Why is there so little discussion between theists of different denominations here?

We have here members of different theistic traditions: Catholics, Protestants, other Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, polytheists, and others.

Generally, there are well-known clashes between them.

And yet they barely discuss their differences here.


How come?

It is like political parties . They got plenty of scape goats ( Mainly Atheist are the enemy round heya ) You know how it is ? War makes for the strangest of bed partners

Lack of tolerance and respect of the beliefs of other abounds in this and similar forums.

It prevents any intelligent discussion.

It is not just here, but in the World in general. I have found very few believers who will enter into any discussion of comparative beliefs without taking a stance early in the discussion which stops any chance of achieving an understanding of the others opinion.

I am a believer in God and go to religious services regularly, but also attend, when invited, to services of other faiths and enjoy their worship of their Deity who I feel is just another face of mine.

I suspect that this post will attract atheist attacks, but request, without much hope, that they will instead, take this as an opportunity to express their beliefs in a professional and honest manner, so I may better understand their point of view. I would welcome their opinions, whether I disagree with them or not.

Respectfully submitted,

Hardalee

Perhaps they are finally seeing that evolution is correct and are leaving their religious states of delusion and myths to be involved with reality finally.:shrug:

As a religious person who belives in evolution, I have a problem getting others to discuss it. They generally go to one "good book" or another and quote the answer. No discussion is tollerated. So I generally just don't bring it up.

I go to science which I consider God's good book.

This is part of the problem with interfaith discussions. They often get nipped in the bud.

As a religious person who belives in evolution, I have a problem getting others to discuss it. They generally go to one "good book" or another and quote the answer. No discussion is tollerated. So I generally just don't bring it up.

I go to science which I consider God's good book.

This is part of the problem with interfaith discussions. They often get nipped in the bud.

What role does God play, in your theistic outlook?

jan.

Simple.

Creator of the Universe’s. (What we consider the Universe is likely only a very small part.)

Albeit in a very complex way which science trying to understand.

Why is there so little discussion between theists of different denominations here?

We have here members of different theistic traditions: Catholics, Protestants, other Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, polytheists, and others.

Generally, there are well-known clashes between them.

And yet they barely discuss their differences here.


How come?
because this isn't the forum for it - you wouldn't get two posts into it without someone quipping "But its just like the invisible pink unicorn" or "but why doesn't god cure cancer?"

there are bigger fish to fry, so to speak ....

Signal,
Because defense of theism requires god to be defined in the vaguest terms possible. Jan even said she believes all religions!

But now there have been more than two posts that have commented reasonably.

Is there hope for change?

Maybe people will try. I suspect the bomb is comming, but I would enjoy being wrong.

Signal,
Because defense of theism requires god to be defined in the vaguest terms possible. Jan even said she believes all religions!
edit : oh and I almost forgot the inevitable "an atheist just disbelieves in one more god/religion than you theists"
:shrug:

There are of course some fundamentalist denominations of Christianity that teach that every other religion is the product of Satan's efforts to lead people away from the truth by providing approximations that appeal to a diverse range of personal motivations. To put it another way, they believe that if you're not trying to model yourself on Jesus in particular, and you're not part of a fellowship that is trying to model itself on the first century Christian church, then your soul is in mortal danger.

I guess one question that is relevant to this discussion then is "Why are they wrong?".

Good points above. But this is a science-y forum and no one has any evidence. How then to argue one over another?

Good points above. But this is a science-y forum and no one has any evidence.

It's the religion section. Which is guided by somewhat different principles.



How then to argue one over another?

Simply by discussing.

because this isn't the forum for it - you wouldn't get two posts into it without someone quipping "But its just like the invisible pink unicorn" or "but why doesn't god cure cancer?"

I don't buy this "it's a science forum full of atheists."

Why not simply ignore the atheist remarks or state specifically for whom the thread is?



there are bigger fish to fry, so to speak ....

You theists are not being fair and you are not even trying to put yourself into the shoes of the average unchurched person.

The average unchurched person, when looking for the "true religion," finds themselves in the crossfire between several religions, especially theisms.

But theists tend to deny that this crossfire exists!!

edit : oh and I almost forgot the inevitable "an atheist just disbelieves in one more god/religion than you theists"

Yadda yadda yadda. Poor you for not being able to ignore the occasional atheist quip. :rolleyes:

There are of course some fundamentalist denominations of Christianity that teach that every other religion is the product of Satan's efforts to lead people away from the truth by providing approximations that appeal to a diverse range of personal motivations. To put it another way, they believe that if you're not trying to model yourself on Jesus in particular, and you're not part of a fellowship that is trying to model itself on the first century Christian church, then your soul is in mortal danger.

I guess one question that is relevant to this discussion then is "Why are they wrong?".

It's actually worse than that. Many Christian denominations teach that they are the only way and all others, including their fellow Christians with slightly different flavors of belief are also going to hell.

I hope they are wrong since I don't buy into a God who condemns most of humanity.

Now the pot is stirred enough to start getting some opinions.

Not sure the first century church is a correct quote. The reformation changed much of that. Christians in the first century were basically good Jews before they changed. Until Constantine, who forcefully unified the Church, many different views of Christianity thrived.

Signal,
Because defense of theism requires god to be defined in the vaguest terms possible. Jan even said she believes all religions!


No I didn't. :confused:


jan.

I don't buy this "it's a science forum full of atheists."

Why not simply ignore the atheist remarks or state specifically for whom the thread is?


I suggest that atheist's comments should be as welcome others in a discussion such as this.

Simple.

Creator of the Universe’s. (What we consider the Universe is likely only a very small part.)

Albeit in a very complex way which science trying to understand.

What makes you believe God created the universe?


jan.

I suggest that atheist's comments should be as welcome others in a discussion such as this.

Of course.

My point was that some theists are just overmoaning the fact that atheists are present at all.

Perhaps they are finally seeing that evolution is correct and are leaving their religious states of delusion and myths to be involved with reality finally.:shrug:


I am a theist and I believe in evolution, believe in creation because evolution is programmed .

I don't agree with atheist because they think they know every think about nature , and that shoes me plain ignorance from their part.

What makes you believe God created the universe?


jan.

A theory, a feeling, a belief.

I think a lot about what was here "before" the universe was created and if there was a "before". This is the basis of my study of physics of all kinds.

The thought of Nothing or "No-thing" makes my head hurt.

Others possibly can accept a nothingness of quantum fluctuations, but to me, something is needed to first create a place for those fluctuations to occur as well as the fluctuations themselves.

This may be the seed of the universe.

Accepting a God of creation solves that problem for me. My head dosen't hurt.

What makes you believe God created the universe?


jan.

Does it say God created the universe ? or God created the heaven and earth

do we know what is meant by heaven ? What is firmament , is it part our atmosphere ?

Good points above. But this is a science-y forum and no one has any evidence. How then to argue one over another?

Seems like a pretty good reason why there's so little interfaith discussion here- what's there to discuss? By trying to put it into a scientific context, which is the presumed purpose of discussing things here instead of some other website, it reduces the discussion to a destructive argument over which viewpoint has the greatest lack of evidence to back it. I have to wonder how many threads are even started here with the intent of having a dialogue in the first place, as opposed to simply creating yet another bullying pulpit.

Seems like a pretty good reason why there's so little interfaith discussion here- what's there to discuss? By trying to put it into a scientific context, which is the presumed purpose of discussing things here instead of some other website, it reduces the discussion to a destructive argument over which viewpoint has the greatest lack of evidence to back it. I have to wonder how many threads are even started here with the intent of having a dialogue in the first place, as opposed to simply creating yet another bullying pulpit.

The reality is that the average religious seeker finds themselves in the crossfire between different religions, also in the crossfire between different religions and science.

There should be venues to talk about this. A forum like this is suitable.

A theory, a feeling, a belief.

I think a lot about what was here "before" the universe was created and if there was a "before". This is the basis of my study of physics of all kinds.

The thought of Nothing or "No-thing" makes my head hurt.

Others possibly can accept a nothingness of quantum fluctuations, but to me, something is needed to first create a place for those fluctuations to occur as well as the fluctuations themselves.

This may be the seed of the universe.

Accepting a God of creation solves that problem for me. My head dosen't hurt.


Have any scriptures, and/or religion played a role your decision of God?


jan.

Does it say God created the universe ? or God created the heaven and earth

do we know what is meant by heaven ? What is firmament , is it part our atmosphere ?


Not in the bible as far as I know.


jan.

Have any scriptures, and/or religion played a role your decision of God?


Not in the bible as far as I know.

What does this have to do with the thread topic?

Have any scriptures, and/or religion played a role your decision of God?


jan.


No, except the bible said that God created the heavens and the earth. I just have an opinion, as previously expressed, on how it was done.

I should note that the Hebrew Bible stated that the universe (world in their understanding) had a beginning and would someday end thousands of years before science discovered the same thing. A lucky guess?

Study of science, hopefully without preconceived notions or prejudices in my current continuing search.

I have read extensively about religion and some of my ideas may come from that phase, but they led me to study science for further clarification.

I'm still looking and would appreciate any help that comes my way.

The reality is that the average religious seeker finds themselves in the crossfire between different religions, also in the crossfire between different religions and science.

There should be venues to talk about this. A forum like this is suitable.

Yeah that sounds perfectly fine in principle, and I wasn't trying to imply that this subsection is totally useless or of no scientific merit... but this section is only useful to that extent insofar as the participants are actually interested in said crossfire. I don't get the impression that many conversations are started here with any serious interest or intent in changing or adapting one's own views, or with a genuine intention of exploring and understanding an alternative viewpoint. In a nutshell, it seems like a lot of people come here just to fight, and while they may welcome other combatants to the fight, the welcome is only extended for the sake of the fight itself and not to learn anything from it.

What does this have to do with the thread topic?



You asked for discussion among us believers , here I attempted to open a discussion, but you are complaining .

Does it say God created the universe ? or God created the heaven and earth

do we know what is meant by heaven ? What is firmament , is it part our atmosphere ?

