To quote one Lady Sylvia in Lair of the White Worm (about virgins):

"Unfortunately, they are so hard to come by these days."

What about it, Mike? Want to be sacrified to the Great Cthulhu - er, holy gods of athiesm? :p

Sacrificed? Virgin? Forget it... I have a strong aversion to having my still-beating heart ripped from my chest and hurled into some brazier.

But as to the apparent misunderstanding of my post...

==============================================
Avatar wrote:
...we all really are a part of nature.
==============================================

I never said we aren't part of nature. But some atheists (James R for one) believe that a human is no different than an animal. Not true. Animals do not have emotions like humans. (See my post on the "Proofs that God exist" thread... page 10)


==============================================
Avatar wrote:
...just look at all the contradictions [in the Bible].
==============================================

Give me ONE example of a "contradiction".


==============================================
Xev wrote:
Who says there is no distinction [between humans and animals]?
==============================================


James R, for one. I've heard other atheists spout this "belief". I'm glad you're not one of them Xev.


==============================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw originally wrote:
What is your evidence that Jesus never existed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xev responded:
Straw man. You know better than this Mike, while many athiests claim that he never lived, many others simply point out that there is no evidence that he was the son of God.
==============================================


My purpose was to show that some claim he did not exist, when there is a lot of evidence that he did. This tells me that they either refuse to believe no matter what the evidence, they are ignorant of the evidence, or they reject the evidence out of spite for Christians. After all, there is more evidence that he did exist rather than that he didn't.

I know this is a bit of an odd tactic, but what can I say... ;)


==============================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw originally wrote:
What is your evidence that the world came about through evolution?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xev responded:
The world, Mike? I think you mean living organisms on terra, which did not come about through evolution, although they did evolve.

Modern biology. Transitional fossils, simularities in genetic makeup, observed examples of what you creationists call "micro-evolution". The fact that the theory holds together well.
==============================================


Okay, my purpose here was to show that although the theory of evolution portrays itself as the answer to all the questions about origins, it leaves many things unanswered. The theory of evolution is not the balm of knowledge that some people think it is. It is fraught with "suppostions" and "implied evidence".


==============================================
Xev wrote:
Athiesm is rather the lack of a belief, not a belief per se.
==============================================


I know, but some atheists "lack of beliefs" have, over time, evolved into a strict set of beliefs. For example:

"We do not believe in a god", becomes "There is no God".
"We do not believe that God created mankind" becomes "Mankind evolved." etc.

This adherance to a certain set of dogmatic beliefs gives it the illusion of religiosity.


As for the B.C./A.D. thing... like it or not, time is measured by Jesus' life. Acadametians today are desperately trying to force humanity into accepting and using BCE and CE in an effort to hide this fact. But still it will always be that time is measured by the life of Christ (Not Siddhartha, Muhammed, or Caesar).

Oh, and Xev... you know I have feelings for you. ;)

-Mike

I never said we aren't part of nature. But some atheists (James R for one) believe that a human is no different than an animal. Not true. Animals do not have emotions like humans. (See my post on the "Proofs that God exist" thread... page 10)

Human IS no different than an animal.
I have dog for about 8 years and can assure you that he has emotions, just like us. He can be sad, happy, bored, playful, feel insulted or feel guilty or feel shame.
Give me ONE example of a "contradiction".
>Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
>Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."

vs.

>Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
>I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
>I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
>Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
>Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."

James R, for one. I've heard other atheists spout this "belief". I'm glad you're not one of them Xev.
it's not a belief , it's a fact- we are animals, smart animals but not more.
It is fraught with "suppostions" and "implied evidence".
be careful with that

Oh, and Xev... you know I have feelings for you.
*Avatar grins by himself- Xev and Ekim having a theological dispute in bed

As for the B.C./A.D. thing... like it or not, time is measured by Jesus' life. Acadametians today are desperately trying to force humanity into accepting and using BCE and CE in an effort to hide this fact. But still it will always be that time is measured by the life of Christ (Not Siddhartha, Muhammed, or Caesar).
WRONG- @ 2 points
Yeshua couldn't have been born in 0 "ad" because Herod died in year 5 "bc" - it's quite well documented in roman chronicles.

2point- In Muslin countries time is measured by the time from when Mahmud got his revelation (sp) from Allah

Also it is different in Japan


and also - it is not important- Time could well also be counted from year 476 (the fall of Western Rome)

Mike:

Sacrificed? Virgin? Forget it... I have a strong aversion to having my still- beating heart ripped from my chest and hurled into some brazier.

*Xev pouts*

Animals do not have emotions like humans. (See my post on the "Proofs that God exist" thread... page 10)

Mike, JamesR is agnostic, not an athiest. Most agnostics look down on athiests, and would be annoyed to be confused with us.

But I am glad you say "like". I don't think it's fair to say that other animals do not feel emotions - my shepard would come and lay her head on my lap or lick my face when I felt sad. I could be imagining this, but there are zillions of examples of animals acting as if they had emotions.

However, just to beat the dead horse a bit, man is very unique among the animals. I am thinking of posting this subject soon.

My purpose was to show that some claim he did not exist, when there is a lot of evidence that he did. This tells me that they either refuse to believe no matter what the evidence, they are ignorant of the evidence, or they reject the evidence out of spite for Christians. After all, there is more evidence that he did exist rather than that he didn't.

Yes, this is true, but please do not tar me with this pitch. I do not think you are like the Christians who picketed Matthew Shephard's funeral, and I do not think you are like the Christians who burned Giordano Bruno alive.

Please do not assume all athiests are alike, as I extend this courtesy to you with regards to Christians and Inquisitors.

Okay, my purpose here was to show that although the theory of evolution portrays itself as the answer to all the questions about origins, it leaves many things unanswered. The theory of evolution is not the balm of knowledge that some people think it is. It is fraught with "suppostions" and "implied evidence".

The theory does not portray itself, some over-zealous proponents of evolution portray it this way.

Evolution is not and will never be a complete answer to the question of origens.

"We do not believe in a god", becomes "There is no God".
"We do not believe that God created mankind" becomes "Mankind evolved." etc.

Yes, and I will confess myself guilty on this. I know perfectly well that I can't say "God doesn't exist" and mean it, but I have been known to say this.

*Hits self before continuing*

Intellectual honesty takes a great amount of self-discipline and I am weak here.

This is, b/w, why I prefer the Nietzschean formula "God is dead".

Oh, and Xev... you know I have feelings for you.

*Blushes*

Avatar:

"Thou shalt not kill" is actually best translated from archaic Hebrew as "Commit not murder" or "thou shalt not murder".

Murder and killing are, imo, quite different. I prefer the two contradictory creation stories of Gen. 1:1-2:3 and Gen. 2:2-25.

Here is a list by a former preacher who became an athiest for some reason or another, I haven't read his book although it's supposed to be interesting:

http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html

murder and slay?

murder and slay?

*Xev cranks up Davar*

They are different. Do not ask me for this, my knowledge of Hebrew does not go this far. But slaying implies something you do to another human in wartime - with the lapse of rules that goes with war - and murder is a unlawful killing.

ok

so- If I want to kill smone I better declare war on him, so I wouldn't be punished by Jahve

thnx, Xev:)

Avatar:
so- If I want to kill smone I better declare war on him, so I wouldn't be punished by Jahve

I think you have to be one of YHWH 's chosen people too.