The world, heaven and earth were what the people knew at that time it was written, or passed down by oral tradition.

IMHO, it meant the universe as they knew it.

No complaint here.

Kind Regards,

Hardalee

As a religious person who belives in evolution, I have a problem getting others to discuss it. They generally go to one "good book" or another and quote the answer. No discussion is tollerated. So I generally just don't bring it up.

I go to science which I consider God's good book.

This is part of the problem with interfaith discussions. They often get nipped in the bud.

no I am with you on that . Evolution is real . Yet there is something about it . They say natural selection , but there is something mighty strange about selections . It ties in to this Idea that free will is an illusion and controls on time give us a perspective that we have free will but in reality we are controlled by the force of time . That force of time being god like by the way it is dictated in the individuals life . I think there is a language based in symbolic motion that dictates outcome . Something dragged from the past .

I don't know that is out there . It could be me delusion , but the voices you all use speak to Me in parallel motion . It is the strangest of things . Possessed is all I can say . Your all possessed by the spirit or something. You can believe what you all say . I try to tell you. I don't know if it comes out right or not . I imagine I sound like the average crank . I am O.K. with that . I try Me best . Let there be Cranks

Lets take the Flathead Monster for example . Superstitious animal that lives at the bottom of a lake. Now that sounds like a leviathan story to Me . Even a Poseidon frog story comes to mind . Yet : Yet : you investigate the Flat head Peoples and analysis a atrocities perpetrated on the tribe of peoples and you got wonder if there is something to a Flathead Monster . The beast with in so to speak . What do we call it " Human Expansionism . It is one big Ideology the world follows . I think it is the remnant of human migration . People we migrated already . We cover the earth !!. Fuck anyway . How can I put this . We have reached or destination !! The business plan is complete. God is it just Me . Fuck anyway

You asked for discussion among us believers , here I attempted to open a discussion, but you are complaining .

You ! Are you the Slav Guy . Is that a language group ? My Step mother was Ukrainian. She Died the week before thanksgiving (my favorite celebration in America) We are still suffering from this . Are you Ukrainian?

I want to hear what you have to say . Gypsies seem to be slav from what I gather . There is a mystery about a violin . Do you know any thing about that . A Violin with a blemish, but the blemish turns out to be the very thing that gave the violin its sound . What do you know about this ? Anything at all . Tell Me if you do . It is of much importance to me

Does it say God created the universe ? or God created the heaven and earth

do we know what is meant by heaven ? What is firmament , is it part our atmosphere ?

Heaven is the future of humanity . A better life . To command your environment. To rule the earth . Firmament is those beliefs held sacred. Try rooting them out of someone and tell me if they are not firmly rooted . Head worms would be one way a member of this forum I respect would say . Worms in a wooden head . Wormwood Like a Pinocchio story of the wood boy wanting to become a real boy some day . Like the wooden Indian at the Gift shop . Like the God Wooden in Norse mythology . Like burning wood around the camp fire cooking your meat . Very ancient in origin . Frag can give us an estimate on how far it goes back .

I am a theist and I believe in evolution, believe in creation because evolution is programmed .

I don't agree with atheist because they think they know every think about nature , and that shoes me plain ignorance from their part.

Very interesting . I am getting the feeling we are on the same page here . Programed ? That my friend is very interesting thing to say .

The Violin ? You know anything about an old family called Fidler ?

Why is there so little discussion between theists of different denominations here?

We have here members of different theistic traditions: Catholics, Protestants, other Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, polytheists, and others.

Generally, there are well-known clashes between them.

And yet they barely discuss their differences here.


How come?

I suspect the reason is to avoid the situation where different religions ultimately turn to analyze each other's lists of objective claims. Then they may use existing scientific knowledge to eliminate each others claims; thus, demonstrating that none of them are correct. I suspect that the only way to prevent this outcome is just to not discuss things at all.

[QUOTE=Me-Ki-Gal;2805137]You ! Are you the Slav Guy . Is that a language group ? My Step mother was Ukrainian. She Died the week before thanksgiving (my favorite celebration in America) We are still suffering from this . Are you Ukrainian?

Yes I am a UKI

Before the name of Slave merged their Greek and Latin Name was SKLAV.
There were some nomads group called Sklaws which were controlled by Scythian and Sarmatean .

You asked for discussion among us believers , here I attempted to open a discussion, but you are complaining .

The topic of this thread is centred on the question Why is there so little intertheist discussion?

This thread in particular is not meant to explore how particular religions differ on particular issues.
You are welcome to start such threads.

Yeah that sounds perfectly fine in principle, and I wasn't trying to imply that this subsection is totally useless or of no scientific merit... but this section is only useful to that extent insofar as the participants are actually interested in said crossfire. I don't get the impression that many conversations are started here with any serious interest or intent in changing or adapting one's own views, or with a genuine intention of exploring and understanding an alternative viewpoint. In a nutshell, it seems like a lot of people come here just to fight, and while they may welcome other combatants to the fight, the welcome is only extended for the sake of the fight itself and not to learn anything from it.

What people take from interactions with others is up to them.

But if all there can be between theists of different denominations, is either silence or fighting - then we are not unreasonable to be inclined to believe there is nothing more to them either.

I suspect the reason is to avoid the situation where different religions ultimately turn to analyze each other's lists of objective claims. Then they may use existing scientific knowledge to eliminate each others claims; thus, demonstrating that none of them are correct. I suspect that the only way to prevent this outcome is just to not discuss things at all.

Why should the theists be afraid?

They have killed people in the name of their God!
They beat their children in the name of God!
They assassinate, in public, the character of those who do not believe like they do!

So why be reluctant to discuss their differences?
Why turn religious diversity into something mystical and unapproachable?

If they are so damn right, they shouldn't be reluctant about confrontation.

Why should seekers take the whole burden of intertheistic strife?!

Why is there so little discussion between theists of different denominations here?

We have here members of different theistic traditions: Catholics, Protestants, other Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, polytheists, and others.

Generally, there are well-known clashes between them.

And yet they barely discuss their differences here.


How come?

I have had a few theists on theist discussions on this forum. The difference is that when i get into a discussion with another Theist it is usually a comprehensive discussion that ends up covering a few different issues. So in the end the other has either accepted or rejected my points. Theists can walk away from other theists and end discussion far more easy then they can walk away from an atheist.

See the other theist believes in God/ gods so in a way they are responsible for their acceptance of their view of God. atheists are like little children with no certainty. As i have been told in here they supposedly are open to belief in God but only need "proof" so they do not come out and flatly state, "there is no God". So they are an open book whilst the other theist has found their god and believe in something. They are definite.

Also atheists tend to want to debate the same issue a number of times trying different angles but essentially they seem to want to press on with a point until they get the answer they want. Of course they often don't get that answer from a theist.

So with an atheist one is encouraged to press on, but with another theist the motivation to press on is far less. Lets face it most theists who come into forums like this tend to be more solid in their beliefs. So the expectation is that if they dismiss what you say and reaffirm their position to you, they are not going to change. So they go their way and i go my way and we continue talking with the atheists.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

If they are so damn right, they shouldn't be reluctant about confrontation.



It's not about ones confidence in ones beliefs it is about ones assessment of the other guys confidence in their beliefs.

Once you see that the other theist is confident on their beliefs it becomes an issue of the efficient use of ones time.

Continuing to discuss things with a confident Theist is a waste of your work time for God. Better to use that precious time on someone who might move their position rather that a person you are sure is sure of their position.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Continuing to discuss things with a confident Theist is a waste of your work time for God. Better to use that precious time on someone who might move their position rather that a person you are sure is sure of their position.
Well that's a new take on things.
:roflmao:

So with an atheist one is encouraged to press on, but with another theist the motivation to press on is far less. Lets face it most theists who come into forums like this tend to be more solid in their beliefs. So the expectation is that if they dismiss what you say and reaffirm their position to you, they are not going to change. So they go their way and I go my way and we continue talking with the atheists.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Perhaps we could have more discourse here than in the past? It's not going bad so far. I personally have an interested in both the theist and atheist points of view, but I am a very liberal theist. Perhaps there is a liberal atheist out there?

So far that has been no flaming, trolling or preaching or bad manners in this thread. Not much off post, which sadly most threads devolve into. Solid opinions about how the various camps of thought have tended to interact in the past have been presented fairly and clearly and have, IMHO much merit.

I was interested in this thread as it is in a science forum. I realize that fact and faith often appear to have little in common, but does that mean they have nothing in common?

Perhaps, on the fringes, we can all find some common ground however small.

Einstein once said “ Science with out religion is lame, Religion without science is blind.”

I have this framed on my desk.

An interesting quote. Any comments on it’s accuracy?

because this isn't the forum for it - you wouldn't get two posts into it without someone quipping "But its just like the invisible pink unicorn" or "but why doesn't god cure cancer?"

there are bigger fish to fry, so to speak ....

edit : oh and I almost forgot the inevitable "an atheist just disbelieves in one more god/religion than you theists"

I've used all of those lines and I didn't intend any them as 'quips'. They are conversational ways of raising serious philosophical-theological issues. Issues that arise in theist-theist encounter as well as between theists and atheists.

In the inter-theistic context, the first two point to epistemological problems that arise when two or more believers make inconsistent universalistic claims. Presumably (but not necessarily) only one of their theistic religions can really be the true revelation of the one God. But both of our theists possess equal faith and similar subjective verification.

And regarding the third 'quip', the issue there is that when theists are confronting atheists, the theist is the one who is stoutly defending religious faith. But when theists confront other inconsistent theisms, they often find themselves in the atheist's role, dismissing the truth and validity of another person's religious faith and experience.

What does this have to do with the thread topic?


It's a live response to the thread.
There's no need for a intertheist discussions in this forum.

Apart from that millitant atheism is way more interesting.

jan.

Perhaps, on the fringes, we can all find some common ground however small.

Einstein once said “ Science with out religion is lame, Religion without science is blind.”

I have this framed on my desk.

An interesting quote. Any comments on it’s accuracy?

Einstein also defined religion as a sense of awe and wonder at the vastness and mystery of the universe around us. He wasn't saying anything about growing a Quaker beard and naming his kids Ezekiel and Jebediah. Most religions today wouldn't even be compatible with Einstein's personal definition, because they seek to remove the universe's mystery and personify it with untestable omnipotent deities.

Einstein also defined religion as a sense of awe and wonder at the vastness and mystery of the universe around us. He wasn't saying anything about growing a Quaker beard and naming his kids Ezekiel and Jebediah. Most religions today wouldn't even be compatible with Einstein's personal definition, because they seek to remove the universe's mystery and personify it with untestable omnipotent deities.

IMHO, you are absolutly right in the above post.

I on the other hand, don't seek to remove the mystery, only to learn more of what Einstein refered as "the Old One" though further and continuing study.

Kind Regards

IMHO, you are absolutly right in the above post.

I on the other hand, don't seek to remove the mystery, only to learn more of what Einstein refered as "the Old One" though further and continuing study.

Kind Regards

Why do you think do he is ''absolutely right''?

jan.

Why is there so little discussion between theists of different denominations here?

We have here members of different theistic traditions: Catholics, Protestants, other Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, polytheists, and others.

Generally, there are well-known clashes between them.

And yet they barely discuss their differences here.


How come?

Preaching is not allowed

Why should the theists be afraid?

They have killed people in the name of their God!
They beat their children in the name of God!
They assassinate, in public, the character of those who do not believe like they do!

So why be reluctant to discuss their differences?
Why turn religious diversity into something mystical and unapproachable?

Because they might show each others beliefs to be false... as well as their own.



If they are so damn right, they shouldn't be reluctant about confrontation.

Probably because they are not.



Why should seekers take the whole burden of intertheistic strife?!

That's a subjective question. Only you can answer it for yourself.

.
Why do you think do he is ''absolutely right''?

jan.

He quoted Einstein's feelings on the quote I made correctly, based on my readings of Einstein’s life and beliefs.

Religion is retarded.

Because they might show each others beliefs to be false... as well as their own.



Probably because they are not.



That's a subjective question. Only you can answer it for yourself.

Yes, many religions are false. The Christian church for example.

So with an atheist one is encouraged to press on, but with another theist the motivation to press on is far less. Lets face it most theists who come into forums like this tend to be more solid in their beliefs. So the expectation is that if they dismiss what you say and reaffirm their position to you, they are not going to change. So they go their way and i go my way and we continue talking with the atheists.

So what you appear to be saying then is that you do indeed try to change the minds of other theists. This obviously implies that you believe that at least some of them aren't going to be saved (else, why would you try to change their mind about anything?). So according to you we have a situation where there are theists running around trying to 'save' atheists who aren't saved themselves (since you did say that you both go back to talking to the atheists).

This is the absurdity that very few other theists around here have the balls to address, so I guess Adstar gets some credit just for implying it.

Of course I do realize that some theists are cast from a more inclusivist mold, and as such don't believe that any legitimate conflict between different religions exists. But everyone knows the conflicts are real, and any denial of such an obvious fact can only be born of ignorance or deception.

This fact alone deals the single greatest blow to the credibility of each and every theist on this board (and indeed everywhere else) who 'presumes' to be in a position of religious and/or spiritual authority.

To put it simply, it's a joke.

There's no need for a intertheist discussions in this forum.

Why not??



Apart from that millitant atheism is way more interesting.

Why?
Because that kind of fighting appeals to your psyche?

Why should seekers take the whole burden of intertheistic strife?!
That's a subjective question. Only you can answer it for yourself.

It's not subjective.

It is a reality that anyone living in the modern West is likely to experience.

It begins in one's neighborhood, when a child first realizes there are people of different races and persuasions in the world - and that one has to deal with them on a daily basis.

Multiculturalism and religious pluralism are formally addressed and taught in schools - but no real solution to the inter-religious conflicts is offered.

Moreover, in many Western countries, the laws on multiculturalism and religious pluralism protect the religious, but not the non-religious.

A Christian can start preaching to me, and if I oppose, I get to be the bad one, because by law I am the one being intolerant of his religion.
By law, the religious have to exhibit some measure of tolerance for people of other religions, but can be as intolerant of the non-religious as much as they like!


People have a natural striving for some kind of "higher living" (which can be called "spirituality," "religion," or "self-culture").

But when they try to act on this, they are met with numerous organizations, institutions and individuals who claim to be authorities on this "higher living" and who claim to be able to show others the way.
These numerous organizations, institutions and individuals tend to claim quite different things.
The confusion objectively exists.

Preaching is not allowed

Why would that be preaching??

The phrase "The Absolute Truth" still means something to some people.

It is not something to toss around, as if it were something trivial.


Theists of various persuasions believe that people have the right to know about God.
Allright, I agree, and I believe that too.

And I also believe that people have the right not to be confused and mislead in the pursuit and name of God.

Theists, if salvation and integrity mean anything to them, should see to it that people do not get confused and mislead in the pursuit and name of God.

For this, they need to clear up things in their own lines.

We who are not of any particular religious affiliation, have every right to call the theists on this and to hold them responsible.

And regarding the third 'quip', the issue there is that when theists are confronting atheists, the theist is the one who is stoutly defending religious faith. But when theists confront other inconsistent theisms, they often find themselves in the atheist's role, dismissing the truth and validity of another person's religious faith and experience.

Exactly!

Perhaps we could have more discourse here than in the past? It's not going bad so far. I personally have an interested in both the theist and atheist points of view, but I am a very liberal theist. Perhaps there is a liberal atheist out there?

G'Day Hardalee. I don't remember having a direct discussion with you. Have you been on this forum before under another name? I find tags like liberal and conservative unproductive. It's best just to deal with individual issues. Sometimes i am called conservative sometimes i am called liberal. I am a bible believing follower of the Messiah Jesus and don't like being put in a box.




So far that has been no flaming, trolling or preaching or bad manners in this thread.

Well just look at the post above your post then.




Dywyddyr


Originally Posted by Adstar
Continuing to discuss things with a confident Theist is a waste of your work time for God. Better to use that precious time on someone who might move their position rather that a person you are sure is sure of their position.
”
Well that's a new take on things.
:roflmao:

Dywyddyr quoted me and mocked my statement. Did not add any thoughts to the discussion at all. Nothing but trolling. If you stay on this forum for long enough you will see it is one of the worst for flaming and bad manners.




I was interested in this thread as it is in a science forum. I realize that fact and faith often appear to have little in common, but does that mean they have nothing in common?

Oh i have things in common with most Theists and atheists. I doubt i will ever find a person i have nothing in agreement with. But no matter how many things people have in common if there are a few Vital issues they disagree with that overshadows all the things they agree about.




Perhaps, on the fringes, we can all find some common ground however small.

Yes indeed. But agreement on the fringes in the eternal scheme of things is worthless.




Einstein once said “ Science with out religion is lame, Religion without science is blind.”

I have this framed on my desk. An interesting quote. Any comments on it’s accuracy?

Did he say that? I doubt atheists in here would acknowledge that as an accurate quote.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Preaching is not allowed

Yes this is a point that i was about to make. Any inter Theist discussion naturally includes people giving their thoughts on God and stating their belief in their beliefs. This is seen as preaching by the moderators. Such threads are usually suppressed in short order.

Another thing if i want to discuss things with a Theist on these forums i will invite them to a religious forum. Where freedom of religious speech is allowed.

I have had discussions with 2 other Theists on these boards in other forums.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Religion is retarded.

Another case of trolling/flaming hardalee. :D


All Praise The Ancient of Days

So what you appear to be saying then is that you do indeed try to change the minds of other theists. This obviously implies that you believe that at least some of them aren't going to be saved (else, why would you try to change their mind about anything?). So according to you we have a situation where there are theists running around trying to 'save' atheists who aren't saved themselves (since you did say that you both go back to talking to the atheists).

Of course i believe there are a lot of Theists who are not going to be saved. A lot of Theists actually reject the concept of being SAVED.. They believe in Works merited eternity with God. Not Eternity with God by His forgiveness.

Yes i try to save Theists who do not believe in salvation through the atonement of the Messiah Jesus. Is that such a revelation to you. :eek:

Amazed you would even ask this question...


This is the absurdity that very few other theists around here have the balls to address, so I guess Adstar gets some credit just for implying it.

What’s absurd about it? muslims in here have tried to move my beliefs away from salvation through the Messiah Jesus. Actually most Theists in here have tried to inform me that my beliefs are wrong even blasphemous. I am not afraid of such attempts to change my mind. I am confident in my faith. I appreciate on one level that they believe in something so much to want to change my mind to believe it. Better to have a vital discussion with a heart felt Theist then be trolled by a mocking/ flaming atheist with no manners.



Of course I do realize that some theists are cast from a more inclusivist mold, and as such don't believe that any legitimate conflict between different religions exists. But everyone knows the conflicts are real, and any denial of such an obvious fact can only be born of ignorance or deception.

What do you mean by conflict? There is always a war of ideas going on between theists especially Theists who claim to be following the same God. But that conflict of words can only turn into a conflict of weapons if one or both sides see it as their obligation to God to enforce their beliefs on others through violence. As a Christian who believes Jesus. I do not fall under that category of dogmas that teach the obligation to enforce ones beliefs on others.


This fact alone deals the single greatest blow to the credibility of each and every theist on this board (and indeed everywhere else) who 'presumes' to be in a position of religious and/or spiritual authority.

To put it simply, it's a joke.

No it's not a Joke. There is one God and He has one will. So therefore there must be religions that are wrong and people who follow them need to seek and find the true will of God.

I got no problem with a jew or a muslim or a catholic or a protestant telling my i am wrong. I got thick enough skin and confidence. I am currently in a passionate discussion with a tulmud jew in another forum. Very challenging and stimulating open discussion too. :D



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Yes this is a point that i was about to make. Any inter Theist discussion naturally includes people giving their thoughts on God and stating their belief in their beliefs. This is seen as preaching by the moderators. Such threads are usually suppressed in short order.