*Xev grins evilly and muses that it would be very easy for her to return to her roots here*

Teehee, I even say YHWH now. Fear me! :D

were all crusaders chosen by christian god?


btw- apparently Jahve can choose himself, so if I'm made at the image if him /Elohim/ I should be able to choose myself also- especially after that tasty apple you gave to Eve


edit- sorry for "Jahve"
it's how he is written in Latvian- I'm sorta used to it
I'll be better frm now on

maybe

Avatar:

You may be made in God's image, but I'm an antichrist. Neener neener neener. :p

I just have to throw a stick at you and you will annihilate, like all anti particles :p

btw- I'm an incarnation of an ancient god in a human form
it's not so bad

Avatar:
just have to throw a stick at you and you will annihilate, like all anti particles

No no, you'd have to throw Christ at the Anti-Christ to make me annihalate.

btw- I'm an incarnation of an ancient god in a human form
it's not so bad

Yeah, well, ah, I'm part lizard.

Gracious, this is getting weird.

actually no- anything that consists of usual particles- because Christ (or what is left of him) also consists of usual particles

* Avatar becoes thoughtful and takes a big spade and starts to dig a big hole looking for Christs remains

this is getting weird.
of course it is- it's 5am and I'm weird @ nights
ask anyone I know

Avatar:
actually no- anything that consists of usual particles- because Christ (or what is left of him) also consists of usual particles

I start babbling about being the antichrist and you see fit to bring physics into this?

How do you know Christ consisted of normal particles? Maybe He was made of God particles.

* Avatar becoes thoughtful and takes a big spade and starts to dig a big hole looking for Christs remains

*Listens to the firey tree that tells her what to do*

of course it is- it's 5am and I'm weird @ nights

Well, this is fun. It is like D&D on acid. :cool:

I start babbling about being the antichrist and you see fit to bring physics into this?
:D YES:D I'm always serious:bugeye: HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

How do you know Christ consisted of normal particles? Maybe He was made of God particles.
there are no god particles detected, but I'd blow up one if you have, to detect such:D

*Listens to the firey tree that tells her what to do*
*Avatar has made an arrangment with firey tree to give Xev bad advices:p

btw- your roman name would be- Xevious Vicious:p
another weird deep night though


damn- I edited while you were posting

no harm done- (I love this phrase from DeusEx)

Avatar:
YES HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Oh, okay.

*Wanders off to chat-up the Whore of Babylon*

there are no god particles detected, but I'd blow up one if you have, to detect such

*Builds synchotron*

*Avatar has made an agreement with firey tree togive Xev bad advices

Shut up back there, I'm talking to Yahwah!

Atheists/Agnostics always strongly attack those things which are the best proofs that God is alive and working in human society. For instance:
I disagree... If anyone EVER presented me enough evidence suggesting God exists to contradict all the evidence I have stating otherwise, I would stongly concider it. I have no "faith" in being Godless, I just want the truth, and so far, all evidence points to there not being one. You sound as though Athiests are purposely out to destroy God. Well, maybe some are... But the majority just want the truth, and when we realized that there was no reason to believe in a God, creationalists got very defensive (ie: burned them at the stake). I am not out to destroy the idea of God, I'm out to destroy the dogma of God.
Christians believe Humans are the special creation of God. Therefore science says that humans are nothing but animals.
We are just animals. If God created us, but everything else is just animals, why are our internal organs so similar? Did God use animals as a model? And what about evolution? I mean, an insect has the ability to jump thousands of times it's height. An ability we do not have. Does that mean insects are God's diving creation above us? Or that evolution gave them a defense/offensive ability they needed?
Christians believe in a risen savior. Therefore, the atheist tells us that Jesus' never even existed to begin with.
I for one, have never said this. I believe a Jesus existed, and even think he was a hell of a guy. But not "God's" son... And just to make it interesting, you do know Jesus's whole life was spent fighting the idea of "religion" and christians devoted one to him... He's probably rolling over in his grave...
Christians believe in a supernatural revelation from God, called the Bible. The atheist says it is a fabrication.
Depends how you mean fabrication... I don't think it was a joke... I think it's a book of exadurations and myths written over a very long period of time.
Humanity can see the handiwork of God in all of nature. Science tells us it was all the work of random evolution.
Pretty much... Doesn't make it any less amazing... More so if you ask me...
Christians have faith in things unseen. Atheists claim that they do not have, nor do they need faith. Yet both sides need plenty of faith to believe what they do.
I have no faith in anything... If God parted the clouds and said it's time to be judged, I'd obviously believe in God. But a christian sees the world is round, not flat, evolution, not Adam and Eve, and yet they don't budge on their beliefs, as they are continually proven wrong, because of faith... Religion starts with assumption of total knowledge, athiesm/science starts with the assumption of zero knowledge... Take human ego out of the equation and it's the only logical thing to do...
What is your evidence that there is no distinction between humans and animals?
DNA, evolution, similarities in bodies & instincts
What is your evidence that the Bible is a hoax?
The flood, with noah's ark... We have always had the exact same amount of water on this planet. Where is the garden of Eden? Obviously we've gotten back in cause we've been pretty much everywhere without a real problem. Evolution, dinosaurs both don't like Adam and Eve too much...
What is your evidence that the world came about through evolution?
The world did not, our current state of life on this planet did. Evidence: fossils, carbon dating, dna, similarites in body and instincts.
There is no one so religious as the devout atheist
An athiest has no faith. Show me evidence of a God, and I may concider it to be the truth, depending on conditions, significance, etc...
Got anything else?

I want to say right now that sometimes when I comment, some of you get somewhat offended because you think I took an unfair swipe at you.

I know some of you are very level headed and open minded, but some of you are closed-minded as all get out.

Usually I direct the harsher criticisms at those who do not relent from their dogmatism even the slightest bit, those who seem to be devoid of humor, and those who are on a crusade to rid the world of foul Christians. (it's okay Cris, I'm done. Settle down)

Avatar... have you been taking happy pills lately? You used to act like a phallus, but now you are cool. What gives? Has Xev's confident-nifty-ness rubbed off on you?

Xev, Thanks for the clarification about James R... Judging by his replies and posts "agnostic" must mean "vehemently disagree with every freakin' thing that ekimklaw says"!

Also Xev, you're right, I am very peaceful. I am not like the whacko Christians you mentioned. I'm often told I am "too nice". I would never lift a finger to hurt another human being unless I was defending myself, or a loved one.

Just remember, I do not with to tar all atheists with the same brush. Blanket statements are a drag. I will attempt to clarify myself better in subsequent posts.

thanks,

-Mike

Avatar... have you been taking happy pills lately? You used to act like a phallus, but now you are cool. What gives? Has Xev's confident-nifty-ness rubbed off on you? ]

no- no happy pills:(

interesting- how does a phallus act?

anyway Xev doesn't have any influence on me (may I continue, Xev?) and

I have come to a conclusion that all religions are so below my level of intellect that I better regard them as a joke (even if they are jokes of gods) and not take them seriously. Also I'm pretty fed up with explanation talks (no use of it really - there are people who see what religions are and people who don't) and now prefer a bit of distanced irony.


so be a christian- whatever
I'm an atheist - whatever


peace

Sorry to bug you all but it seems that Notme in the guise of Empty Dragon has advised that there is intelligent debate to be found here. Mostly because Notme doesn't feel like defending his silly topic post elswhere. But he did say there was intelligent debate going on in this topic, so I thought I'd stick my nose in with a simple question:

Where?