Nonsense. There is no real moderation of this forum with respect to the 'letter of the law', so to speak, of the posting guidelines. The moderator(s) have clearly decided to allow quite a bit of latitude and as such "people giving their thoughts on God and stating their belief in their beliefs" is basically the default practice, and it's very common for things to go even further than that.

Nonsense. There is no real moderation of this forum with respect to the 'letter of the law', so to speak, of the posting guidelines. The moderator(s) have clearly decided to allow quite a bit of latitude and as such "people giving their thoughts on God and stating their belief in their beliefs" is basically the default practice, and it's very common for things to go even further than that.

Yes, absolutely.

Yes i try to save Theists who do not believe in salvation through the atonement of the Messiah Jesus. Is that such a revelation to you. :eek:

Amazed you would even ask this question...

No, it certainly isn't a revelation. It is, rather, quite obvious that many religious people believe similar sorts of things. I just think it's important to highlight this fact in an environment where it hardly ever seems to be acknowledged.


What’s absurd about it?

Let's assume that you're right; that "Theists who do not believe in salvation through the atonement of the Messiah Jesus" specifically, aren't going to be saved. That would mean, as I've already pointed out, that there are indeed theists in here who are not saved but are still trying to save other people anyway, and are therefore effectively leading them down a path that could instead result in eternal destruction.

What's not absurd about it?


What do you mean by conflict?

Christians who believe that Muslims aren't saved. Muslims who believe that Christians aren't saved. In fact many adherents of both of these religions believe that pretty much everyone else, no matter what their particular faith, is not going to be saved.

That kind of conflict.


No it's not a Joke. There is one God and He has one will. So therefore there must be religions that are wrong and people who follow them need to seek and find the true will of God.

It certainly does become a joke when theists with conflicting doctrines regarding salvation are all proselytizing with the same degree of conviction.

It certainly does become a joke when theists with conflicting doctrines regarding salvation are all proselytizing with the same degree of conviction.

And in the process, these competing factions canibalize each other faster than any atheist ever could. A common atheist standpoint is that we should wait for the theists to first get their story straight before we could ever hope to have a meaningful discussion about it.

What do you all think - how many Sciforums theists are reading this thread?

What do you all think - how many Sciforums theists are reading this thread?

One theist here.

I was interested in this thread as it is in a science forum. I realize that fact and faith often appear to have little in common, but does that mean they have nothing in common?

Perhaps, on the fringes, we can all find some common ground however small.

Einstein once said “ Science with out religion is lame, Religion without science is blind.”

I have this framed on my desk.

An interesting quote. Any comments on it’s accuracy?

Fact and faith have little in common? Maybe from the perspective of those who reject the factual accuracy of things knowable only through faith. For those with divine faith, things known by that faith are known to be objectively true with as much or sometimes more certainty than things knowable through natural means, like reason or the senses.

Moving beyond "fact and faith" to "religion and science" and to the Einstein quote you gave, I guess the idea could be subject to both good and bad interpretations.

A bad interpretation (though it may indeed be what Einstein meant) would be that faith is incapable of bringing a person to true knowledge, while science on its own is incapable of motivating people to live their lives and to strive to learn and invent and accomplish. One thus would need science to inform one's views of reality, but also something a little irrational or at least arational to go on living in a creative and optimistic way.

A good interpretation would be that faith and reason (and among the things reason can bring us to, empirical science) enrich each other rather than being in any kind of true conflict. Faith confirms the philosophical assumptions empirical science is based on, like the value of human reason and the basic reliability of the senses, and provides a check against some serious errors one may mistakenly fall into through errant science (modern empirical science is a young field after all and deals mostly in probabilities, and anyone with a knowledge of history knows wrong ideas have had periods of popularity). Reason meanwhile helps us better understand ideas we already hold by faith, through things like theology, archeology, biology, etc.

Mind over matter

Thank you for your insights. I find them very valuable,

Kind Regards,

Hardalee

Why would that be preaching??

The phrase "The Absolute Truth" still means something to some people.

It is not something to toss around, as if it were something trivial.


Theists of various persuasions believe that people have the right to know about God.
Allright, I agree, and I believe that too.

And I also believe that people have the right not to be confused and mislead in the pursuit and name of God.

Theists, if salvation and integrity mean anything to them, should see to it that people do not get confused and mislead in the pursuit and name of God.

For this, they need to clear up things in their own lines.

We who are not of any particular religious affiliation, have every right to call the theists on this and to hold them responsible.

I can't speak for others, but in my own case I have found bouts of argumentation with other theists to be very refreshing - even where I did not agree with them - I actually find it very fascinating to interact with people who think about their religious leanings and venture to explain them. I think the term "Absolute Truth" is a misnomer in religious dialogue simply because we filter all reality through the limits of our perception and everyone has their own version of "absolute" truth. In the Qur'an, this is called zannah or pointless speculations about religion which cannot be verified/denied and hence a waste of time.

In all my dealings with other theists, I have always encountered interest in theology as the primary reason for dialogue and most theists accept that knowledge about God is akin to the Six Men of Indostan [to learning much inclined...]

Then I suggest you search http://vedabase.net/ for "Absolute Truth."

No it's not a Joke. There is one God and He has one will. So therefore there must be religions that are wrong and people who follow them need to seek and find the true will of God.

It certainly does become a joke when theists with conflicting doctrines regarding salvation are all proselytizing with the same degree of conviction.

Upon further consideration, it would seem to me that you should be engaged in at least an equal effort to block the attempts of other theists to 'save' an atheist in cases where you believe the theist in question is possibly going to do more damage than good.

Consider the following scenario:

A person is downing in an alligator infested lake. An onlooker grabs a thin, dry, brittle stick and extends it toward the flailing 'drownee', instructing them to take hold of it so they can be pulled back to shore. As an onlooker yourself, you know that the stick is going to break, that the rescue attempt will fail, and that the person will certainly perish, in one way or another. But you neglect to speak up anyway, since at least someone is trying to do something. Yet the whole time, you've been holding one of these:

http://c23576.r76.cf1.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/life-ring.jpg

Then I suggest you search http://vedabase.net/ for "Absolute Truth."

Why? Will it make pointless speculation more relevant?

Why is there so little discussion between theists of different denominations here?

We have here members of different theistic traditions: Catholics, Protestants, other Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, polytheists, and others.

Generally, there are well-known clashes between them.

And yet they barely discuss their differences here.


How come?

Many Christians seem more critical of other Christians than they are of atheists. We're all either not holy enough, or we're the wrong kind of holy...

Nonsense. There is no real moderation of this forum with respect to the 'letter of the law', so to speak, of the posting guidelines. The moderator(s) have clearly decided to allow quite a bit of latitude and as such "people giving their thoughts on God and stating their belief in their beliefs" is basically the default practice, and it's very common for things to go even further than that.

Well obviously you’re not me. I have had more than a few posts deleted. Not because of any flaming or foul language but because they where powerful posts with good points. Actually its been good because every time i get a post deleted i know it was convicting, so i then use that post on other forums. Getting a post deleted here by the atheist moderators is a sure fire endorsement of a good post to me. :D


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Well obviously you’re not me. I have had more than a few posts deleted. Not because of any flaming or foul language but because they where powerful posts with good points. Actually its been good because every time i get a post deleted i know it was convicting, so i then use that post on other forums. Getting a post deleted here by the atheist moderators is a sure fire endorsement of a good post to me. :D

Nevertheless many posts of yours in which you are clearly "giving [your] thoughts on God and stating [your] belief in [your] beliefs" remain intact, so you can simply use those as a gauge for how far you can go in discussions with other theists.

But really, at this point I'm not really trying to push you to do so. I'm just pointing out that none of the reasons you are giving for not doing so are making much sense.

No, it certainly isn't a revelation. It is, rather, quite obvious that many religious people believe similar sorts of things. I just think it's important to highlight this fact in an environment where it hardly ever seems to be acknowledged.

So you need to ask a question to get someone to confirm the bleating obvious.




Let's assume that you're right; that "Theists who do not believe in salvation through the atonement of the Messiah Jesus" specifically, aren't going to be saved. That would mean, as I've already pointed out, that there are indeed theists in here who are not saved but are still trying to save other people anyway, and are therefore effectively leading them down a path that could instead result in eternal destruction.

What's not absurd about it?


Yes, Of course i believe that. And again there is nothing absurd about it.





Christians who believe that Muslims aren't saved. Muslims who believe that Christians aren't saved. In fact many adherents of both of these religions believe that pretty much everyone else, no matter what their particular faith, is not going to be saved.

That kind of conflict.

There is no conflict in that paragraph. There is disagreement. There are beliefs. There does not need to be conflict. I can believe another person is heading for eternal torment in the lake of fire and not have any hate or ill feelings for them. On the country i can feel sick with sadness for them. Sometimes when i have heard atheists blaspheme the Holy Spirit on this forum i just don't want to know them anymore. i will not even read their posts anymore. It's like looking at a human torch, someone who has just poured petrol over himself or herself and set themselves on fire.




It certainly does become a joke when theists with conflicting doctrines regarding salvation are all proselytizing with the same degree of conviction.

I don't get where you’re coming from. What’s funny about it?



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

What do you all think - how many Sciforums theists are reading this thread?

How many sciforum theists are there? Maybe 4 or 5 regulars.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

One reason I don't bring a new 'inter-theist' topic is because atheists always troll it, and the direction of the discussion moves away.

Secondly most of our differences are minor. The major ones are what matter to me, and those are usually already exhausted. Or would you prefer that we keep repeating them. That's like making a 'god exist or not exist' every week- I'm not interested ;)

Why? Will it make pointless speculation more relevant?

You call the materials at that website "pointless speculation"??

Upon further consideration, it would seem to me that you should be engaged in at least an equal effort to block the attempts of other theists to 'save' an atheist in cases where you believe the theist in question is possibly going to do more damage than good.