Xev ... the only thing I wanted to mention directly was that wonderful point of Adam's which you happened to repeat in this topic, that atheism is the state in which we are born. Well, when we are born, we cannot walk, cannot even breathe on our own, cannot feed ourselves, and we urinate and defecate wherever we sit. Oh, yeah. And, when we're born, we're atheists.

I would say "two cents", but I"m not sure these comments are worth even that ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

yeah- I'm just having fun now:p

it really can't be an intelligent debate :(

==============================================
Avatar wrote:
interesting- how does a phallus act?
==============================================

Like a dick. (pardon my French)

==============================================
Avatar wrote:
anyway Xev doesn't have any influence on me (may I continue, Xev?)
==============================================


Well, she certainly has an influence on me! I won't get into details here.


==============================================
Avatar wrote:
I have come to a conclusion that all religions are so below my level of intellect that I better regard them as a joke (even if they are jokes of gods) and not take them seriously.
==============================================


That's one way to look at it. When something is beyond comprehension, simply mock it, say it is beneath you, and ignore it. That's called a defense mechanism.



==============================================
Avatar wrote:
Also I'm pretty fed up with explanation talks (no use of it really - there are people who see what religions are and people who don't) and now prefer a bit of distanced irony.
==============================================


Come on... you don't know... maybe 20 people have renounced God just by reading your posts. Now by turning into "Casper Milquetoast" they will think you are a quitter and scurry back to their pews. You can't let them down. Hows that for irony?


==============================================
Avatar wrote:
so be a christian- whatever
I'm an atheist - whatever
==============================================

That's what I said from the very start. To each his own according to his will.

I like you being nice AVATAR, but I don't want you to become patronizing and dull.

Peace to you!

-Mike

==============================================
Tiassa wrote:
Sorry to bug you all but it seems that Notme in the guise of Empty Dragon has advised that there is intelligent debate to be found here. Mostly because Notme doesn't feel like defending his silly topic post elswhere. But he did say there was intelligent debate going on in this topic, so I thought I'd stick my nose in with a simple question: Where?
==============================================


Hey we can't be at the top of our game every time...


==============================================
Tiassa wrote:
...when we are born, we cannot walk, cannot even breathe on our own, cannot feed ourselves, and we urinate and defecate wherever we sit. Oh, yeah. And, when we're born, we're atheists.
==============================================


And possibly Democrats. ;)


-Mike

you take my strong statements for true statements
I can be lying
anyways-whatever

I like you being nice AVATAR, but I don't want you to become patronizing and dull.
whatever- I really don't care what YOU want ME to become.

anyways- I never have patronised, sometimes just frustrated

When I decide smthing it's democratic decision which is made by me consulting with myself and I......oh and maybe Xev:D j/k

When something is beyond comprehension
I wouldn't say that- I have understood it all- discussions with my fellow christian latvians were a great help

they will think you are a quitter and scurry back to their pews.
I really don't care what others think [except if they think tht I'm a religious person which is extremely unlikely]

Peace to you!
10 4, out

Oh my... what a can of worms we've opened here. When I asked you for a contradiction, you chose this (of all the many you say infest the Bible). The age old "thou shalt not kill", yet people are killed argument. I'm sorry Avatar, but this is NOT a contradiction.

One red-flag is all the elipses in your post. The elipse is the surest sign of taking things out of context!

Regardless, lets have a look at your "contradictions".


==============================================
Avatar wrote:
Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."
==============================================


Since all of the quotes below are to be measured by the quote above it is neccessary that we understand the above quote. As Xev alertly and rightly pointed out, the above commandment translated "thou shalt not kill" in the King James version means "Do not murder anyone". The second quote means "Anyone who murders anyone should be put to death". This refers to capital punishment. This is still done.


Now to your suggested contradictions to the above scriptures.

==============================================
Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
==============================================


The Isrealites had done a great sin. They had rejected God and began worshipping an Idol. God dealt very severely with his chosen people the Isrealites. It was understood by all, that idolatry and drunken revelry was prohibited. At that time, it was punishable by death.

Look at verse 26: "So [Moses] stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the Lord , come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him."

Moses gave them one last chance to repent and turn away from their sins. Only the Levites rallied to him. The others refused and so they were punished. this is not a case of murder. This is a case of God justly purifying his chosen people.

I suggest you read the whole chapter.


==============================================
I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
==============================================


You left off some important information. The whole verse says:

"But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they had looked into the ark of the Lord . The people mourned because of the heavy blow the Lord had dealt them."

It was made clear that NO ONE was to look into or touch the ark. These 70 men flagrantly disobeyed, and were punished severely. Again this has nothing to do with murder.


==============================================
I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
==============================================


Why did this happen? Because the Amalekites "waylaid [the Israelites] as they came up from Egypt."

Like a man who protects his home and family, God protected his people. That means punishing those who attacked them for no reason at all.


==============================================
Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
==============================================


Under the old covenant "breaking the sabbath" was punishable by death. It was known. This man brazenly disobeyed and according to Mosaic Law (which is no longer in place) he was stoned to death. It is sad. But God meant business. had he shown his people a soft hand at that time they would have never survived as a unique people. They would have all done whatever they wanted. this was not in God's plan, and he punished law breakers severely. This was during the OLD COVENANT.

When Jesus came, he ushered in the NEW COVENANT which provided grace to sinners, instead of severe punishment.


==============================================
Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."
==============================================


Why did this happen? "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God." So they were punished as an example to other nations. Again this is all under the OLD Covenant. Which has now been replaced by the NEW Covenant.

No contradictions.

Try again...

-Mike

Believe it or not this thread started with Notme (myself), Empty Dragon (a friend) and Xev (someone we met on here) in a very good debate. Now all it's become is proving certain passages of the bible wrong, which is boring and easy. So before you state that this is a horribe debate, think of how it got there.

I do see the interesting debate going on in the early goings, but I tend to think of it as balbutive, but I won't deny its value.

Atheism as a search for truth? While I have no doubt that you could, if you put your mind to it, explain that coherently, the unfortunate thing is that at the end I would have to point you back to our own atheists here at Sciforums who got upset when people tried to make of atheism more than it is.

Mostly, Notme, I'm responding directly to your invitation. It's not that it's a horrible debate, but I feel like you lied when you said there was intelligent debate going on over here. If you had been more forthright in the other topic I wouldn't even have ventured in here in the first place. As it is, I'm happy to leave Xev, Avatar, Mike, and your various personas to deal with it.

Like I said, it's not worth two cents to anyone for me to stick around this topic. One more note to put out and then I'm out of this topic. But I figured I might as well ask where that intelligent debate you advertised is.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Hey we can't be at the top of our game every time...Yeah, I know ... quite literally, I'm merely jabbing at someone who directed me here for the intelligent debate. It's a longer story than is worth telling, which is funny since it's a very short tale.