Consider the following scenario:

A person is downing in an alligator infested lake. An onlooker grabs a thin, dry, brittle stick and extends it toward the flailing 'drownee', instructing them to take hold of it so they can be pulled back to shore. As an onlooker yourself, you know that the stick is going to break, that the rescue attempt will fail, and that the person will certainly perish, in one way or another. But you neglect to speak up anyway, since at least someone is trying to do something. Yet the whole time, you've been holding one of these:

http://c23576.r76.cf1.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/life-ring.jpg

Well i have injected some objections into discussions about other theist beliefs. But the best way to go is to give your thoughts, to be a person who promotes something, not a person who is arguing against something. It is always better to be positive and talk for something rather then spend too much energy and time speaking in the negative.

That’s why atheists are always in the minority in this world. They can only spend their effort arguing against something. They are always in the negative.

In the end the drowning seeker (if he realises he is drowning that is) will grab the stick that he agrees most with. In the end He will be saved or lost by what he deemed to be the best path.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Many Christians seem more critical of other Christians than they are of atheists. We're all either not holy enough, or we're the wrong kind of holy...

That’s logical if you spend time thinking about it.

Who would cause a theist more offence?

Someone who did not believe that God existed, or someone who was spreading lies about God?

Of course if one has a love for the will of God one would be more emotionally affected by a person telling lies about the will of God then another person simply rejecting the will of God.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Yes, Of course i believe that. And again there is nothing absurd about it.

So what would you call a theist destined for eternal destruction who tries to 'save' an atheist by leading them down the exact same path? A very naughty boy?


There is no conflict in that paragraph. There is disagreement.

It's such a bore when you have to quote a dictionary in order to defend the validity of the use of a particular word.

con·flict (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conflict)

verb (used without object)
1. to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash: The account of one eyewitness conflicted with that of the other. My class conflicts with my going to the concert.


I don't get where you’re coming from. What’s funny about it?

I guess you're just too serious about it all to see the humour. But I do, and so do many others.

I can believe another person is heading for eternal torment in the lake of fire and not have any hate or ill feelings for them. On the country i can feel sick with sadness for them.


In the end the drowning seeker (if he realises he is drowning that is) will grab the stick that he agrees most with. In the end He will be saved or lost by what he deemed to be the best path.

And you're allright with believing in a god who condemns many souls to eternal damnation?
Why are you allright with that?



I don't get where you’re coming from. What’s funny about it?

It's not funny. By calling something "a joke" one can also mean that it is ridiculous, absurd.
"You're not a capable engineer, you're a joke."

So what would you call a theist destined for eternal destruction who tries to 'save' an atheist by leading them down the exact same path? A very naughty boy?

Deceived, deceiver or maybe an anti-christ.




It's such a bore when you have to quote a dictionary in order to defend the validity of the use of a particular word.

con·flict (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conflict)

verb (used without object)
1. to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash: The account of one eyewitness conflicted with that of the other. My class conflicts with my going to the concert.

I could not care less what the dictionary says. Conflict always includes emotion, heated emotion. Maybe the one producing the dictionary definition simply assumes that all disagreement includes conflict. I don't agree with them.




I guess you're just too serious about it all to see the humour. But I do, and so do many others.

Well take a step back from yourself and try to contemplate a bit and ask yourself "should i find this funny? Is it morally right to laugh at such things?"



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

And you're allright with believing in a god who condemns many souls to eternal damnation?
Why are you allright with that?

I trust in God that there is a good and vital reason from the eternal condemnation of those who reject the Love of the truth.

In the end God is God and what He says goes. If it where me i would put them in a state of suspended animation forever. But i am a man, not God, i do not have total situational awareness and all wisdom to make any call regarding the eternal state of His creations.

I have come to know the love of God, I trust in His will because of the wisdom of His message. So while some things may be beyond my understanding i have confidence in my Faith/Trust in God.





It's not funny. By calling something "a joke" one can also mean that it is ridiculous, absurd.
"You're not a capable engineer, you're a joke."


Well if the person wants to express that thought then it is quite a simple matter of using clear English to make their mockery known. Instead of saying the situation is a joke they can state they think theists are a Joke. Come on guys if you take joy in denigrating others then at lest make it clear so i don't have to waste my time.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

That’s why atheists are always in the minority in this world. They can only spend their effort arguing against something. They are always in the negative.

Many atheists (myself included) don't consider their atheism to be a very significant defining characteristic. In other words, I'm not an atheist when I hang out with my friends. I'm not an atheist when I go to the movies. I'm not an atheist when I play my guitar, or drive my car, or watch my favourite TV show, or when I do any number of other things that I do in my day to day life. I'm only really an atheist when I am confronted by theism, and even then it really only manifests if I choose to engage it. The rest of the time I am simply a person, and as such I am for many things.


In the end the drowning seeker (if he realises he is drowning that is) will grab the stick that he agrees most with. In the end He will be saved or lost by what he deemed to be the best path.

Fair enough. The truth is that this exchange really isn't about you. It's about all the theists on this board collectively, most of whom seem to hold beliefs that are in direct conflict with yours, in one way or another.

Maybe the one producing the dictionary definition simply assumes that all disagreement includes conflict.

The one producing the dictionary (me) is simply saying that in the context in which the word was used, it meant "to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash".


Well take a step back from yourself and try to contemplate a bit and ask yourself "should i find this funny? Is it morally right to laugh at such things?"


It certainly does become a joke when theists with conflicting doctrines regarding salvation are all proselytizing with the same degree of conviction.

Instead of saying the situation is a joke

For the record, I did indeed mean that the situation is a joke.

Well take a step back from yourself and try to contemplate a bit and ask yourself "should i find this funny? Is it morally right to laugh at such things?"

By saying:


It certainly does become a joke when theists with conflicting doctrines regarding salvation are all proselytizing with the same degree of conviction.

Rav was pointing out the absurdity that emerges when theists with conflicting doctrines regarding salvation are all proselytizing with the same degree of conviction.

It is absurd to have a number of people staunchly claim
"I know The Truth!"
and then each of them has a vastly different idea of what that truth is.

Maybe there is more that one Truth. Maybe there are many paths to that Truth. Maybe there are many Truths.

Say I’m lost in the woods ( I am). It is dark. I see one path I think will take me home and start out on it.

But then the sun comes up and I see many other ways. Which is the best? Are some shorter or longer?
Are some harder than others? Do I just pick one to get home without considering their merits or each?

One may be longer but flat and easier, another shorter but hard by virtue of crossing streams and going up and down hills. Some might even go by a black berry patch, and I might pick a few, that’s worth some extra effort.

Each of us must find their own way, hopefully with out causing too much damage to ourselves or others along the way.

Not trying to be poetic here, but that the way I feel most of the time.

I could not care less what the dictionary says.
Your problem.


Conflict always includes emotion, heated emotion.
Wrong.


I don't agree with them.
Again: your problem.

It's not subjective.

It is simply because it is a "why should I" question.



It is a reality that anyone living in the modern West is likely to experience.

It begins in one's neighborhood, when a child first realizes there are people of different races and persuasions in the world - and that one has to deal with them on a daily basis.

Multiculturalism and religious pluralism are formally addressed and taught in schools - but no real solution to the inter-religious conflicts is offered.

A solution is always implied but never explicitly stated unfortunately. The solution is based on values and self-honesty. If you value truth over how you feel then religion in its present form is not for you. If you value how you feel more than truth then find a religion that makes you feel the best. The conflicts are removed due to self-honesty, knowing that your beliefs are for your own psychological satiation.



Moreover, in many Western countries, the laws on multiculturalism and religious pluralism protect the religious, but not the non-religious.

A Christian can start preaching to me, and if I oppose, I get to be the bad one, because by law I am the one being intolerant of his religion.
By law, the religious have to exhibit some measure of tolerance for people of other religions, but can be as intolerant of the non-religious as much as they like!

In my country freedom of religion inherently means freedom from religion and is enforced by law. If your country is not the same in this regard then you may want to begin lobbying with your government.



People have a natural striving for some kind of "higher living" (which can be called "spirituality," "religion," or "self-culture").

You should ask those people what they objectively mean. After enough answers (and a lot of them will be wiggling around in their own emotion), you will note that they are looking for are behavors that will magically keep them in a persistent state of being high. They want reality to reward them somehow for their behavior.



But when they try to act on this, they are met with numerous organizations, institutions and individuals who claim to be authorities on this "higher living" and who claim to be able to show others the way.
These numerous organizations, institutions and individuals tend to claim quite different things.
The confusion objectively exists.

The notable part is that nobody from any of those organizations can achieve "higher living", simply because the notion of reality rewarding your behavior with feelings of bliss is simply not supported by reality.

For the record, I did indeed mean that the situation is a joke.

Yes thats the message i got from you. And thats why i answered it a certain way. But signal injected his own interpretation into it to muddy the waters.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

By saying:
Rav was pointing out the absurdity that emerges when theists with conflicting doctrines regarding salvation are all proselytizing with the same degree of conviction.

It is absurd to have a number of people staunchly claim
"I know The Truth!"
and then each of them has a vastly different idea of what that truth is.

I still don't get why people think it is absurd or a joke or funny??

I find it weird people get a laugh out of the situation. It's not funny, it's serious.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Maybe there is more that one Truth. Maybe there are many paths to that Truth. Maybe there are many Truths.

Say I’m lost in the woods ( I am). It is dark. I see one path I think will take me home and start out on it.

But then the sun comes up and I see many other ways. Which is the best? Are some shorter or longer?
Are some harder than others? Do I just pick one to get home without considering their merits or each?

One may be longer but flat and easier, another shorter but hard by virtue of crossing streams and going up and down hills. Some might even go by a black berry patch, and I might pick a few, that’s worth some extra effort.

Each of us must find their own way, hopefully with out causing too much damage to ourselves or others along the way.

Not trying to be poetic here, but that the way I feel most of the time.

I disagree when it comes to eternity with God. Only one way leads to that. All the other ways lead to bear trap pits with sharpened spike bottoms.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I disagree when it comes to eternity with God. Only one way leads to that. All the other ways lead to bear trap pits with sharpened spike bottoms.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I respect your opinion and accept your chosen way as a path to understanding, but cannot, no matter how hard I try, believe it is the only one.