I called the debate balbutive in a prior post. That's a little strong, but I do feel like some of our posters are about to rehash a very silly part of what was an ugly debate for the lot of us not too long ago. With all the larger, better ideas to debate out there ... I'm having a BT/DT moment as I read through it.And possibly Democrats.Perhaps, perhaps. But I would have guessed Republicans since the left wing, the communal ideas in politics, are learned and the right wing, the selfish ideas in politics, are more inherent to natural behavior. What baby, coming out of the womb, really wants to share?

Sharing is generally an acquired behavior. ;)

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

PS--I shall be true to my word and withdraw from this debate. Notme2000, if I await you at all, it will be in the other topic.

Originally posted by notme2000
I have heard this argument many times, often from someone who couldn't convince me there was a God.

Is it even possible to convince you there is a God? Why don't you elaborate on what "proof" you require?

If anyone is convinced of God through debating on a forum, such a "convinced belief" is quixotic.

I'm sorry you couldn't convince me there is a God.

Why are you saying you are "sorry" when there it is supererogatory to say so?

Or are you just trying to sound disparaging?

I'm not commited to the idea of there not being a God, I am commited to truth.

What is this "truth" you seek?

And like it or not, I have mass amounts of evidence that there is not a God and not one bit that supports a God.

Do not mix in "emotions" with any debate. The phrase "like it or not" often refers to one's emotions. I thought this was an intellectual debate? :bugeye:

Mass amounts of evidence? On what reference? To the knowledge you hold in the entire history of mankind and the *universe*?

Would you then consider this as a "mass amount" of evidence?

And even if I were to recieve evidence of a God, I doubt it would be enough evidence to contradict all the evidence I have stating otherwise.

So in other words...what would take you to believe? What do you deem "evidence of God"?

If you were to receive evidence of anything, would you not accept it?

So you can see, to someone who is trying to prove God's existence to me, I would be quite frustrating, because I'd be asking for at least as much evidence of a God as I have that there isn't one. And I don't think any theists can deliver that.

I think it is a waste of time to prove any belief to another. I believe in individual responsibility.

And as for Athiesm being a new religion, that is not true. Every religion starts with the assumption of total knowledge. They have a book, wether it be the bible, tora, whatever, that tells them everything they need to know. Athiesm starts with the assumption of zero knowledge. We acknowledge the fact that we are born in to this world not knowing anything, and we look around us and make what we can with it.

Agnostic would be the more suitable term of "not knowing anything." Atheism serves as an identification of "I don't believe in God." I've been through this argument many times and do not wish to go through it again.

Science is the opposite of religion. Science teaches us to make observations, develop a hypothesis, then develop an experiment to test this hypothesis. If the experiment succeeds, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory. If the experiment fails, the knowledge gained during that experiment can be used to develop a new hypothesis, and the process begins again. As our ability to observe the world around us advances, so too does our scientific knowledge.

I am a non-denominational free-thinking theist (don't believe in "organized religion and its dogma"), so we are on par with this thinking.

Anyway in 1859 Charles Darwin systematized and popularized the theory of biological evolution, ironically seizing on Malthus's theory of limited resources to formulate a vision of continual evolution and change. By the 1860s, despite continued religious opposition, the evolutionary and historical approaches in the sciences had become dominant, as had the related idea of human progress. The result and I will emphasize, was not a victory of science over religion but a SEPARATION of science and religion.

Science does not conform to religion, religion conforms to science.

And as Galileo said, "Religion teaches men how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

So to rule out science because "religion said so" is absurd and frivolous to the greatest extremities.

In summation to what you said, science is NOT the opposite of religion, that is an inaccurate statement at best. They are merely seperate to one another.

So you see, we do not have the same amount of faith in there not being a God as someone has faith that there is a God. All we do is work for the truth, and we realize we have no say in what the final truth is.

"We" signifies the speaker, who are these speakers? You are speaking for all atheists or what?

Depends on what you limit it to. If you limit it to the current knowledge we possess, then your argument is somewhat accurate. But if you limit on the total knowledge of everything that is possible to learn, your argument is indubitably inaccurate.

btw, what "intelligent debate"? Why not start it in your other thread?

I couldn't agree more, I don't bother with my two cents here either. I left for 2 days, and when I came back this conversation had been taken over by 2 people apparantly in love with each other on happy pills...

Ooh! An intelligent post!
What is this "truth" you seek?
That's just the thing, I have no ideal truth. There is no specific truth other than the one that it. Whatever evidence leads me to believe is what I believe until evidence states otherwise.
Do not mix in "emotions" with any debate. The phrase "like it or not" often refers to one's emotions. I thought this was an intellectual debate?
That's exactly what I do, leave emotions out of it. As much as I'd want to see my lost loved ones again once I die, as much as I'd love for there to be a heaven, etc... I realize it's extremely improbable.
Mass amounts of evidence? On what reference? To the knowledge you hold in the entire history of mankind and the *universe*?
As oposed to the amount of evidence supporting God's existence, yes.
So in other words...what would take you to believe? What do you deem "evidence of God"? If you were to receive evidence of anything, would you not accept it?
Bingo, if I had enough evidence to suggest this entire universe were no more than some higher being's lab experiment, I'd believe it. Whatever the evidence points to, whatever checks out.
I think it is a waste of time to prove any belief to another. I believe in individual responsibility.
I love when people try to prove me wrong... Because they may be right... I was a Christian once too... I did not rebel against God or anything, it just became aparant it was not true.
Agnostic would be the more suitable term of "not knowing anything." Atheism serves as an identification of "I don't believe in God."
I suppose that is true... But most athiests are only athiests until evidence changes that... And it never has.
The result and I will emphasize, was not a victory of science over religion but a SEPARATION of science and religion.
VERY good point!!! See, this is why debating is useful, I just learnt something.
btw, what "intelligent debate"? Why not start on in your other thread?
Boy have I come to regret that thread, lol...

Any way, thank you kindly for the input! Your intelligent posts are what keeps a debate intelligent.

It just seems to me like the religious want believers & the atheists want applause for not believing, in this I mean people in this forum - the world at large I'll accept your guess if you'll accept mine.
The focus here is not wrong, right, truth, belief etc nor the colourful words you can conjour for or against whichever "side" you're on - for in reality this has taken sides - the very basis of confrontation. On one side the all-knowing wielders of knowledge & on the other the all-powerful wielders of miracles - both with TRUTH on their side. Why can't neither be content with just 1 person in their ranks i.e. YOU, why should we ALL be encompassed into your wide waste of time? It is these things that perpetuate the fact that more wars are fought over religion than any other thing in history. Don't get me wrong I love a good debate myself on any topic, only that this 1 is a debate against yourself, I reckon. I suppose the course of human existence changed the day a single man joined with others for on that day the one had to be subdued to the will of the other.:p

"Iam the master of my fate & the captain of my soul" , so what I think of all this is between who I think Iam who I'll discover myself to be, & who I really am(schizo deluxe).


The musings of a fence-sitter. Not to be taken seriously:D

Another very good point.

EMPTY DRAGON

Then would each athiest believe a different a different philosophy or the same Dogma.

Basically the same, the rules are do what you like, how you like when you like, it is something like ancient babylon. The god of these types of societies is money, because money can get you things. The more money the more sense of power, the more gratification of senses.

Philosophy: eat drink and be merry, you only get one life!!!!!

It is a very simple religion.



Notme 2000

I have heard this argument many times, often from someone who couldn't convince me there was a God. I'm sorry you couldn't convince me there is a God.

If you have evidence that a god does not exist, why should you wished to be convinced? :confused:

And like it or not, I have mass amounts of evidence that there is not a God and not one bit that supports a God.

Hey!!! Am I psychic or what? :eek:

And even if I were to recieve evidence of a God, I doubt it would be enough evidence to contradict all the evidence I have stating otherwise.

You just don’t get it, do ya? :(

So you can see, to someone who is trying to prove God's existence to me, I would be quite frustrating, because I'd be asking for at least as much evidence of a God as I have that there isn't one.

OK, start talking, lets see this evidence.

Athiesm starts with the assumption of zero knowledge.

Are you for real????? :D

We acknowledge the fact that we are born in to this world not knowing anything, and we look around us and make what we can with it.

What have you made with it, thus far? :confused:

Science is the opposite of religion.

Try telling that to Newton and Einstein.

Science teaches us to make observations,

Is science an entity?
Could you show me an instance where science actually teaches?

The development of the microscope dramatically increased our understanding of biology.

So people who believe in God, have no concept of science, or have not contributed to scientific descovery? :confused:

So you see, we do not have the same amount of faith in there not being a God as someone has faith that there is a God.

Oh!! I see. :rolleyes:

All we do is work for the truth, and we realize we have no say in what the final truth is.

We?
You don’t sound like a scientist to me.
You see, I set my standards from the greats, Newton and Einstein............... and your like………no where near…..man!!!! :p

Soz! :(

Love

Jan Ardena.

If you have evidence that a god does not exist, why should you wished to be convinced?
Because a universe with a God sounds alot better to me, don't you think? The good get rewarded, the evil punished, there is a heaven, I get to see my lost loved ones, etc... I wish there was a God, but I'm not willing to let it cloud my judgement.
Hey!!! Am I psychic or what?
I don't get it, but it was probably just an insult or jab, which is no matter to me.
You just don’t get it, do ya?
Nope, not at all. The idea of believing something against all odds escapes me. I suppose I am probably missing out big time. Ignorance is bliss... And believing that I will get to sit in heaven on all the pretty clouds sounds pretty blissful to me...
OK, start talking, lets see this evidence.
We have mapped the universe to great legnths and have not found any bit of evidence of him, which in itself is evidence against him. Half a million things in the bible don't check out, but I suppose that really isn't evidence against a God, just christianity, miracles are explained scientifically every day, there is no supreme justice, there is no purely good or purely evil people, people have been revived after being dead for over an hour... How did their "soul" know they were going to be saved? But mainly, the more we explain the less chance there is of a God existing... That's the one that I find really hard to get past.
Are you for real?????
Yes, elaborate more in question, and I will elaborate more in answer.
What have you made with it, thus far?
That there is no devine meaning to life. But that does not mean life is meaningless, just that we must give meaning to our lives ourselves... If you do that through a God, power to you. Athiests are often concidered cynical... Cynicism is often concidered realistic. At first it was all very depressing, but I am still new at this athiesm thing. Hell, I'm still new at this life thing, I'm only 18. But I'm used to it now, and don't find it depressing anymore... Infact, I find it quite inspiring that through no meaning or purpose we all came to exist... That is a true miracle, because it happened by itself.
Try telling that to Newton and Einstein.
Through the last post from firdroirich I have come to realize religion is not oposite of science... Something completely seperate. My bad.
Is science an entity?
Could you show me an instance where science actually teaches?
By that I meant the existence of science. Science has taught us objectiveness as religion has taught us faith.
So people who believe in God, have no concept of science, or have not contributed to scientific descovery?
When did I say that?
Oh!! I see.
Come on, make me think here...
We? You don’t sound like a scientist to me. You see, I set my standards from the greats, Newton and Einstein............... and your like………no where near…..man!!!!
We, athiests. Never said I was anything like Einstein or Newton. But in the same respect, you are nowhere near either. I'm just making the most out of what I got, how bout you?

Hi everybody. This is my first post. I'm glad I found a place where everybody can have an opinion and people are actually willing to talk about it.

First of all: I'm a Christian (*closes eyes and waits for all the prejudice to settle*). Now, that may make me biased in a certain way (well...because I've decided to accept God...but more on that later). But personally I think I would have made a great atheist. My girlfriend just left me because she thought that the concept of sin is silly and it's much less naive to live in reality- where you have to make your own choices about what is right and wrong (and where you need proof to make any decision - whether it is to believe in God, UFO's, ghosts or the livelyhood of Schrodinger's cat). So I have had first-hand experience of being singled out for my beliefs. I also think that more people would have believed in God if it weren't for some Christians, which leads me to one point:

Just as you can't judge atheists or anybody for what they believe or don't believe in, you can't judge Christians for believing in God while still being just as human as everybody else, i.e. you can't judge them according to their own 'laws' if you don't believe in those laws yourself. Christians are people who have been given a concept of 'sin', an awareness that they have 'sin', and there for anybody to see: the destructive power of sin. (btw. non-Christians of course have morals, ethics, and laws, but they do they include the order to love or, in fact, to do anything?)

I can go on for hours as you can see ;-) Please don't tear me apart just yet. I'm open to discussion (you don't believe me do you?). I don't think it is POSSIBLE to believe in God. The fact that some people can is a miracle ;-)

OK. Give me your worst...
JR

Because a universe with a God sounds alot better to me, don't you think? The good get rewarded, the evil punished, there is a heaven, I get to see my lost loved ones, etc... I wish there was a God, but I'm not willing to let it cloud my judgement.

Do you think that is why people believe in God?

I don't get it, but it was probably just an insult or jab, which is no matter to me.

You want to be “convinced” there is a god, but at the same time you have evidence that a god does not exist. It is very predictable.

And believing that I will get to sit in heaven on all the pretty clouds sounds pretty blissful to me...

Like I said, you just don’t get it.
If you want to talk about God, heaven and spirituality in general, then at least have some idea of what these are.

The development of the microscope dramatically increased our understanding of biology.

But it cannot stop old age, disease or death.

Come on, make me think here...

Why are you wasting your energy on this a “religion” forum?
Would you spend time on a “pink unicorn with purple spots” forum?

Love

Jan Ardena.

How to believe
Hi everybody.

Hi Jenyar, and welcome.

This is my first post. I'm glad I found a place where everybody can have an opinion and people are actually willing to talk about it.

Mmmmmmmm…………..??????????

Errrrr......look we got Mr. Smilies.... :)

But personally I think I would have made a great atheist.

What sort of effort does it take to be a “great atheist?”

I also think that more people would have believed in God if it weren't for some Christians, which leads me to one point:

Please elaborate!

you can't judge Christians for believing in God

Oh! There are some folk who will try.


Christians are people who have been given a concept of 'sin', an awareness that they have 'sin', and there for anybody to see: the destructive power of sin.

Do you think this concept is given only to Christians?

Why is this (if your answer is yes)?


(btw. non-Christians of course have morals, ethics, and laws,

Why do you differentiate between Christian and non-Christian.?

I don't think it is POSSIBLE to believe in God. The fact that some people can is a miracle ;-)

How is it that you are a Christian but don’t believe in God.? :confused:
The mind boggles!!