Kind Regards,

I disagree when it comes to eternity with God. Only one way leads to that. All the other ways lead to bear trap pits with sharpened spike bottoms.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days


How do you know this?

jan.

I still don't get why people think it is absurd or a joke or funny??

I find it weird people get a laugh out of the situation. It's not funny, it's serious.


Nobody said it was funny. Just the opposite.

Some of us think it is absurd, though.

Religious pluralism is a serious matter (even with people killing eachother in the name of it);
yet when a number of people staunchly claim
"I know The Truth!"
and then each of them has a vastly different idea of what that truth is,
it all gets absurd.

I still don't get why people think it is absurd or a joke or funny??

I find it weird people get a laugh out of the situation. It's not funny, it's serious.

No matter how certain you appear, no matter how much confidence you exude and no matter how genuine you seem, there are those who clearly possess at least an equal measure of those same qualities, yet are preaching a contradictory message.

The likely response to this is that it's not the person preaching the message that matters, but rather the message itself. But here, too, we have a host of messages that all have their own particular strengths and weaknesses, insights and oversights, harmonies and inconsistencies, conformities and incompatibilities.

Add to all this the fact that it is easily demonstrated that people can believe with all their hearts in the 'truth' of things that are demonstrably false, even to the point of doing things like giving away all their possessions, putting their lives on the line (and indeed, even taking them) and other similar acts of supreme faith, and you end up with a situation where even the most seemingly profound circumstances are definitely not a reliable indicator of the objective existence of anything beyond one's own particular method of experiencing the world, and efforts to make sense of such.

All that is left, then, is your insistence that none of that is truly relevant because your message is true regardless, along with all the equivalent proclamations of those with conflicting messages.

If you still don't see how absurd it is, imagine that you stop by a street corner, wind down your window and ask a bunch of bystanders how to get to the local library. Instead of providing you with a detailed route, they all shout different directions at you while intermittently accusing each other of being wrong (and in some cases engaging each other in what looks to be the beginning of a protracted debate). The individual bystanders themselves might be taking it seriously, but the situation itself is indeed an absurdity.

No matter how certain you appear, no matter how much confidence you exude and no matter how genuine you seem, there are those who clearly possess at least an equal measure of those same qualities, yet are preaching a contradictory message.

To avoid predictable confusion:

The messages are contradictory in the sense that what one person preaches, contradicts what another person preaches.

You call the materials at that website "pointless speculation"??

Yup. Any notion of Absolute Truth is pointless speculation, because it assumes complete knowledge and perception without bias

Mind over matter

Thank you for your insights. I find them very valuable,

Kind Regards,

Hardalee
You are welcome, Hardalee.

Without both faith and reason mankind is direly incapacitated. Faith without reason gives us 9/11 and its ilk. Reason without faith gives us Auschwitz and its ilk. :)

Why is there so little discussion between theists of different denominations here?

We have here members of different theistic traditions: Catholics, Protestants, other Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, polytheists, and others.

Generally, there are well-known clashes between them.

And yet they barely discuss their differences here.


How come?
Which members are theists here? Seems like a rare breed.

Nobody said it was funny. Just the opposite.

Some of us think it is absurd, though.

Religious pluralism is a serious matter (even with people killing eachother in the name of it);
yet when a number of people staunchly claim
"I know The Truth!"
and then each of them has a vastly different idea of what that truth is,
it all gets absurd.

Thats how you know religious is bs. Religion, is fanaticism. All it does is tell you everything is ok... when thing CLEARLY are not okay.

You are welcome, Hardalee.

Without both faith and reason mankind is direly incapacitated. Faith without reason gives us 9/11 and its ilk. Reason without faith gives us Auschwitz and its ilk. :)

Hitler's Germany was not the result of reason.

Well put Rav


If you still don't see how absurd it is, imagine that you stop by a street corner, wind down your window and ask a bunch of bystanders how to get to the local library. Instead of providing you with a detailed route, they all shout different directions at you while intermittently accusing each other of being wrong (and in some cases engaging each other in what looks to be the beginning of a protracted debate). The individual bystanders themselves might be taking it seriously, but the situation itself is indeed an absurdity.

That indeed is Absurd! But just like you pointed out, perhaps the bystander takes it with the upmost sincerity. They continue to point in their direction only with complete disregard of their fellow bystanders and their directions. I wouldn't imagine how they could possibly understand the absurdity of the situation, much less the driver's point of view.

This analogy is a keeper but next time I would urge you replace:

how to get to the local library

with:

how to get to the Sasquaches' Lair

or perhaps:

how to get to the Flying Speghetti Monster's house

one more:

how to get to Xenu's spacecraft

Yup. Any notion of Absolute Truth is pointless speculation, because it assumes complete knowledge and perception without bias

I so wish you would take this up with LG!

Yup. Any notion of Absolute Truth is pointless speculation, because it assumes complete knowledge and perception without bias

How would you describe this assertion?


jan.

Which members are theists here? Seems like a rare breed.

Off the top of my head:

Lightgigantic, Jan Ardena, rcscwc, MindOverMatter, Cifo, Adstar, Saint, kowalskil, NMSquirrel, Scifes, Sam, GreatestIAm, Marlin, Lori, arfa brane, Big Chiller, LoRaan, wellwisher ...

I respect your opinion and accept your chosen way as a path to understanding, but cannot, no matter how hard I try, believe it is the only one.

Kind Regards,

Then you do not believe God has one will?

Or you do not believe there is one God?

Are you a polytheist, or do you think God suffers from multiple personality disorder? Or maybe you think God plays sadistic games with different peoples telling one group His will is one thing and telling another peoples His will in an opposing thing?



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Nobody said it was funny. Just the opposite.

Some of us think it is absurd, though.

Religious pluralism is a serious matter (even with people killing eachother in the name of it);
yet when a number of people staunchly claim
"I know The Truth!"
and then each of them has a vastly different idea of what that truth is,
it all gets absurd.

Your constant interjections are only sowing confusion. Primarily i was talking to Rav on this issue, i would like to focus on his thoughts on this particular issue in this thread from now on.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

No matter how certain you appear, no matter how much confidence you exude and no matter how genuine you seem, there are those who clearly possess at least an equal measure of those same qualities, yet are preaching a contradictory message.

SO...? I understand there are people who are confident in their beliefs that are opposed to mine. Not seem confident mind you, I believe they are just as confident as i am. They believe the message they have received as absolute truth because it meshes with a perfect fit into what they deem as being correct.

But as i have said before the Message of the Love of The Truth contained in the Bible is designed to move those whom it is designed to move to accept it and be saved. Others with a spirit offended by that message or whom think it is foolishness will be attracted to another school of thought. There are many schools of thought, tailor made for different people.

Belief that a God exists must be satisfied with knowledge of God, If the true knowledge of God offends a person they will continue to seek until they find a school of theist thought that does mesh with their ideal of what it should be. Once they’re in their school they are locked in until death. Only some kind of life changing experience will ever move them.

This does not faze me nor do i consider it weird. Its just the way it is and it happens because of clear resion (well clear to me anyway)




The likely response to this is that it's not the person preaching the message that matters, but rather the message itself.

Why would that be my response? Well it wasn't anyway.





But here, too, we have a host of messages that all have their own particular strengths and weaknesses, insights and oversights, harmonies and inconsistencies, conformities and incompatibilities.

But that’s YOU using YOUR mind as an assessment tool. Now if you come to the point in your life when you realise your mind is not an infallible and all knowing entity, you may come to the point of discomfort when you will genuinely call out asking for guidance.





Add to all this the fact that it is easily demonstrated that people can believe with all their hearts in the 'truth' of things that are demonstrably false, even to the point of doing things like giving away all their possessions, putting their lives on the line (and indeed, even taking them) and other similar acts of supreme faith, and you end up with a situation where even the most seemingly profound circumstances are definitely not a reliable indicator of the objective existence of anything beyond one's own particular method of experiencing the world, and efforts to make sense of such.

Yeah because they want it to be true. The untruth fits their idea of what truth should be. The fault lies within them.




All that is left, then, is your insistence that none of that is truly relevant because your message is true regardless,

Yep.




If you still don't see how absurd it is, imagine that you stop by a street corner, wind down your window and ask a bunch of bystanders how to get to the local library. Instead of providing you with a detailed route, they all shout different directions at you while intermittently accusing each other of being wrong (and in some cases engaging each other in what looks to be the beginning of a protracted debate). The individual bystanders themselves might be taking it seriously, but the situation itself is indeed an absurdity.

Where not talking about road directions are we. If i saw people in such fierce contention over such a petty matter i would shake my head and wind up the window and go look for someone else to give me directions. We are talking about ones state of eternal existence in this issue. So all these strong POV's are understandable to me. It is a vital issue.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Hitler's Germany was not the result of reason.

Yes it was. One of its founding reasons was Darwinism. hitler’s main tenants was based on survival of the fittest and the subjugation and destruction of inferior examples of human "evolution" to facilitate the accelerated development of the superior race into a perfect race by scientific selective breeding methods.

Sadly for him and his fellow Darwinians their assessments of the superiority of the Arian racial ideal was unfounded. This was proven in the end because they did not manage to subjugate and exterminate the races they considered sub-human.

Many of them where wiped out by these same peoples they considered inferior.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Originally Posted by Adstar
I disagree when it comes to eternity with God. Only one way leads to that. All the other ways lead to bear trap pits with sharpened spike bottoms.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days



How do you know this?

jan.

Because upon accepting the Message of the Bible i was then given dreams that confirmed it and gave me greater understanding.

I have dreamed the future perfectly in first person perspective complete with perfect audio and taste. I trust in the guidance i am being given.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Then you do not believe God has one will?

Or you do not believe there is one God?

Are you a polytheist, or do you think God suffers from multiple personality disorder? Or maybe you think God plays sadistic games with different peoples telling one group His will is one thing and telling another peoples His will in an opposing thing?



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Insufficent choices offered, poorly worded. I believe there is a God.

@Jan --


Apart from that millitant atheism is way more interesting.