To get Mr. Smilie, miss out the hyphon.

OK. Give me your worst...

Grrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:
What, no scientific evidence, get thee behind me illogical person. :eek:

Hope that wasn’t too harsh. :p

Love

Jan

Ardena.

First of all, Jan, for leaving insults out of your last post I have gained much respect, and concider your post much more seriously.
Do you think that is why people believe in God?
I believe that was the initial reason, which in turn spawned off thousand of other reasons. But I do believe that is the root of it all, not the only reason though. Evidence: most religions have the same BASIC beliefs... Good are rewarded, evil punished, there is a continuance of the "soul" after death, etc... Religion as a whole always fills the same voids in our lives... One could also argue, however, the similarities in religions are evidence of one true God...
You want to be “convinced” there is a god, but at the same time you have evidence that a god does not exist. It is very predictable.
Also likely...
Like I said, you just don’t get it. If you want to talk about God, heaven and spirituality in general, then at least have some idea of what these are.
You are right again. Even when I was a Christian I never really believed in God, just never questioned it. But once I did, I immediately realized it didn't make sence. I wasn't raised christian, but in a generally christian/catholic society, ended up as one. But I think by not being raised in a religious household, I stayed in that neutral state, ie. athiesm. And once I was ready to question God, I did. This is the answer I have gotten to. But I do want to know what God, heaven and spirituality is really about, it would help me to better understand theists, and who knows, maybe something would click and it'd all make sence to me! So please explain.
But it cannot stop old age, disease or death.
Not the microscope. Medicine and new discoveries in healthy eating prolongs our life expectancy year by year. Once upon a time 30 was concidered old age. We have found cures for countless diseases, though more keep showing up, often from our own devices. And I do believe it MAY be possible to stop death, in it's natural form, but that is just a theory with very little evidence, so I don't blame you if you doubt it.
Why are you wasting your energy on this a “religion” forum?
It interests me. I'm not here to insult anyone. If I were to exclude theists from my life, I'd be pretty lonely. Look forward to your reply!

I believe that was the initial reason, which in turn spawned off thousand of other reasons. But I do believe that is the root of it all, not the only reason though. Evidence: most religions have the same BASIC beliefs... Good are rewarded, evil punished, there is a continuance of the "soul" after death, etc... Religion as a whole always fills the same voids in our lives... One could also argue, however, the similarities in religions are evidence of one true God...You are, essentially, right on the mark with that, Notme2000.

I would propose the following, though: It is evidence of one True God that people have created.

We can probably (probably) agree that insofar as any of us can tell, people invent gods and not vice-versa?

I'm in. I just don't want to presume your position.

But that, essentially, is why religions still have importance. The whole of what people hope for transcends mundane characterization, and so they compress and mythicize it. From that process come gods, at least, as well as a few other strange ideas among humanity, such as political boundaries (as opposed to natural geographic boundaries) and such myths as patriotism.

In terms of religions, though, the common aspects seek--if we bear in mind that people create gods--common values among diverse people. In fact, what I'm starting to look at now--possibly a ten-year undertaking--is the degree of impact localized factors (climate, geography, economy, demographics) have on the development of specific religious ideas. That is, if it turns out that the common aspects of religion hint toward common human aspirations, what about being who and where you are affects the expression of that? Why, for instance, Buddhism where there are Buddhists, Christians where there are Christians, Hindus where there are Hindus, and Muslims where there are Muslims? What forces of nature and history affect the conceptual development?

In religions we see essentially a social mass-expression of values. These things are good, those are bad, so to speak. A.L. Basham, in Classical Hinduism (Boston: Beacon, 1989) notes that the diverse presence of Agni (fire-god) in lightning, the hearth, the wilderness, and so forth--the many manifestations of fire familiar to the community--may have lent to early speculation about the nature of gods, the singularity of God, and so forth. That is, conditions in the community allowed or even encouraged deeper speculative thought about natural mysteries.

So in that sense, I think it is possible to establish that the common aspects of diverse religions aspire toward one true something, but what that something turns out to be is its own mystery.

I guess it's a matter of chicken and egg.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Thanks Jan. I might get the hang of it some day ;)

1. As I see it - it takes courage to be play devil's advocate. I just like to think myself as being an atheist, and then play 'God's advocate'. It takes at least some openmindedness.

2.Which is why poeple look at some Christians and say: if that is a Christian, I don't want to be one.

3.There will always be people who are willing to be right without accepting the possibility of being wrong- they don't realise that you can have a part of the truth and a part of a lie in one package.

4.Do you think only Christians have sin? As I have it, they concept of sin comes from the idea of doing something against God's Will, that leads you away from him, that makes you 'guilty'.

5.That's why I wanted to differentiate. Becuase no only Christians can be 'guilty', even in their own eyes. But for Christians, guilt is more than in their own eyes (how can you do what's right if nobody tells or shows you what is right).

6.I DO believe in God. I was merely saying that I'm looking at that rift called 'doubt' from the other side. You know,
after I had made the 'leap of faith'. It's quite an interesting perspective, and I enjoy philosophising about it.

If the question of belief is a problem, wouldn't it be easier to solve it from both sides? If it isn't, then no amount of talking will make a difference anyway, unless it changes your life. Christianity changed my life, but atheism didn't change any of my friends' lives (just made it more bearable, I think). I would like to hear some "witnesses of atheism" as well, you know. Otherwise I would just be another 'I'm right and you're wrong' person, which I'm not.

Jenyar, that's true, I am an athiest and it didn't change my life. I ask, what does that mean? Becoming an athiest only means accepting that I know next to nothing about the universe I'm in, while being a christian genereally means all the big questions are answered. So you can see why religion is life-changing and athiesm is generally not.

I believe that was the initial reason, which in turn spawned off thousand of other reasons.

How have you come to believe this?

Evidence: most religions have the same BASIC beliefs... Good are rewarded, evil punished,[/I

Isn’t that the same belief in a godless/secular society?

If you work well at school, you get rewarded, if you kill somebody you get punished.

[I] ] there is a continuance of the "soul" after death, etc...

Try not to think of the soul as a separate part of yourself, see it as yourself. A good example is clothes, you are not the clothes you wear, but when you are wearing them, they move exactly with the body, but when the clothes become old and worn, you discard them and get new ones. The body is like clothes.

The soul on the other hand, is spiritual, it is not affected by the laws which affect the body. Whether or not you believe that, doesn’t really matter, it is actually the correct way to view the soul (as told by authorities), if you can understand that, then I guarantee your understanding of religion will improve.

Religion as a whole always fills the same voids in our lives... One could also argue, however, the similarities in religions are evidence of one true God...

That is not the point of real religion, real religion is education, it teaches one to understand the “self” in relation to God.

You want to be “convinced” there is a god, but at the same time you have evidence that a god does not exist. It is very predictable.


Also likely...

Then what good is your so-called evidence?
Do you think everything is going to come good in your lifetime, why you hang on to this unseen, unknown evidense?

You are right again. Even when I was a Christian I never really believed in God, just never questioned it.