Wait, so when an atheist says "evidence or GTFO" they're being militant? But when a theist says "believe or be tortured for all eternity" they aren't?

How the fuck does that work?

@lightgigantic --

Just for you, since you seem to dislike atheist quips so much.

"Being an atheist is like being the only sober person in the car, and no one will let you drive."

@Jan --



Wait, so when an atheist says "evidence or GTFO" they're being militant? But when a theist says "believe or be tortured for all eternity" they aren't?

How the fuck does that work?


A bit more complicated than what you suggest

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

@SAM --

Wow, really. You're bringing a dead antitheistic but still religious movement that originated in the Soviet Union(by any standards still a theocracy) into this? You do realize that 99.9% of atheists do not fall into that category right? You do realize that the most vocal and active atheists of this day are also the most vocal and active supporters of freedom of(and by necessity from) religion?

And you're doing this with a straight face how?

@SAM --

Wow, really. You're bringing a dead antitheistic but still religious movement that originated in the Soviet Union(by any standards still a theocracy) into this? You do realize that 99.9% of atheists do not fall into that category right? You do realize that the most vocal and active atheists of this day are also the most vocal and active supporters of freedom of(and by necessity from) religion?

And you're doing this with a straight face how?

Hence the specific notation of militant atheists

Wait, so when an atheist says "evidence or GTFO" they're being militant?

Jan didn't suggest that merely requiring evidence makes an atheist militant, did he?

Yes it was. One of its founding reasons was Darwinism. hitler’s main tenants was based on survival of the fittest and the subjugation and destruction of inferior examples of human "evolution" to facilitate the accelerated development of the superior race into a perfect race by scientific selective breeding methods.

Sadly for him and his fellow Darwinians their assessments of the superiority of the Arian racial ideal was unfounded. This was proven in the end because they did not manage to subjugate and exterminate the races they considered sub-human.

Many of them where wiped out by these same peoples they considered inferior.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

That's absurd, Hitler's racial theories had nothing to do with science, it was pseudoscience. They rejected any data that didn't fit their preconceived notions about race, and that's about as anti-science as you can get.

Nothing about Darwinism suggests that humans have to do anything to accelerate it. Fittest doesn't just mean the most brutal.

Furthermore, ideas about class and breeding preceded Darwinism by centuries.

But that’s YOU using YOUR mind as an assessment tool. Now if you come to the point in your life when you realise your mind is not an infallible and all knowing entity, you may come to the point of discomfort when you will genuinely call out asking for guidance.

I properly realized that my mind was fallible around about the same time that most people do. Somewhere in my mid to late teens I'd say.


Yeah because they want it to be true. The untruth fits their idea of what truth should be. The fault lies within them.

You're no less susceptible to making the same mistake, and are unable to produce anything that demonstrates otherwise. This puts you in no position to make judgments about the legitimacy of the beliefs of others. This need not be tied to the aforementioned examples since you're making the exact same judgments about the beliefs of others that thus far are not so demonstrably false.


If i saw people in such fierce contention over such a petty matter i would shake my head and wind up the window and go look for someone else to give me directions.

The situation is analogous to reality to the extent that no matter how many people you ask, there is still a similar collective disagreement concerning the correct route to the library. So you'd be shaking your head quite a bit.

Then you do not believe God has one will?

Or you do not believe there is one God?

Are you a polytheist, or do you think God suffers from multiple personality disorder? Or maybe you think God plays sadistic games with different peoples telling one group His will is one thing and telling another peoples His will in an opposing thing?



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

God has not informed me of his will. If and when he does, I will obey.

Unitll then, I'm trying to figure it all out. I have no answers and nothing to preach.

This is a "discussion" as he OP states.

I welcome your input in my continuing search.

You're no less susceptible to making the same mistake, and are unable to produce anything that demonstrates otherwise. This puts you in no position to make judgments about the legitimacy of the beliefs of others. This need not be tied to the aforementioned examples since you're making the exact same judgments about the beliefs of others that thus far are not so demonstrably false.

Of course i can make judgements about other peoples beliefs and declare them true of false as i deem fit. And i accept other people will declare my beliefs to be wrong. That’s what discussion and debate is all about. So don't talk to me about "rights" i don't care about rights, i have demands and i will follow them.

People can take what anyone says and decide what is truth. This repeated "you got no right to do it" is a load of bull excrement.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

God has not informed me of his will. If and when he does, I will obey.



You made it clear that God has made many paths to Him. And you declared my calim that there is only one way as false.

You said this without being informed by God, And how will you obey God if He tells you there is only One way to Him and that is through the Atonement of the Messiah Jesus when you have made it clear.


I respect your opinion and accept your chosen way as a path to understanding, but cannot, no matter how hard I try, believe it is the only one.






Unitll then, I'm trying to figure it all out. I have no answers and nothing to preach.

Your preaching that there are many ways to God.




This is a "discussion" as he OP states.

This is what it is.




I welcome your input in my continuing search.

Really... I mean truly. Really???



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

You made it clear that God has made many paths to Him. And you declared my calim that there is only one way as false.

You said this without being informed by God, And how will you obey God if He tells you there is only One way to Him and that is through the Atonement of the Messiah Jesus when you have made it clear.



I said there may be many paths undstanding God. God did not say it, to the best of my knowledge, just me and many others. We may wrong.

I have not delclared your opinions wrong. They may be right. Others also may be right or wrong. Maybe none are right.

As to the second paragraph, I will adopt your opinions if God tells me too.

Failing a direct order to do otherwise, I will continue to search and study.

I don't think I'm preaching. I do not declare my opinions right, they are just questions. I take no part in declaring the beliefs of others right or wrong and repect the opinions of others though I may not currently agree with them.

This is a discussion, not a determination of what must be believed.

Kind Regards

People can take what anyone says and decide what is truth. This repeated "you got no right to do it" is a load of bull excrement.

I didn't mention anything about 'rights'. I was simply highlighting the fact that you don't have a solid platform from which to cast judgments about the beliefs of others.

When I engage theists in debate about the truth of their propositions concerning intangibilities, I am not declaring that they are absolutely wrong beyond any doubt whatsoever. By main beef is with declarations of certainty in the absence of reliable evidence, especially when they are in direct conflict with other declarations of certainty. So although from your clearly biased perspective you probably see me as yourself translated to the other end of the spectrum (in regard to the certainty you feel concerning the truth of your own propositions about intangibilities) I'm not actually your counterpart at all. I am instead someone who lacks the same degree of certainty that you have. So any appeal to the fact that there are others who are equally certain of the truth of their own beliefs (which are in conflict with yours) to support the idea that it is therefore perfectly fine for people to go around declaring the absolute truth of such mutually exclusive propositions to others (without reliable evidence), really doesn't seem legitimate to me at all.

God has not informed me of his will. If and when he does, I will obey.

Unitll then, I'm trying to figure it all out. I have no answers and nothing to preach.

This is a "discussion" as he OP states.

I welcome your input in my continuing search.

Revelation

Jan didn't suggest that merely requiring evidence makes an atheist militant, did he?

Not directly no, however he has implied that those like Dawkins and Hitchens are militant atheists when all they've done is write books which point out that the theists have no evidence. If that's being militant then every single religious person who proselytizes is a terrorist by comparison.

Militant is a very unfortunate term. A militant should militate; yet, many do not. Thus neither Dawkins nor Hitchens are 'militant' per se: one is merely an asshole, and the other quite godly. (Not necessarily in that order...but, yes, honestly, in that order.)

Militant is a very unfortunate term

mil·i·tant (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militant)
adjective
1. vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2. engaged in warfare; fighting.

Even if one were to accept that "vigorously active and aggressive" is a reasonable description of the type of atheist that would typically be labeled "militant" by a theist, most atheists don't consider their atheism to be a "cause" by default. It would be more accurately characterized as a situation where atheists become combative in response to collective efforts to push theism onto them. Then of course there is the suggestion (if not outright assertion) that resistance results in agonizing and eternal torture, which just compounds the issue.

Make no mistake. Militant atheism is most often a product of theism, rather than the lack of it.

I didn't mention anything about 'rights'. I was simply highlighting the fact that you don't have a solid platform from which to cast judgments about the beliefs of others.

When I engage theists in debate about the truth of their propositions concerning intangibilities, I am not declaring that they are absolutely wrong beyond any doubt whatsoever. By main beef is with declarations of certainty in the absence of reliable evidence, especially when they are in direct conflict with other declarations of certainty. So although from your clearly biased perspective you probably see me as yourself translated to the other end of the spectrum (in regard to the certainty you feel concerning the truth of your own propositions about intangibilities) I'm not actually your counterpart at all. I am instead someone who lacks the same degree of certainty that you have. So any appeal to the fact that there are others who are equally certain of the truth of their own beliefs (which are in conflict with yours) to support the idea that it is therefore perfectly fine for people to go around declaring the absolute truth of such mutually exclusive propositions to others (without reliable evidence), really doesn't seem legitimate to me at all.

I never saw you as my counterpart. You not confidant to stand up for anything. Except for uncertainty. As you say you are not sure, you lack certainty and probably always will for the rest of your life. So because you lack certainly all you can do is attack certainty. Certainty in others makes you feel uneasy,

Oh a counterpart to me would be a committed Satanist who believes satan is the true God and YAVEH the God of Abraham is the evil one.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I never saw you as my counterpart. You not confidant to stand up for anything. Except for uncertainty.

Once again you are trying to reduce me to nothing more than a stance on the existence of God, conveniently ignoring my previous elaboration on this topic in this very thread. In other words, according to you I'm not who I say I am. I'm who you say I am. That's a perfect way to go through your entire life not understanding the first thing about anyone other than yourself.

It's funny (although somewhat predictable) how often theists rather quickly turn into ignorant arrogant little children when they are pressed.


As you say you are not sure, you lack certainty and probably always will for the rest of your life. So because you lack certainly all you can do is attack certainty. Certainty in others makes you feel uneasy

And more of the same.

@Adstar --

Why is uncertainty such a bad thing? It's certainly a hell of a lot better than the arrogance that comes from certainty(and ignorance).