A Christian is someone who follows in the footsteps of Lord Jesus Christ, so how can you not believe in God, when Jesus believes in God. The first thing a Christian must do is surrender to Jesus, otherwise it is just a poppy-show business.
An example….. I wish to be a mechanic, but then I choose to concoct my own laws and theories, because I don’t want to follow the example laid down by people who follow the laws of mechanics.
How do you think I would fare?

But I think by not being raised in a religious household, I stayed in that neutral state, ie. athiesm.

So you think you are neutral, as I said religion is education. If you never went to school, learned to read or write, do you think your position would be neutral?

But I do want to know what God, heaven and spirituality is really about, it would help me to better understand theists, and who knows, maybe something would click and it'd all make sence to me! So please explain.

In short……. God is a person, in all scriptures there are hints of this, some more obvious than others. He is the Supreme Being, that means no one is equal to or greater than Him. Everything emanates from Him, He is the cause of everything. He is pure spirit therefore has no beginning or end. He is the sum total of everything.

The material world is split into 3, sometimes known as the 3 worlds, upper (heavenly) middle (earthly) and lower (hellish). In vedic literature it states that the topmost heavenly planet, populated by great sages who meditate on God constantly, it is called “satyaloka.” This is the planet where Jesus was supposed to have descended from. There, they don’t care for sensual pleasure, they spend all their time meditating and lovingly serving God and His devotess. They can travel as they like, wherever they like.

As you descend further, the heavenly planets become more places for pure sense gratification, thousands of times more pleasurable than we can even imagine, the duration of life is thousands and thousands of our years, but 100 of their years, and as you descend more you enter into the middle system, which is where we are, in this life we have some heavenly comforts, but in general not enough to become complacent as in the upper regions. We also have some hellish unpleasantries.
As you descend further life becomes more dull and ignorant as we enter into the hellish regions.

This is a very very basic account of the order of the universe, which is stipulated (to some degree or other) in all religious scripture.

Medicine and new discoveries in healthy eating prolongs our life expectancy year by year.

But we still grow old, it cannot stop the ageing process. Anxiety comes when people start to lose their youth and lustre, they will only be truly satisfied when the ageing process stops.

Once upon a time 30 was concidered old age.

But that doesn’t make anything better, people are more anxious than ever.

We have found cures for countless diseases, though more keep showing up, often from our own devices.

But can science stop disease, period?
If it cannot do these things, then what is its use outside of sense extentions?

And I do believe it MAY be possible to stop death, in it's natural form, but that is just a theory with very little evidence, so I don't blame you if you doubt it.

You say you believe, but you have little or no evidence, so in essence it can not be stopped, so you are being tricked by complete foolishness. Try and understand how modern science is nothing but a bluff.
My advice, follow in the footsteps of proper scientists whose only intention is to find out the reason why, not the modern ones who try and kill God in the minds of the innocent people by using simple tricks.

Love

Jan Ardena.

In fact. The big questions don't miraculously get answered when you start believing. I agree with the Jan - it's an education. Could you imagine quantum physics when you were 8? Have you tried studying it? Quite mind-blowing stuff actually. But it doesn't make things work differently now that you know it. Everything stays the same. Except yourself.

That, to me, is what makes it worth it. The fact that people could see that - "Hey, something's changed! What was it? Did you get laid or what?" The challenge of Christianity is not in being convinced (that's easy - you just have to realise that you know nothing, and then begin asking what it is you don't know), but being convincing. You can't fake it. Obeying the law - biblical and governmental and social - like a robot convinces no-one, and only makes you feel trapped and oppressed. The freedom I experience is one of a way of thinking that breathes light and air into a small box. It's the kind of freedom a bird has: everybody can see for themselves a bird can't reach outer space or swim underwater, but tell that bird it's not free. It won't understand, might try contemplating it for a moment, and then fly wherever it wants to go.

To extend the metaphor: there are still storms and winds and hardships, and questions - they are just as bad as ever, just as hard to understand, but that freedom is not connected to your circumstances. You especially realise it when you are at your worst. Think about it: When you have nothing left, does scienctific proof matter, does it matter whether the earth is round or flat? Things come into perspective, the tangible difference at this point is that suicide seems on the other side of the option list. No scientist could prove to you that you need to live, but God could.

yew pore soles.

this is series stuf.

u needa go ripent four al yew have sed in thes thred, and ect liek normil godfeering selfs.

tawking abuot sich thinks, xev ind avatar, yew are soliling the gud theest neym, so wee wil lews the batel and the wer agenst the athest. be verey carful and rimember yew our gods servints, wiling to convins evil pegins and athest of one trew religin, cristinitey.

:p

I just like to think myself as being an atheist, and then play 'God's advocate'. It takes at least some openmindedness.

How is it possible to play the part of an atheist effectively?

And what is the advantage of playing this role?

Do you think it is possible to convince someone of something they do not want to be convinced of?

You sound open, hope we can talk about the bible soon. After all it is a religion forum. :)

Love

Jan Ardena.

Quoth Jenyar

Think about it: When you have nothing left, does scienctific proof matter, does it matter whether the earth is round or flat?

Scientific proof is what seperates our reality from the fantasy of religion.

No scientist could prove to you that you need to live, but God could.

Thats rather asinine considering all Gods rewards are for when you're dead.

Thats rather asinine considering all Gods rewards are for when you're dead.

Extra asinine considering that God is dead Himself. ;)

But of course you don't need to live.

Jan:
How have you come to believe this?
Because the basis of religion always seems to cater to that ONE need.
Isn’t that the same belief in a godless/secular society?
Uh oh, you've only helped me prove my point. The fact that humanity has created a similar set of rules in society shows that humans need this sort of redemption/reward so it would make perfect sence to create an all-seeing God. The difference is here on earth, not every one who has killed has been punished. Some get away with it completely, some get away with it through persuasion or money (can we say Oj Simpson?). And while doing good in school gets you rewards, I mean good in the moral sence, in which you are not rewarded. Look at hippies. They are good people, though not wholly realistic... But they get treated like crap. No overlying justice... Humanity can't accept this and creates a supreme judge, God.
The body is like clothes.
I believe the body is clothes, but only to our brain. And I believe our brain dies too.
Whether or not you believe that, doesn’t really matter, it is actually the correct way to view the soul (as told by authorities), if you can understand that, then I guarantee your understanding of religion will improve.
That is what I believe the soul to be, I just don't believe it to exist.
That is not the point of real religion, real religion is education, it teaches one to understand the “self” in relation to God.
Never thought of it that way.
How do you think I would fare?
Not to well. I did not fare to well as a christian. I could not surrendor myself to someone I had no reason to trust. Before you say he died for us, I would die for him. Not because he is God's son, but I'd die for any of my fellow man, if required. I don't see any requirement to surrendor to a dead man. You must realize before you get defensive, I see Jesus as a very cool guy, but that's it. And there's been plenty of very cool people. You're probably very cool. But I'm not going to surrender myself to you. Get my point?
So you think you are neutral, as I said religion is education. If you never went to school, learned to read or write, do you think your position would be neutral?
I believe religion to be education of a lie. If I did not go to school I'd still be neutral. Neutral is an unmoving an-altered state. Education is not. I would not be educated, but I'd still be neutral.
Anxiety comes when people start to lose their youth and lustre, they will only be truly satisfied when the ageing process stops.
Who said the truth has to be satisfying?
But that doesn’t make anything better, people are more anxious than ever.
Probably cause of the rate of change this generation faces.
But can science stop disease, period? If it cannot do these things, then what is its use outside of sense extentions?