You not confidant to stand up for anything. Except for uncertainty. As you say you are not sure, you lack certainty and probably always will for the rest of your life. So because you lack certainly all you can do is attack certainty. Certainty in others makes you feel uneasy
What a marvellous illustration of your own arrogance and a failure to grasp Rav's point:

I was simply highlighting the fact that you don't have a solid platform from which to cast judgments about the beliefs of others.

Plus a false accusation.
Nice.

I didn't mention anything about 'rights'. I was simply highlighting the fact that you don't have a solid platform from which to cast judgments about the beliefs of others.

When I engage theists in debate about the truth of their propositions concerning intangibilities, I am not declaring that they are absolutely wrong beyond any doubt whatsoever. By main beef is with declarations of certainty in the absence of reliable evidence, especially when they are in direct conflict with other declarations of certainty. So although from your clearly biased perspective you probably see me as yourself translated to the other end of the spectrum (in regard to the certainty you feel concerning the truth of your own propositions about intangibilities) I'm not actually your counterpart at all. I am instead someone who lacks the same degree of certainty that you have. So any appeal to the fact that there are others who are equally certain of the truth of their own beliefs (which are in conflict with yours) to support the idea that it is therefore perfectly fine for people to go around declaring the absolute truth of such mutually exclusive propositions to others (without reliable evidence), really doesn't seem legitimate to me at all.

I'm in essentially the same situation as yourself in this regard.

I have been trying to figure out how theists are perceiving issues of disagreement. The only conclusion I could arrive at so far is that they seem to practice a simplistic black-and-white ontology and epistemology. They seem to have little or no idea that there are perspectives.

Apparently, not all cultures have the notion of "point of view" to begin with, but instead people in those cultures talk as if everything they say is the objective truth (although they don't have the distinction objective:subjective either).
Theists seem to be like that too; except that they deem their own perspective to be objective, true, and any other as subjective, false.


(See: The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (Holyoak, Morrison, ed. 2005): Part VI: Paradigms of cultural thought. Thinking about people: Theory of mind.)

Once again you are trying to reduce me to nothing more than a stance on the existence of God, conveniently ignoring my previous elaboration on this topic in this very thread. In other words, according to you I'm not who I say I am. I'm who you say I am. That's a perfect way to go through your entire life not understanding the first thing about anyone other than yourself.

Yes ...
Around theists, I often feel like I don't exist.
It is a profoundly depersonalizing experience.

@Signal --

And by depersonalizing(or demonizing, if you prefer) you they give themselves an excuse to disregard anything and everything you say without even considering it. It's a very common, and very human, tactic among theists.

Don't assume too much friendliness with me, Arioch. ;)
I can be very critical to both sides, the theists and the atheists.

Don't assume too much friendliness with me, Arioch. ;)
I can be very critical to both sides, the theists and the atheists.
Pfft. :p

Don't assume too much friendliness with me, Arioch. ;)
I can be very critical to both sides, the theists and the atheists.

Which side do you find yourself?

@Adstar --

Why is uncertainty such a bad thing? It's certainly a hell of a lot better than the arrogance that comes from certainty(and ignorance).

Certainty of the future I can assure will make you quiver.

Certainty of the future I can assure will make you quiver.
You have certainty in your wild unsubstantiated guesses?
Now that's delusional.

@Signal --

I expect nothing less from anyone. In fact I'm often quite demanding of critical inquiry and skeptical thought on my beliefs and opinions, the more and more thorough it is the better. How else am I to improve on them. To me friendliness is being willing to say "you're wrong and here's why..." After all, a friend wouldn't want to leave a friend in the grips of an obvious delusion would they?

@Signal --

I expect nothing less from anyone. In fact I'm often quite demanding of critical inquiry and skeptical thought on my beliefs and opinions, the more and more thorough it is the better. How else am I to improve on them. To me friendliness is being willing to say "you're wrong and here's why..." After all, a friend wouldn't want to leave a friend in the grips of an obvious delusion would they?

Im interested to hear your system of belief. Imo, I would label you as an open-minded atheist. Yeah? To me that is very good place to be in this day of age.

@Knowledge --

Of course I'm open minded, if I weren't I never would have been able to make the transition from a christian fundie to an atheist in the first place. I'm always open to new ideas, which is what it means to be open minded, however I'm skeptical in that I expect people to provide evidence to support their contentions.

@Knowledge --

Of course I'm open minded, if I weren't I never would have been able to make the transition from a christian fundie to an atheist in the first place. I'm always open to new ideas, which is what it means to be open minded, however I'm skeptical in that I expect people to provide evidence to support their contentions.

The evidence you look for I can not give you, nor can any man. What do you want? A picture of me and God playing golf? That will not happen, you must understand why, or at least an idea -insert quote and smart ass response you dwydr-. You need not worship God as Christians do, but I ask you to keep faith in him, at least the possibility.

However, familiarize yourself with the Book of Revelation as I am, the evidence for this is out there.

That will not happen, you must understand why
In other words "Take your word for it". :rolleyes:


However, familiarize yourself with the Book of Revelation as I am, the evidence for this is out there.
You mean the book of Revelations that's in the bible? The bible that you have persistently declared to be bullshit?
Slightly inconsistent here, no?

@Knowledge --


The evidence you look for I can not give you, nor can any man.

If the assertion can be accepted without any evidence then it can be rejected without any evidence as well. If no one can give me any evidence to support their beliefs in god then they can't tell me that they know the truth.


What do you want? A picture of me and God playing golf?

That might be nice, though a picture is easily faked. I was thinking something along the lines of god giving a press conference wherein he explains some of his fuckups(like my eyes, I didn't order the extra-light-sensitive models, I ordered the regular, backwards and upside down models). Failing that, he could at least demonstrate his power in a manner we could actually detect. It wouldn't be that hard, and I don't think that it's too much to ask considering there's so much riding on this.

If none of that can be achieved(which would be pretty pathetic for a deity) then perhaps a holy book which isn't full of logical fallacies, internal inconsistencies, and only concerns a local area(perhaps addressing worldwide concerns).


You need not worship God as Christians do, but I ask you to keep faith in him, at least the possibility.

There is, of course, a possibility that a creator exists, though I rate that probability at being extremely small. However not all possible gods can exist. Some are self-refuting such as the whole "god is light" malarky we went through not so long ago. Others are logically impossible, such as omnipotent gods. Still more are impossible due to mutually incompatible traits, such as those who are omnipotent and omniscient. Finally we find those that can't exist because they are mutually exclusive with the world we observe around us, a perfect and good god for example.

Is there a possibility that there is a god? Yes, however unlikely it is. Have any of the various religions or spiritual practices gotten it down yet? I can categorically state that they haven't as of yet.


However, familiarize yourself with the Book of Revelation as I am, the evidence for this is out there.

Oh I'm very familiar with the book of Revelations. Whatever drugs the author was on are apparently some good shit, I kind of want some. I've hallucinated before, both on drugs and due to NDEs, but I've never tripped face like that before.

There is multiple forms of evidence of that Revelation is well underway. Im not the most literate man, Im sorry about that. I failed all the way through H.S. and I am on the verge of dropping out of my CC. I am sorry I can not put forth my knowledge better.

There is multiple forms of evidence of that Revelation is well underway.
As there has been throughout history.
There's NOTHING special about the present in that regard.

Not living in Europe (I assume) you won't be familiar with the numerous churches and cathedrals we have here: a large number of which were "completed" in extreme haste (i.e. they didn't bother completing them as planned, they simply placed a final wall to enclose whatever had been built by that particular time) all because some nutter was convinced he had a personal line to god and persuaded everyone else that the end of the world was due, so they "finished" building the churches/ cathedrals as best they could in the time left so that god wouldn't see half-built temples to him.
Thanks to Joachim de Fiore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_of_Fiore) Europe is littered with half-finished churches and cathedrals.
He was sure the world was going to come to an end in 1260.
Guess what... he was wrong. As were all the other eschatologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology), before and since.

@Knowledge --

I don't judge people based on how far they made it through school. I dropped out of high school myself and I'm not finished with college yet. However I have an insatiable thirst for knowledge and learning and am willing to throw even my most cherished beliefs into the fire if I find them to be wrong. That is the key to knowledge, not internal revelation which can only tell you about yourself.

Once again you are trying to reduce me to nothing more than a stance on the existence of God, conveniently ignoring my previous elaboration on this topic in this very thread. In other words, according to you I'm not who I say I am. I'm who you say I am. That's a perfect way to go through your entire life not understanding the first thing about anyone other than yourself.

But that’s it .. you have not pressed me.

All you can stand for is uncertainty. Everything is uncertain, that’s your reply to anyone who is certain. People like you find some kind of security in uncertainty. Oh i will be safe if i find a way to deny everything, that way i will never commit and make a mistake...


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

@Adstar --

Nice straw man.

@Adstar --

Why is uncertainty such a bad thing? It's certainly a hell of a lot better than the arrogance that comes from certainty(and ignorance).

One person’s confidence will often be projected as arrogance by someone who disagrees with what they are confident about. It's the old, Hey i don't like what they guy believes so i better throw some mud and start attacking his character. Can’t play the ball, lets play the man. I get it all the time in here and it's pathetic.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

@Adstar --

I've not once observed a single person attack you personally. You've not been subject to any ad-hominems, but you sure do like to use them.

People who have troubles with orthography probably shouldn't be taken too seriously. :eek:

All you can stand for is uncertainty. Everything is uncertain, that’s your reply to anyone who is certain. People like you find some kind of security in uncertainty. Oh i will be safe if i find a way to deny everything, that way i will never commit and make a mistake...

Give up on the psychoanalysis. All you seem to be able to do is project the illegitimate offspring of your own ignorance onto the world. In other words, you aren't any good at it.

I am certain of, commit to and vigorously defend the integrity of many things that you are completely oblivious to.

Can’t play the ball, lets play the man. I get it all the time in here and it's pathetic.

Pot, kettle, black. Or in biblical terms:

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.