Understanding
not the modern ones who try and kill God in the minds of the innocent people by using simple tricks.
I never tried to kill God. I watched him die as I learnt more and more.
Jenyar:
Everything stays the same. Except yourself.
Wouldn't that mean that you are becoming wrong. The only thing that changes is your beliefs... So who says that makes them right? Not trying to piss anyone off here, just for the sake of debate.
When you have nothing left, does scienctific proof matter, does it matter whether the earth is round or flat?
Fundamentally, nothing matters. We are but humans with a perspective, we can be happy or sad with our surroundings, but they will never change. All we can change is our perspective, and so God was born.
No scientist could prove to you that you need to live, but God could.
Concider the possibility there is no meaning to life but the meaning YOU give it, not what God gives it.

I'd talk about the Bible anytime you want, Jan. Both as a book and as a message...

I guess I can understand what makes an atheist just as little as an atheist can understand what makes a Christian. But the good thing is that we can try, isn't it?

Anyway, the Bible says itself that it cannot be understood using conventional wisdom, i.e. pure scientific or philosophical method. So I propose that religion is needs a 'third way of thinking', one that should be measured and investigated on its own merit. The 'science vs. religion' debate is an argument that can only be productive when they accept each other's realities. 'Philosophy' is the way of the mind, 'Science' is the way of the body, and 'religion' is the way of God. These destinctions should be as useful as de Bono's thinking Hats. That way we are forced to think laterally for solutions instead of blindly following what we already believe is true. If Philosophy and Science can co-exist, I can't see why there should be no place for religion as well, except that it presents notions that are alien to the other two, such as the death of 'self', and of course, the belief in God.

You don't need to believe in Einstein's theories in order for them to be true (or not). Science is a study of something that is already in place. Philosophy is a study of a mind we don't understand, using pseudo-scientific methods. Religion is the study of God, using your own life as guinea-pig. People could believe any combination of the three, the truth as it suits the individual. That is why, from a neutral perspective (nods to notme), it would seem futile to believe in any of those three (you could take it further and become an anarchist, refusing to believe in education as an institution as well). If everything is in a constant state of chaos, and nature tends towards entropy - the natural path from a neutral position would be one that leads to, say it with me, death. You can't deny the reality of death. But why does death even have to exist? (Hello Buddhism). Voila, we're in the realm of religion.

OK. I can only speak from a Christian POV, since I have just a general knowledge of any other religion. Christian belief is one that works backwards. It turns everything on its head. Living becomes dying, dying becomes living - it's a strange and alien paradigm. It's either madness (i.e. chaos and nothing) or there is some kind of movement. Hello Christians. We live now as an affirmation of what, in a sense, has already happened.

I'll leave it at that for now, before someone spontaneously awards me a PhD just to keep me silent. :)

Because the basis of religion always seems to cater to that ONE need.

If you read religious texts, you will find that is not the basis of religion, it is much deeper than that. Religion is distributed according to time, place and circumstance.

Preliminary maths and advance maths is maths, but taught according to the level of the consciousness of the person. Religion is no different, it gives very simple accounts of what God and life are, because the idea is to attract the mind.
On the other hand it gives seriously deep and complicated understanding of the very Personality of God and the process of life and creation etc, that is not to say that the simpler explanations are in any way different in essence.

You seem like an intelligent chap, maybe you need to see something a little more scientific than what is in the Bible. The irony is, when you start to understand the science and philosophy of God consciousness, you develop a deeper understanding of the Bible and Qur’an.

The fact that humanity has created a similar set of rules in society shows that humans need this sort of redemption/reward so it would make perfect sence to create an all-seeing God.

What makes you think humanity created this method?
As far as I can tell, this has always been the way.

Humanity can't accept this and creates a supreme judge, God.

At what point did this occur?

I just don't believe it to exist.

That’s fair enough.

I could not surrendor myself to someone I had no reason to trust.

I can see your point, neither could I.

Before you say he died for us….

First and foremost, he died.
The question is, why did he die?
Because he taught God-consciousness?
Why should somebody be put to death because of that?
It is not that he came to "die for us," he dedicated his whole life to us as an example, death occurs naturally, it is the way.

Get my point?

Yes.

I believe religion to be education of a lie.

If you like, next time I can put up some quotes from Jesus or Muhammad (pboh), and we can scrutinize their teachings and see if it really is a lie. Just say the word. :)

Of course if you are talking about the “institution” known throughout the world as “religion,” then I can see where you are coming from. :p

Who said the truth has to be satisfying?

Truth is the most satisfying thing, as it is never changing. You can set your watch by the truth.
Sure it might be a little bitter at the start, but like any medicine, it will eventually improve your condition, and everything becomes clear, original.

We know sugar is sweet, but to a man suffering from jaundice, it is bitter, this is because of his condition. A course of anti-biotics or whatever, follow the instructions of the authority (doctor), and he will be as right as rain. ;)

Love

Jan Ardena.

Hello Christians. We live now as an affirmation of what, in a sense, has already happened.

That is a mysteriously interesting point, would you care to elaborate?

Love

Jan Ardena.

There's a lot on this, but one example: Jesus died 2000 years ago for our sins. But mankind has done quite a bit of sinning since then. But He doesn't have to die for them again. He promised to come again, but to a new kingdom. The same with the promise of a new kingdom. The Israelites got Canaan as the promised land, but that doesn't mean the promise has been fulfilled and Christians have nothing to look forward to.

When Jesus died He reversed the world order, from leading to physical death to leading to spiritual life. You can't just stay where you are - stagnation is the same as dying.

So we live with a promise that has already been fulfilled. Since we have already been saved from death, it becomes more and more useless to sin - you don't really want to, and when you do it bugs you. When you ask for forgiveness you know He has already given it (he knew you'd ask :-) It doesn't mean fishes suddenly become birds, by some miracle - but swimming upstream becomes a viable option. Being Christian cannot be an excuse for escapism, because you're not escaping, you're just living with the freedom of knowing that you are already free. There's nothing as liberating, I can tell you from experience.

Jenyar proposes:

Anyway, the Bible says itself that it cannot be understood using conventional wisdom, i.e. pure scientific or philosophical method.

True, science and philosophy cannot explain fairy tales and fantasies.

So I propose that religion is needs a 'third way of thinking', one that should be measured and investigated on its own merit.

It already has its own way of thinking; irrationality.

The 'science vs. religion' debate is an argument that can only be productive when they accept each other's realities.

Unfortunately, religion is not a reality, it is a fantasy. How does one "accept" anothers fantasy ?

If Philosophy and Science can co-exist, I can't see why there should be no place for religion as well, except that it presents notions that are alien to the other two, such as the death of 'self', and of course, the belief in God.

It also presents notions of fantasy and make-believe. Fairy tales cannot co-exist with realities.

Christian belief is one that works backwards. It turns everything on its head. Living becomes dying, dying becomes living - it's a strange and alien paradigm. It's either madness (i.e. chaos and nothing) or there is some kind of movement.

True, fantasies usually do turn realities upside-down and backwards however, with reality, living is living and dead is dead. Those who choose denial will waste t